From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 00:42:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3UEfib21693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 2002 00:41:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (mailhost.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3UEfcH21688 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 00:41:38 +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 QAA15832; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:28:35 +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 QAA20163; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:29:54 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020430162021.02d3fec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:35:48 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] cutting the link In-Reply-To: <3CCE87CA.2020102@village.uunet.be> References: <004d01c1f036$91b5de40$4a18b9d2@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:02 30/04/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >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". AG : is there a Belgian language ? Well, there should be, it would spare us so many drawn daggers. SMOn, I think that not alerting 2C doesn't mean it's Landy. There are many other meanings. I've played Astro, Vroom, Cansino, MultiLandy and Transfer to mention but a few, and there is also the popular "Dont", which IMHO has a very descriptive name : don't play it. As some contributors have said, nobody plays 2C as natural ever more. BTW, when partnering East, I play Vroom, and NS play Dont. This means that 2C is in some way self alerting, the same way as (1H)-2H is : you might play Michaels, Ghestem, T&B, strong takeout (KAT), void (Vernes), Astro (4-6), strong one-suited, ... A cue is self alerting (well, perhaps not over a 1C opening). I feel that (1NT)-2C is not unlike the cue. That's why I answered to South that he was (uncharacteristic of him) careless in not asking. You see, the fact that he didn't know what they played over a natural 2C hints that they don't encounter it very often. I'd say that not alerting 2C means "of course everybody knows this is not natural". And perhaps also "I hope nobody asks". 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 May 1 01:06:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3UF5mj21713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 2002 01:05:48 +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 (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3UF5gH21709 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 01:05:43 +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 g3UEruT12206; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 10:53:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 10:52:31 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] cutting the link To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3CCE6513.8000604@village.uunet.be> 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 4/30/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >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). No. You have to take that into account when you examine *all* the evidence. Other evidence may show that they have no such agreement, whatever the player's intent. 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 May 1 01:13:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3UFDDw21731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 2002 01:13:13 +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 g3UFD8H21727 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 01:13:08 +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 g3UF1OT26470; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 11:01:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 10:56:42 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] cutting the link To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3CCE87CA.2020102@village.uunet.be> 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 4/30/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >Not alerting in Belgian quite often simply means that "of course >everyone knows this is Landy". Interesting. Do Belgian rules say, then, that conventions are alertable unless players don't think they need to alert? Here in the ACBL, people used to announce "could be short" when partner opened with a "short club". Technically, that was a violation of the alert regulations, which until 1 March this year, required an alert. The ACBL's solution was to bow to practice, and make the bid announceable as of that date. But before that it was still illegal, whatever the practice. 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 May 1 07:53:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3ULquu21895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 2002 07:52:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3ULqoH21891 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 07:52:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.78.230]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GVE004DGHK5QC@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 01 May 2002 00:40:56 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 00:42:29 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, David Stevenson Cc: John Probst , ayala hiler , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <000901c1f098$50b32ee0$e64e003e@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: <007f01c1eb89$f8dc0420$3e5f003e@mycomputer> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 6:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > 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. > > - Aren't you avoiding the issue-- After 1H --P---1H comment or no comment the situation is almost 100 % clear ,so if after the correction to 2H opener continues the bidding, he does it on the basis of a *new convention * created by the Law [law makers]. CC says 1H-P-2H ; 3+H 6-9 HCP, but 1H-P-1H-TD- corrected to 2H; 5+H 11+HCP The French say never mind this is AI and N/S have a right to redress via 27B1b only if they can prove that E/W cannot reach the contract without the IB [shouldn't we at least ask E/W to prove that they can reach the contract with their regular system] But what do you say David when you see after the game is over, that E* has a 1H opening bid and you realise that everybody knew it. I assume that you are ready to embrace the French attitude. Maybe I exaggerate, but I see here a dangerous departure from the accepted practice ,and one that is against the *spirit* of the game. I hope therefore to come back to this thread from every possible angle. Israel M 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 09:03:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3UN3Bk21936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 2002 09:03:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3UN36H21932 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 09:03:06 +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 g3UMpOT16832 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:51:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001301c1f099$7f4d00e0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto Appeals Analysis Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:50:55 -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:> [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.) > There is something wrong with a system of PPs that sees them inflicted mainly, or exclusively, by ACs. If a ruling goes against you at the table, accepting it seldom if ever results in a PP. If you appeal, the AC may give you a PP whether or not you win the case. While ACs have all the rights of a TD, it is usually inappropriate for them to assess a PP. Why? Because it means that PPs are not given out to everyone on an equal basis, only to those who have caused an AC to be convened. In effect, the PP becomes a punishment for appearing before an AC. Is it not a matter of Law whether a PP is to be assessed or not? When there is no alteration in the facts of a case during the AC meeting, how can the AC overrule the TD's judgment that the facts did not warrant a PP? The AC, after all, is not allowed to overrule the TD on a point of 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 Wed May 1 11:57:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g411v9I22012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 2002 11:57:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g411v3H22008 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 11:57:04 +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 172jBG-0004sc-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 01 May 2002 02:45:19 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 02:31:30 +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> <000901c1f098$50b32ee0$e64e003e@mycomputer> In-Reply-To: <000901c1f098$50b32ee0$e64e003e@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 >David Stevenson writes >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 6:35 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > >> 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. >> > >- Aren't you avoiding the issue-- After 1H --P---1H comment or no comment >the situation is almost 100 % clear ,so if after the correction to 2H opener >continues the bidding, he does it on the basis of a *new >convention * created by the Law [law makers]. >CC says 1H-P-2H ; 3+H 6-9 HCP, but 1H-P-1H-TD- corrected to >2H; 5+H 11+HCP >The French say never mind this is AI and N/S have a right to redress >via 27B1b only if they can prove that E/W cannot reach the contract without >the IB [shouldn't we at least ask E/W to prove that they can reach the >contract with their regular system] >But what do you say David when you see after the game is over, that E* has a >1H opening bid and you realise that everybody knew it. Why did everyone know it? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 12:46:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g412j1c22051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 2002 12:45:01 +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.netcabo.pt (smtp.netcabo.pt [212.113.174.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g412itH22047 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 12:44:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from torre ([213.22.98.171]) by smtp.netcabo.pt with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Wed, 1 May 2002 03:30:43 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lino_Tralh=E3o?= To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: [BLML] 6040 Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 03:34:03 +0100 Message-ID: <000001c1f0b8$a8b70560$0200a8c0@netcabo.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 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3CCD53B9.1040404@village.uunet.be> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 May 2002 02:30:43.0274 (UTC) FILETIME=[312C9AA0:01C1F0B8] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g412ivH22048 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Mitchell movement. 13 tables, 13 rounds. At 10th round, pair 2EW should go to table 11 but, by mistake, sit at table 12. The four players pick their cards from the board (15) and auction begins. After some moments, pair 3EW arrives to table 12 (its correct table for that round) and, seeing in the table another pair, realizes that they were ending the previous round and wait near that table (12). During this (short) waiting period, one of the members of pair 3EW saw the hand of south (we were in the 2nd half of the session so he (thought that) had already played that board (15)). North opens the auction with a 2NT opening bid, the error in pair 2EW movement is detected and the Director (I) is called. I made the correct pair (3EW) sit at the table and, as one of its members saw the hand of south I cancelled that board with the artificial adjusted score of 60+ to NS and 40- to EW (because the direct cause of the cancellation of the board was the fact of one of its members have seen opp. Hand). Is this correct? Best Regards 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 Wed May 1 14:12:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g414BWS22094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 2002 14:11:32 +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 g414BRH22090 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 14:11:27 +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 OAA18400 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 14:13:07 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 01 May 2002 13:56:55 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] 6040 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 13:59:00 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 01/05/2002 01:56:48 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 g414BSH22091 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Mitchell movement. 13 tables, 13 rounds. >At 10th round, pair 2EW should go to table 11 >but, by mistake, sit at table 12. The four >players pick their cards from the board (15) >and auction begins. After some moments, pair >3EW arrives to table 12 (its correct table >for that round) and, seeing in the table >another pair, realizes that they were ending >the previous round and wait near that table >(12). During this (short) waiting period, one >of the members of pair 3EW saw the hand of >south (we were in the 2nd half of the session >so he (thought that) had already played that >board (15)). > North opens the auction with a 2NT >opening bid, the error in pair 2EW movement >is detected and the Director (I) is called. > I made the correct pair (3EW) sit at the >table and, as one of its members saw the hand >of south I cancelled that board with the >artificial adjusted score of 60+ to NS and 40- >to EW (because the direct cause of the >cancellation of the board was the fact of one >of its members have seen opp. Hand). > Is this correct? > > Best Regards > Lino Tralhão Correct. Pair 3EW violated L90B4, so deserve only 40% under L12C1. Pair 2EW did not violate L90B7, as an adjusted score would not have been *required* without the violation of L90B4 by pair 3EW. Therefore, pair 2EW should escape without receiving a PP. Best wishes Richard PS Do you have any cats? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 16:09:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4169FT22142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 2002 16:09:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g41699H22138 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 16:09:10 +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 g415vPO21715 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 01:57:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 01:54:25 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] Law 25 again To: 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 Bidding goes W N E S - - 1NT P 2H(1) P P P(2) (1) Announced: "Transfer" (2) South passed "hurriedly" At some point after her pass, East realized she had passed and said she did not intend that. The director is called. He rules, under 25A, that East may correct her pass. After the hand, West approaches the TD, says that "the rule has been changed, and when the call card hits the table, it is played," and asks the TD to ask ACBL if his ruling was correct. Mike Flader, in his "Ruling the Game" column in the ACBL Bulletin, says "our regulations, however, tell us that when the desired call and the call made come from different parts of the bid box, we should rule that the first call was made as a result of a slip of the mind rather than of the fingers, i.e., a mechanical error. In this case, law 25B applies. Offender may change his call only if left-hand opponent has not acted, and he will receive no score greater than average minus. In this case, I believe you should not have allowed the change." Comments? A question: does 25A really require "a mechanical error"? 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 May 1 16:43:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g416h0W22164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 2002 16:43:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g416gtH22160 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 16:42:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0718.bb.online.no [80.212.210.206]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA28121 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 08:31:06 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002401c1f0d9$c5eb82c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" Subject: Fw: [BLML] 6040 Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 08:30:58 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: > >Mitchell movement. 13 tables, 13 rounds. > >At 10th round, pair 2EW should go to table 11 > >but, by mistake, sit at table 12. The four > >players pick their cards from the board (15) > >and auction begins. After some moments, pair > >3EW arrives to table 12 (its correct table > >for that round) and, seeing in the table > >another pair, realizes that they were ending > >the previous round and wait near that table > >(12). During this (short) waiting period, one > >of the members of pair 3EW saw the hand of > >south (we were in the 2nd half of the session > >so he (thought that) had already played that > >board (15)). > > North opens the auction with a 2NT > >opening bid, the error in pair 2EW movement > >is detected and the Director (I) is called. > > I made the correct pair (3EW) sit at the > >table and, as one of its members saw the hand > >of south I cancelled that board with the > >artificial adjusted score of 60+ to NS and 40- > >to EW (because the direct cause of the > >cancellation of the board was the fact of one > >of its members have seen opp. Hand). > > Is this correct? > > > > Best Regards > > Lino Tralhão > > Correct. > > Pair 3EW violated L90B4, so deserve only 40% > under L12C1. Whatever they did it was not to violate L90B4, is this a typo? > > Pair 2EW did not violate L90B7, as an adjusted > score would not have been *required* without > the violation of L90B4 by pair 3EW. Therefore, > pair 2EW should escape without receiving a PP. Pair 2EW must have been very absent-minded: One of the virtues of Mitchell movement is that with a minimum of concentration you automatically go to the correct table. It seems to me that the whole mess started with 2EW sitting down at table 12 instead of at table 11 and 3EW believing that they (table 12) were late in the previous round. However, at this time of the tournament you would expect 3EW to have noticed that they follow 4EW and not 2EW would you not? Or was 3EW consistently late in every round so that they never saw their predecessors? I would probably have held 2EW at least partially responsible for the error and give them a PP. 3EW? Probably partially to blame too (failing to follow instructions on progression, late?, looking at a hand not destined for them). Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 16:47:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g416lPq22176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 2002 16:47:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail46.fg.online.no (mail46-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g416lJH22172 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 16:47:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0718.bb.online.no [80.212.210.206]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA27479 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 08:35:30 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002801c1f0da$63bf4220$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25 again Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 08:35:30 +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: "Ed Reppert" > Bidding goes > > W N E S > - - 1NT P > 2H(1) P P P(2) > > (1) Announced: "Transfer" > (2) South passed "hurriedly" > > At some point after her pass, East realized she had passed and said she > did not intend that. The director is called. He rules, under 25A, that > East may correct her pass. After the hand, West approaches the TD, says > that "the rule has been changed, and when the call card hits the table, > it is played," and asks the TD to ask ACBL if his ruling was correct. > Mike Flader, in his "Ruling the Game" column in the ACBL Bulletin, says > "our regulations, however, tell us that when the desired call and the > call made come from different parts of the bid box, we should rule that > the first call was made as a result of a slip of the mind rather than of > the fingers, i.e., a mechanical error. In this case, law 25B applies. > Offender may change his call only if left-hand opponent has not acted, > and he will receive no score greater than average minus. In this case, I > believe you should not have allowed the change." > > Comments? > > A question: does 25A really require "a mechanical error"? I do not know about ACBL regulations, but in Norway we are very reluctant to accept "slip of the hand" when the desired call and the call made come from different sections in the bid box. Typical cases accepted include 1NT "sticking" with 1S and similar. This looks like a "slip of the mind", and that excludes Law 25A - at least in Norway. As it is too late for law 25B I would say: "Sorry my dear, you had better be more careful next time". Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 17:51:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g417ojJ22208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 2002 17:50:45 +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 g417odH22204 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 17:50:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.62.95] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 172ogs-0009Xe-00; Wed, 01 May 2002 08:38:18 +0100 Message-ID: <003d01c1f0e3$6ecdad60$5f3ee150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25 again Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 08:38:42 +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 To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 6:54 AM Subject: [BLML] Law 25 again > > A question: does 25A really require "a mechanical error"? > > Regards, > > Ed > +=+ The call must be inadvertent. The attempt to change must be without pause for thought. There are WBFLC minutes on these points (30th August 2000): 'Inadvertent' : "an action is inadvertent if the player decides one course of action but actually does something else through misadventure in .... selecting a bidding card. The etymology of the word indicates a turning away of the mind so that the action does not occur as a conscious process of the mind". and " When bidding boxes are in use the attempt to correct an inadvertent call (Law 25A) must follow instantaneously upon the player's discovery of his mistake. (Should LHO have meanwhile made a call over the player's first call Laws 25A, 21B, and 16C apply.) The Committee .... urges regulating authorities to incorporate it (or an alternative statement) in their tournament regulations. Directors are recommended, where there is no regulation to cover the point, to follow the above guidelines." ................................................................... It is not only the ACBL that uses the place that the card comes from in the bidding box as a clue to the intention of the player. I have seen this in other guidance also. Turning away the mind is a question of being focused on something else other than picking the bidding card. The hurdle of inadvertency is quite a high one, immediacy is perhaps more readily judged. In considering the intention of the player the question is 'what bidding card was she trying to pick out and place?', when she made to select a card and place it she did know what bidding card she was reaching for - that is the intention and it is if she gets hold of the wrong one because the mind was switched to thinking about something else that inadvertency arises. ~ 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 May 1 19:17:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g419GJv22262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 2002 19:16:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g419GBH22258 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 19:16:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (80-200-2-109.adsl.powered-by.skynet.be [80.200.2.109]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g4194LQ20631 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 11:04:21 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CCFAFDC.6060909@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 11:05:32 +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 Ed, is it really necessary to state the obvious ? Of course I will take into account all evidence. But the example I was talking of, told us there was no written system notes, and that EW were not certain of their methods. Hence, while your reaction here is obviously correct, within the thread it is totally superfluous. There WAS no other evidence. Ed Reppert wrote: > On 4/30/02, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>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). >> > > No. You have to take that into account when you examine *all* the > evidence. Other evidence may show that they have no such agreement, > whatever the player's intent. > > 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 > > -- 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 May 1 19:18:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g419IHs22276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 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 riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g419IBH22272 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 19:18:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (80-200-2-109.adsl.powered-by.skynet.be [80.200.2.109]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g4196Oi20982 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 11:06:24 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CCFB057.40206@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 11:07:35 +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 Ed, you really need to get to grips with my shorthand. Ed Reppert wrote: > On 4/30/02, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>Not alerting in Belgian quite often simply means that "of course >>everyone knows this is Landy". >> > > Interesting. Do Belgian rules say, then, that conventions are alertable > unless players don't think they need to alert? > No of course they don't. The player is wrong. But I was simply saying that quite often, Belgian players are wrong about alerting. As I'm pretty sure many players in most other countries are as well. So you cannot deduce from this player's non-alert that he thought they were not playing Landy. > Here in the ACBL, people used to announce "could be short" when partner > opened with a "short club". Technically, that was a violation of the > alert regulations, which until 1 March this year, required an alert. The > ACBL's solution was to bow to practice, and make the bid announceable as > of that date. But before that it was still illegal, whatever the > practice. > > 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 > > -- 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 May 1 19:20:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g419KA022306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 2002 19:20:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g419K4H22302 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 19:20:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (80-200-2-109.adsl.powered-by.skynet.be [80.200.2.109]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g4198DQ25497 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 11:08:13 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CCFB0C4.2060409@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 11:09:24 +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] cutting the link References: <004d01c1f036$91b5de40$4a18b9d2@laptop> <5.1.0.14.0.20020430162021.02d3fec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > I'd say that not alerting 2C means "of course everybody knows this is > not natural". And perhaps also "I hope nobody asks". > Correction noted and agreed to. > Best regards, > > Alain. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 23:32:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g41DVT722499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 2002 23:31:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g41DVMH22495 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 23:31:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g41DK5x10919 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 14:20:06 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 14:14:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] 6040 References: <3CCD53B9.1040404@village.uunet.be> <000001c1f0b8$a8b70560$0200a8c0@netcabo.pt> In-Reply-To: <000001c1f0b8$a8b70560$0200a8c0@netcabo.pt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000001c1f0b8$a8b70560$0200a8c0@netcabo.pt>, Lino Tralhão writes > >Mitchell movement. 13 tables, 13 rounds. >At 10th round, pair 2EW should go to table 11 but, by mistake, sit at >table 12. The four players pick their cards from the board (15) and >auction begins. After some moments, pair 3EW arrives to table 12 (its >correct table for that round) and, seeing in the table another pair, >realizes that they were ending the previous round and wait near that >table (12). During this (short) waiting period, one of the members of >pair 3EW saw the hand of south (we were in the 2nd half of the session >so he (thought that) had already played that board (15)). > North opens the auction with a 2NT opening bid, the error in >pair 2EW movement is detected and the Director (I) is called. > I made the correct pair (3EW) sit at the table and, as one of >its members saw the hand of south I cancelled that board with the >artificial adjusted score of 60+ to NS and 40- to EW (because the direct >cause of the cancellation of the board was the fact of one of its >members have seen opp. Hand). > Is this correct? > I would not have awarded 60/40. I don't think the player is at all at fault. Most likely I'd have awarded 60/60 > Best Regards > 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/ -- 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 May 2 06:00:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g41JxJp22688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 2002 05:59:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 100m.mpr200-1.esr.lvcm.net (IDENT:mirapoint@100m.mpr200-1.esr.lvcm.net [24.234.0.78]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g41JxEH22684 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 05:59:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp.lvcablemodem.com (cm049.73.234.24.lvcm.com [24.234.73.49]) by 100m.mpr200-1.esr.lvcm.net (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 2.9.3.2) with SMTP id AEF29904; Wed, 1 May 2002 12:47:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 12:47:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200205011947.AEF29904@100m.mpr200-1.esr.lvcm.net> FROM: Bob and Eddie Subject: [BLML] From the eyes of these X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D8_016F497F.8B597F00" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00D8_016F497F.8B597F00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ****************** Virus Warning Message (on the network) Found virus PE_Magistr.B in file teens.com The uncleanable file was deleted. ********************************************************* ------=_NextPart_000_00D8_016F497F.8B597F00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A prime time dose and realistic portrayal of the lifestyles of the young, rich, and famous in Las Vegas, as well as authentic, real life global cameos by billionaires, celebrities and their kids (i.e.; oil, computer, and stock market tycoons; directors, producers, actors, and studio/network heads of motion picture, TV, records, sports, etc.). A prime time 35mm network drama with a twist and 1/3 reality based digital beta shots. ------=_NextPart_000_00D8_016F497F.8B597F00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ****************** Virus Warning Message (on the network) teens.com was removed from here because it contained a virus. ********************************************************* ------=_NextPart_000_00D8_016F497F.8B597F00-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 07:29:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g41LStg22731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 2002 07:28:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g41LSoH22727 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 07:28:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.76.101]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GVG00AHKB43LE@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 02 May 2002 00:16:53 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 00:18:27 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] IB and the Laws To: "John (MadDog) Probst" , David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: Mark Horton , ayala hiler , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <001e01c1f15e$1fa34c60$654c003e@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 W N E S 1H P 1H TD The now infamous sequence. It is clear that E has an opening bid ,[If challenged I am ready to prove it]. But it is not necessary at all ,simply because no opening no story . So the 1H is an opening hand and the Law now says it is AI . The point in dispute is whether and when can 27B1b be applied. Ton's PERSONAL opinion is that there is *no UI* ,so 27 B1b can be applied only when the OS reach a contract unlikely to be reached if the IB had not occurred. Grattan's view is that the TD can apply 27B1b when he judges that the NO is damaged. In one heated exchange Ton used the word it's "horrible" ,I am glad to be of the same opinion . I do think that it's HORRIBLE that for some unknown [probably unimportant] reason the Lawmakers specifically allow transferring information not through the proper channels. Bridge lawmaking is going in the direction of making the game fit for saints only. Just now Richard Colker published two articles on keeping the right tempo under the title *survival manual* [and I thought we are playing a game]. So how can a TD explain to a player that he cannot protect him because by committing an irregularity his opponents are 'punished' so that they can use information which usually is strictly forbidden. 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 Thu May 2 08:31:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g41MUYp22763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 2002 08:30:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g41MUSH22759 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 08:30:29 +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 g41MIeO06442 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 18:18:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 18:17:53 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <001e01c1f15e$1fa34c60$654c003e@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 5/2/02, Israel Erdnbaum wrote: >I do think that it's HORRIBLE that for some unknown [probably >unimportant] reason the Lawmakers specifically allow transferring >information not through the proper channels. Bridge lawmaking is going >in the direction of making the game fit for saints only. Just now >Richard Colker published two articles on keeping the right tempo under >the title *survival manual* [and I thought we are playing a game]. So >how can a TD explain to a player that he cannot protect him because by >committing an irregularity his opponents are 'punished' so that they >can use information which usually is strictly forbidden. What is the purpose of Law 27B1(a)? Seems to me it can only be to allow the auction to proceed, that is, to allow partner of the IBer to make some rational attempt to reach a good contract. Otherwise, the law would bar him from the auction *whatever* correction his partner makes. To set up a situation that allows a player to play bridge, and then tell him he can't because he has UI, seems to me to be no more than folly. Law 16 says that using UI "may be" an infraction. Doesn't say that it always is. Since 27B1(a) specifically says that 16C2 does not apply, it would seem that, UI or not, using it in this case is not an infraction of Law 16. Is it an infraction of 27B1(b)? I don't see how, *unless* the OS get to a contract they would not have reached absent the IB, and which gives them a better score than the contract they would have reached without 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 Thu May 2 08:31:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g41MUfD22769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 2002 08:30:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g41MUaH22765 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 08:30:36 +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 g41MIlO06684; Wed, 1 May 2002 18:18:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 18:01:59 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] cutting the link To: Herman De Wael cc: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3CCFAFDC.6060909@village.uunet.be> 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 5/1/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >Ed, is it really necessary to state the obvious ? >Of course I will take into account all evidence. >But the example I was talking of, told us there was no written system >notes, and that EW were not certain of their methods. >Hence, while your reaction here is obviously correct, within the >thread it is totally superfluous. There WAS no other evidence. I don't know. I thought it needed saying at the time, or I wouldn't have said it. But right at this moment, I'm not sure I can discuss anything coherently, so I'll just go away now. 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 May 2 09:50:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g41NoOq22812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 2002 09:50:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m06.mx.aol.com (imo-m06.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.161]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g41NoJH22808 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 09:50:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id g.83.1a51db14 (4320); Wed, 1 May 2002 19:38:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <83.1a51db14.2a01d669@aol.com> Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 19:38:17 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws To: erdnbaum@netvision.net.il, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_83.1a51db14.2a01d669_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_83.1a51db14.2a01d669_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Israel, It's interesting that after all these years you haven't changed at all. When the second 1H bid is made, unless it is accepted by the opponents, it is CANCELLED. That means it never happened. That means it doesn't exist. That means that there can be no information on the table for either side reference this call. I'm not sure what you (and Ton, according to your message) are saying, but nobody may take any inference about a no longer existng call,unless the non- offenders want to do so at their own risk.. After that the TD is tasked -- yea -- tasked to use his noodle and arrive at an adjustment, if needed, to fix things. Now, I'm sure that you would like to have a route that takes all responsibility off your shoulders, makes it a recipe, and involves no thinking. But, thank God (both yours and mine), that's not what the Law says. At the risk of repeating myself, let me again say, "if you're can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen..." I understand this may be particularly difficult for you after the Venice Cup appeal by the Women in Paris (which was ridiculous and only at Mrs. Berman's behest), but, hey fellow, that's the game. We PLAY bridge at the table. When things go wrong we try to adjust them as fairly as possible, and when we do, then WE are subject to having to justify our actions. Mazeltov, Kojak --part1_83.1a51db14.2a01d669_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Israel,

It's interesting that after all these years you haven't changed  at all.

When the second 1H bid is made, unless it is accepted by the opponents, it is CANCELLED.  That means it never happened.  That means it doesn't exist.  That means that there can be no information on the table  for either side reference this call.
I'm not sure what you (and Ton, according to your message) are saying, but  nobody may take any inference about  a no longer existng call,unless the non- offenders want to do so at their own risk..  After that the TD is tasked -- yea -- tasked to use his noodle and arrive at an adjustment, if needed, to fix things.

Now, I'm sure that you would like to have a route that takes all responsibility  off your shoulders, makes it a recipe, and involves no thinking.  But, thank God (both yours and mine),  that's not what the Law says.

At the risk of repeating myself, let me again say, "if you're can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen..."  I understand this may be particularly difficult for you after the Venice Cup appeal  by the Women in Paris (which was ridiculous and only at Mrs. Berman's behest),  but, hey fellow, that's the game.

We PLAY bridge at the table. When things go wrong we try to adjust them as fairly as possible, and when we do, then WE are subject to having to justify our actions. 

Mazeltov,  Kojak
--part1_83.1a51db14.2a01d669_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 09:58:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g41Nw3422825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 2002 09:58:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g41NvwH22821 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 09:57:58 +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 JAA27435 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 09:59:36 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 02 May 2002 09:43:23 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] 6040 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 09:45:35 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 02/05/2002 09:43:16 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: [snip] >> Pair 3EW violated L90B4, so deserve only 40% >> under L12C1. Sven replied: >Whatever they did it was not to violate L90B4, is >this a typo? L16B covers "accidentally" looking at the wrong hand; but a member of pair 3EW *deliberately* looked at the wrong hand. L90B4 prevents "unauthorised comparison of scores with another contestant". The intent behind L90B4 is to prevent a player gaining UI about a hand they have yet to play; this UI is what pair 3EW received. However, I agree with Sven that under a narrow, literal reading of L90B4 pair 3EW have not violated it. Therefore, a more appropriate law to rule that pair 3EW has violated is L74C5. I wrote: >> Pair 2EW did not violate L90B7, as an adjusted >> score would not have been *required* without >> the violation of L90B4 by pair 3EW. Therefore, >> pair 2EW should escape without receiving a PP. Sven replied: >Pair 2EW must have been very absent-minded: >One of the virtues of Mitchell movement is that >with a minimum of concentration you automatically >go to the correct table. At one of the bridge clubs I play at, the smallness of the room means that tables in a Mitchell movement are numbered in a zig-zag fashion; it is relatively easy at that club to temporarily move to the wrong table. Sven continued: >It seems to me that the whole mess started with >2EW sitting down at table 12 instead of at table >11 and 3EW believing that they (table 12) were >late in the previous round. [snip] >I would probably have held 2EW at least partially >responsible for the error and give them a PP. [snip] The whole mess started with Harold Vanderbilt inventing the game of Contract Bridge in 1925. The important distinction to make is between a consequent and subsequent infraction. The action of a member of 3EW in looking at a hand that they were not due to hold is *always* an infraction; not predicated on any irregularity or non- irregularity by another pair. Therefore, pair 2EW cannot be held partially responsible for a subsequent (not consequent) infraction by pair 3EW. 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 May 2 09:58:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g41NwRx22837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 2002 09:58:27 +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 g41NwLH22833 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 09:58:22 +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 g41Nl5x12461 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 00:47:05 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 00:42:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws References: <001e01c1f15e$1fa34c60$654c003e@mycomputer> In-Reply-To: <001e01c1f15e$1fa34c60$654c003e@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 <001e01c1f15e$1fa34c60$654c003e@mycomputer>, Israel Erdnbaum writes > W N E S > 1H P 1H TD The now infamous sequence. It is clear that E has an >opening bid ,[If challenged >I am ready to prove it]. But it is not necessary at all ,simply because no >opening no story . >So the 1H is an opening hand and the Law now says it is AI . The point in >dispute is whether and when can 27B1b be applied. > Ton's PERSONAL opinion is that there is *no UI* ,so 27 B1b can be >applied only when the OS reach a contract unlikely to be reached if the IB >had not occurred. > Grattan's view is that the TD can apply 27B1b when he judges that the NO >is damaged. >In one heated exchange Ton used the word it's "horrible" ,I am glad to be of >the same opinion . I do think that it's HORRIBLE that for some unknown >[probably unimportant] reason the Lawmakers specifically allow transferring >information not through the proper channels. I agree with Israel pretty much 100% here. I'm definitely going down the 27B1b route, which is the route one normally takes for the classic 1S 1D overcall corrected to 2D. I think the 1H correct to 2H has *shown* an opener, and, like Israel, I think that's enough to adjust via 27B1b. Sorry for my earlier side issues on this thread - but in actuality this problem *never* arises at the table, as there is *always* some indication. Even if there is *no* indication, however, I still believe the 2H bidder has shown an opener, and done so illegally. cheers John >Bridge lawmaking is going in the direction of making the game fit for saints >only. Just now Richard Colker published two articles on keeping the right >tempo under the title *survival manual* [and I thought we are playing a >game]. >So how can a TD explain to a player that he cannot protect him because by >committing an irregularity his opponents are 'punished' >so that they can use information which usually is strictly forbidden. >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 May 2 10:05:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4204gg22863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 2002 10:04:42 +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-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 g4204UH22852 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 10:04:31 +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 1733tp-000F3X-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 02 May 2002 00:52:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 12:20:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 6040 References: <3CCD53B9.1040404@village.uunet.be> <000001c1f0b8$a8b70560$0200a8c0@netcabo.pt> In-Reply-To: <000001c1f0b8$a8b70560$0200a8c0@netcabo.pt> 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 g4204XH22855 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Lino Tralhão writes > >Mitchell movement. 13 tables, 13 rounds. >At 10th round, pair 2EW should go to table 11 but, by mistake, sit at >table 12. The four players pick their cards from the board (15) and >auction begins. After some moments, pair 3EW arrives to table 12 (its >correct table for that round) and, seeing in the table another pair, >realizes that they were ending the previous round and wait near that >table (12). During this (short) waiting period, one of the members of >pair 3EW saw the hand of south (we were in the 2nd half of the session >so he (thought that) had already played that board (15)). > North opens the auction with a 2NT opening bid, the error in >pair 2EW movement is detected and the Director (I) is called. > I made the correct pair (3EW) sit at the table and, as one of >its members saw the hand of south I cancelled that board with the >artificial adjusted score of 60+ to NS and 40- to EW (because the direct >cause of the cancellation of the board was the fact of one of its >members have seen opp. Hand). > Is this correct? Yes, unless N/S are expected by custom and practice or local regulation to check that they have the correct opponents. Then they should not get Ave+. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 10:05:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4204ik22865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 2002 10:04:44 +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 g4204UH22851 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 10:04:31 +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 1733tq-000F3Y-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 02 May 2002 00:52:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 12:23:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 6040 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 > >>Mitchell movement. 13 tables, 13 rounds. >>At 10th round, pair 2EW should go to table 11 >>but, by mistake, sit at table 12. The four >>players pick their cards from the board (15) >>and auction begins. After some moments, pair >>3EW arrives to table 12 (its correct table >>for that round) and, seeing in the table >>another pair, realizes that they were ending >>the previous round and wait near that table >>(12). During this (short) waiting period, one >>of the members of pair 3EW saw the hand of >>south (we were in the 2nd half of the session >>so he (thought that) had already played that >>board (15)). >> North opens the auction with a 2NT >>opening bid, the error in pair 2EW movement >>is detected and the Director (I) is called. >> I made the correct pair (3EW) sit at the >>table and, as one of its members saw the hand >>of south I cancelled that board with the >>artificial adjusted score of 60+ to NS and 40- >>to EW (because the direct cause of the >>cancellation of the board was the fact of one >>of its members have seen opp. Hand). >> Is this correct? >Correct. > >Pair 3EW violated L90B4, so deserve only 40% >under L12C1. > >Pair 2EW did not violate L90B7, as an adjusted >score would not have been *required* without >the violation of L90B4 by pair 3EW. Therefore, >pair 2EW should escape without receiving a PP. L90B only gives examples. While 3EW should not be looking at hands so it is reasonable to give them Ave-, the prime cause of something going wrong was the failure of 2EW to follow the procedure. Thus I would certainly warn them strongly, possibly issue a small PP to them. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 10:05:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4204hR22864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 2002 10:04:43 +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 g4204UH22853 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 10:04:31 +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 1733tq-000F3Z-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 02 May 2002 00:52:46 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 12:28:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25 again 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 Ed Reppert writes >Bidding goes > >W N E S >- - 1NT P >2H(1) P P P(2) > >(1) Announced: "Transfer" >(2) South passed "hurriedly" > >At some point after her pass, East realized she had passed and said she >did not intend that. The director is called. He rules, under 25A, that >East may correct her pass. After the hand, West approaches the TD, says >that "the rule has been changed, and when the call card hits the table, >it is played," and asks the TD to ask ACBL if his ruling was correct. >Mike Flader, in his "Ruling the Game" column in the ACBL Bulletin, says >"our regulations, however, tell us that when the desired call and the >call made come from different parts of the bid box, we should rule that >the first call was made as a result of a slip of the mind rather than of >the fingers, i.e., a mechanical error. This was the original view when BBs became popular. Experience has shown that it is far better to note that it is unusual for it to be a mechanical error, but not impossible. > In this case, law 25B applies. >Offender may change his call only if left-hand opponent has not acted, >and he will receive no score greater than average minus. In this case, I >believe you should not have allowed the change." > >Comments? > >A question: does 25A really require "a mechanical error"? A "mechanical error" is just another name for it. In this case it sounds like L25B to me. What card did she mean to pull out when she reached for the box? It sounds like a pass card to me, so it is not a L25A case. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 10:13:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g420DBY22894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 2002 10:13:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g420D7H22890 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 10:13:07 +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 KAA01122 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 10:14:46 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 02 May 2002 09:58:32 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25 again To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 10:00:31 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 02/05/2002 09:58:25 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] >It is not only the ACBL that uses the place that the >card comes from in the bidding box as a clue to >the intention of the player. I have seen this in other >guidance also. Turning away the mind is a question >of being focused on something else other than >picking the bidding card. The hurdle of inadvertency >is quite a high one, immediacy is perhaps more >readily judged. In considering the intention of the >player the question is 'what bidding card was she >trying to pick out and place?', when she made to >select a card and place it she did know what >bidding card she was reaching for - that is the >intention and it is if she gets hold of the wrong one >because the mind was switched to thinking about >something else that inadvertency arises. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Recent auction at my local club, using bidding boxes: LHO Pard RHO Me 1H Pass 3H 3H, immediately corrected to 4H Have I made an insufficient conventional bid, or have I selected an inadvertent bidding box card, so L25A applies? 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 May 2 12:22:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g422LYb22946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 2002 12:21:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g422LTH22942 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 12:21:29 +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 g422ADx12710 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 03:10:13 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 03:02:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25 again References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >[snip] > >>It is not only the ACBL that uses the place that the >>card comes from in the bidding box as a clue to >>the intention of the player. I have seen this in other >>guidance also. Turning away the mind is a question >>of being focused on something else other than >>picking the bidding card. The hurdle of inadvertency >>is quite a high one, immediacy is perhaps more >>readily judged. In considering the intention of the >>player the question is 'what bidding card was she >>trying to pick out and place?', when she made to >>select a card and place it she did know what >>bidding card she was reaching for - that is the >>intention and it is if she gets hold of the wrong one >>because the mind was switched to thinking about >>something else that inadvertency arises. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >Recent auction at my local club, using bidding boxes: > >LHO Pard RHO Me >1H Pass 3H 3H, immediately corrected to 4H > What were you actually trying to bid when you first removed your call from the box? Until you answer this question, I can't answer yours. cheers john >Have I made an insufficient conventional bid, or have >I selected an inadvertent bidding box card, so L25A >applies? > >Best wishes > >Richard > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 13:12:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g423BXZ23016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 2002 13:11:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g423BRH23012 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 13:11:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from zshilon ([212.199.34.32]) by fep1.012.net.il with SMTP id <20020502030048.CLRT8303.fep1@zshilon> for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 06:00:48 +0300 From: "Zvi Shilon" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] IB and the Laws Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 05:59:38 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0002_01C1F19E.8B0B87C0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <83.1a51db14.2a01d669@aol.com> Importance: Normal 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_0002_01C1F19E.8B0B87C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit No matter how much you say the second 1 heart bid doesn't exist, partner knows the second 1 heart bidder has an opening bid and he should not be entitled to know this. zvika Modiin, Israel -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Schoderb@aol.com Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 1:38 AM To: erdnbaum@netvision.net.il; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws Dear Israel, It's interesting that after all these years you haven't changed at all. When the second 1H bid is made, unless it is accepted by the opponents, it is CANCELLED. That means it never happened. That means it doesn't exist. That means that there can be no information on the table for either side reference this call. I'm not sure what you (and Ton, according to your message) are saying, but nobody may take any inference about a no longer existng call,unless the non- offenders want to do so at their own risk.. After that the TD is tasked -- yea -- tasked to use his noodle and arrive at an adjustment, if needed, to fix things. Now, I'm sure that you would like to have a route that takes all responsibility off your shoulders, makes it a recipe, and involves no thinking. But, thank God (both yours and mine), that's not what the Law says. At the risk of repeating myself, let me again say, "if you're can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen..." I understand this may be particularly difficult for you after the Venice Cup appeal by the Women in Paris (which was ridiculous and only at Mrs. Berman's behest), but, hey fellow, that's the game. We PLAY bridge at the table. When things go wrong we try to adjust them as fairly as possible, and when we do, then WE are subject to having to justify our actions. Mazeltov, Kojak ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C1F19E.8B0B87C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
No=20 matter how much you say the second 1 heart bid doesn't exist, partner = knows the=20 second 1 heart bidder has an opening bid and he should not be entitled = to know=20 this.
 
zvika   
Modiin, Israel    =
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au=20 [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of=20 Schoderb@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 1:38=20 AM
To: erdnbaum@netvision.net.il;=20 bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the=20 Laws

Dear=20 Israel,

It's interesting that after all these years you = haven't=20 changed  at all.

When the second 1H bid is made, unless it = is=20 accepted by the opponents, it is CANCELLED.  That means it never=20 happened.  That means it doesn't exist.  That means that = there can=20 be no information on the table  for either side reference this=20 call.
I'm not sure what you (and Ton, according to your message) = are=20 saying, but  nobody may take any inference about  a no = longer=20 existng call,unless the non- offenders want to do so at their own = risk.. =20 After that the TD is tasked -- yea -- tasked to use his noodle and = arrive at=20 an adjustment, if needed, to fix things.

Now, I'm sure that you = would=20 like to have a route that takes all responsibility  off your = shoulders,=20 makes it a recipe, and involves no thinking.  But, thank God = (both yours=20 and mine),  that's not what the Law says.

At the risk of = repeating=20 myself, let me again say, "if you're can't stand the heat, stay out of = the=20 kitchen..."  I understand this may be particularly difficult for = you=20 after the Venice Cup appeal  by the Women in Paris (which was = ridiculous=20 and only at Mrs. Berman's behest),  but, hey fellow, that's the=20 game.

We PLAY bridge at the table. When things go wrong we try = to=20 adjust them as fairly as possible, and when we do, then WE are subject = to=20 having to justify our actions. 

Mazeltov,  = Kojak
=20
------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C1F19E.8B0B87C0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 14:14:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g424DeX23057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 2002 14:13:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g424DaH23053 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 14:13:36 +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 OAA15543 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 14:15:16 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 02 May 2002 13:48:59 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25 again To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 13:51:14 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 02/05/2002 01:48:52 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>Recent auction at my local club, using bidding boxes: >> >>LHO Pard RHO Me >>1H Pass 3H 3H, immediately corrected to 4H >> > >What were you actually trying to bid when you first removed your call >from the box? > >Until you answer this question, I can't answer yours. cheers john Two possibilities: 1. I noticed that the 4H bidding card I thought I was playing had turned into a 3H bidding card (Law 25A). 2. I noticed that RHO's 2H bidding card had turned into a 3H bidding card (Laws 21A and 27B2). I inadvertently cannot remember which of these possibilities is true. How would you rule? 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 May 2 18:35:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g428Yv323237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 2002 18:34:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g428YqH23233 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 18:34:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0079.bb.online.no [80.212.208.79]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA17191 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 10:23:00 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <005501c1f1b2$9299a4e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 10:23:00 +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: "Ed Reppert" > What is the purpose of Law 27B1(a)? Seems to me it can only be to allow > the auction to proceed, that is, to allow partner of the IBer to make > some rational attempt to reach a good contract. Otherwise, the law would > bar him from the auction *whatever* correction his partner makes. To set > up a situation that allows a player to play bridge, and then tell him he > can't because he has UI, seems to me to be no more than folly. In order to fully understand Law 27 I believe you have to go back in history and see how the rules for insufficient bid has been, maybe all the way back to the thirties. For me it is evident that the purpose of the laws has always been to allow the auction to continue if that can be done without giving the offending side any "advantage". Originally this was simply expressed as the insufficient bid would have to be replaced by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination, period. Remember this was in an era when most bids were "natural" so there was seldom any problem except when partner to a player making an opening bid responded by making another opening bid. This was "fixed" in 1975 when we got a clause for the case when the insufficient bid "conveyed such substantial information as to damage the opponents". That fix at the same time gave the Director a tool he could apply when conventional bids were involved. Eventually the law became what it is today: For the auction to be allowed to continue the replacement bid must be the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and in addition: 1: Both the insufficient bid and the replacement bid must incontrovertibly be not conventional 2: The insufficient bid must not have conveyed information that could "damage" the non-offending side. It is this second condition that seems to cause all this discussion. What is "damage"? I do not believe our ancestors would have been in doubt: The auction may continue if the replacement bid conveys essentially the same information as was the purpose of the insufficient bid. If this is impossible, for instance because the insufficient bid was likely to be intended as an opening bid then the condition for applying Law27B1(b) is established, and the "damage" is whatever better result the offending side obtains compared to what result they might have had if the replacement bid had been the only bid by offender in that round due to the restriction in Law 27B1(a). It seems rather strange to me if the lawmakers would have written Law27B1(b) for the primary purpose of preventing the use of insufficient bids in situations where partnership agreements have no other means to reach a favourable contract? I have found nothing in the history of bridge indicating such intentions. There is incidently another aspect of this dispute which seems to have slipped unnoticed by everybody: Consicer the two cases after West: 1H - North: pass - East: 1H case 1: the insufficient bid (natural) is corrected to 2H (also natural) case 2: all other situations (Law 27B2 applies) In both cases opponents finally get the contract, let us say in 4S Do we really want the information that East (probably) has values for an opening bid of 1H to be authorized for West during the play in case 1 but not in case 2? What would be the logic here? I am, and has always been convinced that the reason Law 16C2 does not apply when Law 27B1(a) applies is not that the information from the insufficient bid shall be authorized for offender's partner but that the use of such information by him shall be handled under law 27B1(b) rather than under Law 16 (resulting in a slightly different procedure) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 19:32:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g429Vj223266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 2002 19:31:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g429VeH23262 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 19:31:40 +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 LAA09832; Thu, 2 May 2002 11:17:19 +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 LAA27297; Thu, 2 May 2002 11:19:52 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020502111544.025ba8c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 11:25:56 +0200 To: "Sven Pran" , "Bridge Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25 again In-Reply-To: <002801c1f0da$63bf4220$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 08:35 1/05/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Ed Reppert" > > > Bidding goes > > > > W N E S > > - - 1NT P > > 2H(1) P P P(2) > > > > (1) Announced: "Transfer" > > (2) South passed "hurriedly" > > > > At some point after her pass, East realized she had passed and said she > > did not intend that. The director is called. He rules, under 25A, that > > East may correct her pass. After the hand, West approaches the TD, says > > that "the rule has been changed, and when the call card hits the table, > > it is played," and asks the TD to ask ACBL if his ruling was correct. > > Mike Flader, in his "Ruling the Game" column in the ACBL Bulletin, says > > "our regulations, however, tell us that when the desired call and the > > call made come from different parts of the bid box, we should rule that > > the first call was made as a result of a slip of the mind rather than of > > the fingers, i.e., a mechanical error. In this case, law 25B applies. > > Offender may change his call only if left-hand opponent has not acted, > > and he will receive no score greater than average minus. In this case, I > > believe you should not have allowed the change." > > > > Comments? > > > > A question: does 25A really require "a mechanical error"? > >I do not know about ACBL regulations, but in Norway we are very >reluctant to accept "slip of the hand" when the desired call and the call >made come from different sections in the bid box. Typical cases >accepted include 1NT "sticking" with 1S and similar. > >This looks like a "slip of the mind", and that excludes Law 25A - at >least in Norway. AG : I won't quarrel with this. However, I've seen some BB designs which made a slip of the finger quite possible, so I'd have to decide on a case-for-case basis. One case where I would undoubtedly allow the correction would be if East convinced me that he wanted to alert (which in Belgium he does no more need to do) and picked a pass in lieu of an alert - quite plausible. Another would be if a player wrongly placed back a Pass card behind his bid-showing cards and pulled the pass in lieu of 1C. I've also seen a case where a player pulled 7C in lieu of 1NT - looks strange until you consider that some BBs are transposed from the classical design (vertical arrays become horizontal). He was allowed to change his bid. 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 May 2 19:48:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g429mBN23283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 2002 19:48:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g429m5H23279 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 19:48:05 +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 LAA14240; Thu, 2 May 2002 11:33:44 +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 LAA15380; Thu, 2 May 2002 11:36:18 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020502113131.025a35b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 11:42:20 +0200 To: "John (MadDog) Probst" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws In-Reply-To: References: <001e01c1f15e$1fa34c60$654c003e@mycomputer> <001e01c1f15e$1fa34c60$654c003e@mycomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 00:42 2/05/2002 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <001e01c1f15e$1fa34c60$654c003e@mycomputer>, Israel Erdnbaum > writes > > W N E S > > 1H P 1H TD The now infamous sequence. It is clear that E has an > >opening bid ,[If challenged > >I am ready to prove it]. But it is not necessary at all ,simply because no > >opening no story . > >So the 1H is an opening hand and the Law now says it is AI . The point in > >dispute is whether and when can 27B1b be applied. > > Ton's PERSONAL opinion is that there is *no UI* ,so 27 B1b can be > >applied only when the OS reach a contract unlikely to be reached if the IB > >had not occurred. > > Grattan's view is that the TD can apply 27B1b when he judges that the NO > >is damaged. > >In one heated exchange Ton used the word it's "horrible" ,I am glad to be of > >the same opinion . I do think that it's HORRIBLE that for some unknown > >[probably unimportant] reason the Lawmakers specifically allow transferring > >information not through the proper channels. > >I agree with Israel pretty much 100% here. I'm definitely going down the >27B1b route, which is the route one normally takes for the classic 1S 1D >overcall corrected to 2D. I think the 1H correct to 2H has *shown* an >opener, and, like Israel, I think that's enough to adjust via 27B1b. > >Sorry for my earlier side issues on this thread - but in actuality this >problem *never* arises at the table, as there is *always* some >indication. Even if there is *no* indication, however, I still believe >the 2H bidder has shown an opener, and done so illegally. cheers John AG : in essence, responder's error has made him able to make a forcing raise at a level where his system most probably didn't allow him to do. Even letting aside L16, we are into L72B1 territory. Contrast with those cases : 1S opening 1H overcall, corrected to 2H 1S opening 1H response, corerected to 2H In both cases, the substituted bid shows about opening values and length in hearts, so UI is quite limited. Bidding can now continue. 2S opening 2H overcall, corrected to 3H Now partner doesn't know if partner opened a weak 2H or overcalled 1S with 2H. UI is again thriftily given. In the original case, responder could do something which his system didn't allow him - show hearts and a strong hand at an economical level. He'd rather bid 4H or there would be both UI and a 'could have known' advantage. Note that, according to my theories, he should be allowed to bid 2NT (heart raise and a game force, especially if it works as an asking bid, where partner won't get the captaincy any more), but this isn't in the rules (yet ?). If some of us don't want to invoke L16 in IB cases, which I understand, feel free to use L72B1 (as you would L23 if the substituted bid was other). Where L72B1 is not usable, it means UI is limited, thus you might as well let the bidding proceed. 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 May 2 19:54:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g429s9S23305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 2002 19:54:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g429s2H23295 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 19:54:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0079.bb.online.no [80.212.208.79]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA21526 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 11:42:12 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <009301c1f1bd$a2f0fd60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020502111544.025ba8c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25 again Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 11:42:12 +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: "Alain Gottcheiner" > >I do not know about ACBL regulations, but in Norway we are very > >reluctant to accept "slip of the hand" when the desired call and the call > >made come from different sections in the bid box. Typical cases > >accepted include 1NT "sticking" with 1S and similar. > > > >This looks like a "slip of the mind", and that excludes Law 25A - at > >least in Norway. > > AG : I won't quarrel with this. However, I've seen some BB designs which > made a slip of the finger quite possible, so I'd have to decide on a > case-for-case basis. > One case where I would undoubtedly allow the correction would be if East > convinced me that he wanted to alert (which in Belgium he does no more need > to do) and picked a pass in lieu of an alert - quite plausible. > Another would be if a player wrongly placed back a Pass card behind his > bid-showing cards and pulled the pass in lieu of 1C. > I've also seen a case where a player pulled 7C in lieu of 1NT - looks > strange until you consider that some BBs are transposed from the classical > design (vertical arrays become horizontal). He was allowed to change his bid. None of these cases would from your description cause any problem in Norway; as far as I can judge we would rule L25A in every one of them. (To add another example: We have had many cases of Stop instead of Double and vice-versa ) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 21:56:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g42BtuG23384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 2002 21:55:57 +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-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 g42BtpH23380 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 21:55:52 +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 173F02-000HOL-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 02 May 2002 12:43:54 +0100 Message-ID: <4WefUEE2GJ08Ew+6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 02:09:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25 again 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 >Recent auction at my local club, using bidding boxes: > >LHO Pard RHO Me >1H Pass 3H 3H, immediately corrected to 4H > >Have I made an insufficient conventional bid, or have >I selected an inadvertent bidding box card, so L25A >applies? Either: we have insufficient facts. What card did you reach for when your hand went out towards the bidding box? And, yes, I would ask that question at the table. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 22:20:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g42CKeM23473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 2002 22:20:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g42CKZH23469 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 22:20:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-11.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.11] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 173FOE-0002Yt-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 02 May 2002 08:08:50 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020502080553.00a9cea0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: ehaa/pop.starpower.net@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 08:09:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25 again In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:00 PM 5/1/02, richard wrote: >LHO Pard RHO Me >1H Pass 3H 3H, immediately corrected to 4H > >Have I made an insufficient conventional bid, or have >I selected an inadvertent bidding box card, so L25A >applies? Only you know for sure. I normally ask players something like, "Which card were your fingers aiming for when they started towards the box?" 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 May 2 23:56:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g42DuAQ23597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 2002 23:56:10 +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 g42Du4H23593 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 23:56:05 +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 g42Dimx13985 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 14:44:49 +0100 Message-ID: <7YZ5qvAuHU08EwOx@asimere.com> Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 14:41:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25 again References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >>>Recent auction at my local club, using bidding boxes: >>> >>>LHO Pard RHO Me >>>1H Pass 3H 3H, immediately corrected to 4H >>> >> >>What were you actually trying to bid when you first removed your call >>from the box? >> >>Until you answer this question, I can't answer yours. cheers john > >Two possibilities: > >1. I noticed that the 4H bidding card I thought I was playing had > turned into a 3H bidding card (Law 25A). > >2. I noticed that RHO's 2H bidding card had turned into a 3H > bidding card (Laws 21A and 27B2). > >I inadvertently cannot remember which of these possibilities is true. > I don't believe you. You *will* know which call you had in mind. Answer the question. If your answer is "I don't know" then my ruling is obvious. Are you trolling? cheers john >How would you rule? > >Best wishes > >Richard > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 00:25:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g42EOTg23622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 2002 00:24:29 +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 g42EOOH23618 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 00:24:24 +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 KAA23108 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 10:12:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA16599 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 May 2002 10:12:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 10:12:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205021412.KAA16599@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25 again X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > A "mechanical error" is just another name for it. Weren't we told that the proper word is 'fejlgreb'? The nice thing about having so many languages represented on BLML is that there will be exactly the right word in at least one of 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 Fri May 3 01:04:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g42F3YQ23650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 2002 01:03:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g42F3SH23646 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 01:03:29 +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 KAA26136 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 10:51:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA16646 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 May 2002 10:51:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 10:51:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205021451.KAA16646@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > I'm definitely going down the > 27B1b route, which is the route one normally takes for the classic 1S 1D > overcall corrected to 2D. I think the 1H correct to 2H has *shown* an > opener, and, like Israel, I think that's enough to adjust via 27B1b. OK. What do you adjust to? In particular, what "irregularity" do you use for L12C2? And if not the IB, what law makes it an irregularity? > From: "Sven Pran" > 2: The insufficient bid must not have conveyed information that could > "damage" the non-offending side. > > It is this second condition that seems to cause all this discussion. > What is "damage"? Yes, this is exactly the right question. More specifically, from what moment is damage to be computed? > There is incidently another aspect of this dispute which seems to have > slipped unnoticed by everybody: No, several of us have commented on it, although we have not used this example, which is probably the best yet. > Consicer the two cases after West: 1H - North: pass - East: 1H > > case 1: the insufficient bid (natural) is corrected to 2H (also natural) > case 2: all other situations (Law 27B2 applies) > > In both cases opponents finally get the contract, let us say in 4S > > Do we really want the information that East (probably) has values > for an opening bid of 1H to be authorized for West during the play > in case 1 but not in case 2? What would be the logic here? Of course we don't want West to gain advantage from the information, but the Laws provide two different routes to that end. In case 1, L16C does not apply. The information is authorized, but if it helps the defense *in a way that would not be possible absent the IB*, the TD uses L27B1b. (The part within *'s is, of course, the subject of debate.) In case 2, as of 1997, L16C2 applies. Before 1997, this would have been the same as case 1. I personally dislike this state of the laws -- in particular the mixing of mechanical and information penalties -- but it seems to be what we are stuck with until the next revision. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 01:57:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g42Fut523684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 2002 01:56:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g42FunH23680 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 01:56:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g42FivI01751 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 11:44:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 11:44:33 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] 6040 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 5/2/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >However, I agree with Sven that under a narrow, >literal reading of L90B4 pair 3EW have not violated >it. Therefore, a more appropriate law to rule that >pair 3EW has violated is L74C5. 90B is a list of examples - "including but not limited to". The director is empowered to issue a PP for *any* departure from correct procedure (90A). Is it correct procedure to take a hand from a board you are not scheduled to play in this round? If not, then Law 90 allows a PP. I don't see how Law 74C5 can apply here. That law clearly (to me anyway) deals with looking at another's player's hand from the board in progress, not looking at one's own hand from a board not scheduled to be played at this point. 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 May 3 02:35:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g42GZTY23710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 2002 02:35:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g42GZNH23706 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 02:35:24 +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 SAA29725; Thu, 2 May 2002 18:21:01 +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 SAA06895; Thu, 2 May 2002 18:23:36 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020502182720.025c2ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 18:29:39 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25 again In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020502080553.00a9cea0@127.0.0.1> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:09 2/05/2002 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 08:00 PM 5/1/02, richard wrote: > >>LHO Pard RHO Me >>1H Pass 3H 3H, immediately corrected to 4H >> >>Have I made an insufficient conventional bid, or have >>I selected an inadvertent bidding box card, so L25A >>applies? > >Only you know for sure. I normally ask players something like, "Which >card were your fingers aiming for when they started towards the box?" AG : ask them ! SMOn, to pull 3H in lieu of 4H is more probable than not to realize that 3H is an insufficient bid. Could the player *want* to make an insufficient bid ? Contrast with the Pass vs 4H problem, where *both* would be legal declarations. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 02:41:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g42GfiY23727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 2002 02:41:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g42GfdH23723 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 02:41:39 +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 SAA27096; Thu, 2 May 2002 18:28:31 +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 SAA11252; Thu, 2 May 2002 18:29:51 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020502183012.025c1580@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 18:35:54 +0200 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25 again In-Reply-To: <200205021412.KAA16599@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:12 2/05/2002 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: David Stevenson > > A "mechanical error" is just another name for it. > >Weren't we told that the proper word is 'fejlgreb'? > >The nice thing about having so many languages represented on BLML is >that there will be exactly the right word in at least one of them. AG : remember the famous lines from 'Fame' : (re-translated from French) - there is some Yiddish word to describe your facial expression - really ? which is it ? - don't know. But there is a Yiddish word to describe everything that's grim, sinister or depressing As far as I'm concerned, I'm satisfied with 'Mispull', which is descriptive enough. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 02:49:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g42Gnek23739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 2002 02:49:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g42GnYH23735 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 02:49:35 +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 SAA02664; Thu, 2 May 2002 18:35:12 +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 SAA18250; Thu, 2 May 2002 18:37:47 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020502183706.025c2470@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 18:43:50 +0200 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws In-Reply-To: <200205021451.KAA16646@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:51 2/05/2002 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Sven Pran" > > 2: The insufficient bid must not have conveyed information that could > > "damage" the non-offending side. > > > > It is this second condition that seems to cause all this discussion. > > What is "damage"? > >Yes, this is exactly the right question. More specifically, from >what moment is damage to be computed? AG : damage to the NOS is the same as advantage to the OS, at least in this case. Such an advantage will occur when the information given by the subsitute bid is substantially greater than that given by the IB. 1H p 1H, corrected to 2H : substantial information about range 1S p 1H, corrected to 2H : little information (especially in 2/1 GF land) 2S 1NT, corrected to 2NT : virtually no information, since for most players 1S-1NT and 2S-2NT are very similar Advantage to the OS will also happen when the player is able to do something that he couldn't do absent the infraction. In the 1st case mentioned above, it gives him an economical forcing raise. This is very similar to L23 cases, and may be dealt with efficiently using L72B1. 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 May 3 02:54:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g42GsbV23752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 2002 02:54:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g42GsWH23748 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 02:54:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g42GgeI00684; Thu, 2 May 2002 12:42:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 11:50:12 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws To: Sven Pran , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <005501c1f1b2$9299a4e0$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 5/2/02, Sven Pran wrote: >I am, and has always been convinced that the reason Law 16C2 >does not apply when Law 27B1(a) applies is not that the information >from the insufficient bid shall be authorized for offender's partner >but that the use of such information by him shall be handled under >law 27B1(b) rather than under Law 16 (resulting in a slightly >different procedure) What is the point of that? We have an established procedure under Law 16C2 to deal with UI in such cases. Why *specifically* exempt this one case from that procedure, if you're just going to make another law that does the same thing? 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 May 3 02:55:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g42GtKa23764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 2002 02:55:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g42GtFH23760 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 02:55:15 +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 SAA03849; Thu, 2 May 2002 18:40:53 +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 SAA22147; Thu, 2 May 2002 18:43:28 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020502184804.025c5da0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 18:49:31 +0200 To: Ed Reppert , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] 6040 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 11:44 2/05/2002 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 5/2/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > >However, I agree with Sven that under a narrow, > >literal reading of L90B4 pair 3EW have not violated > >it. Therefore, a more appropriate law to rule that > >pair 3EW has violated is L74C5. > >90B is a list of examples - "including but not limited to". The director >is empowered to issue a PP for *any* departure from correct procedure >(90A). > >Is it correct procedure to take a hand from a board you are not >scheduled to play in this round? If not, then Law 90 allows a PP. > >I don't see how Law 74C5 can apply here. That law clearly (to me anyway) >deals with looking at another's player's hand from the board in >progress, not looking at one's own hand from a board not scheduled to be >played at this point. AG : to me, L90B4 is correct. After having seen some bids or played tricks at that table, the player will have information about the probable score at this table, information which he is not entitled to. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 04:16:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g42IFSv23852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 2002 04:15:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g42IFNH23848 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 04:15:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3152.bb.online.no [80.212.220.80]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA04818 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 20:03:31 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003101c1f203$ab2a8a00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020502184804.025c5da0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] 6040 Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 20:03:30 +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: "Alain Gottcheiner" ......... > AG : to me, L90B4 is correct. After having seen some bids or played tricks > at that table, the player will have information about the probable score at > this table, information which he is not entitled to. And what scores are he comparing? One that has not yet been established with ????? Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 04:45:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g42IisU23873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 2002 04:44:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g42IilH23869 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 04:44:48 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g42IWrM25724 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 May 2002 14:32:53 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200205021832.g42IWrM25724@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: [BLML] Dog and Cat diaries (fwd) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 14:32:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From another mailing list that I'm on. My apologies for the off-topic posting here...but I figured with the regular posting from Quango, that this would be appreciated by many on this list. If you are not interested in cats and dogs, please skip this. -Ted. > Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 10:59:16 -0400 > Subject: Dog and Cat diaries > > EXCERPTS FROM A DOG'S DIARY > > Day 181 > > 7:00 am - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE! > 8:00 am - OH BOY! A CAR RIDE! MY FAVORITE! > 9:30 am - OH BOY! A WALK! MY FAVORITE! > 10:30 am -OH BOY A CAR RIDE! MY FAVORITE! > 11:30 am - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE > 12:00 noon - OH BOY! THE KIDS! MY FAVORITE! > 1:00 pm - OH BOY! THE YARD! MY FAVORITE! > 4:00 pm - OH BOY! THE KIDS! MY FAVORITE! > 5:00 PM - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE! > 5:30 PM - OH BOY! MOM! MY FAVORITE! > > Day 182 > > 7:00 am - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE! > 8:00 am - OH BOY! A CAR RIDE! MY FAVORITE! > 9:30 am - OH BOY! A WALK! MY FAVORITE! > 10:30 am - OH BOY! A CAR RIDE! MY FAVORITE! > 11:30 am - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE! > 12:00 noon -OH BOY! THE KIDS! MY FAVORITE! > 1:00 pm - OH BOY! THE YARD! MY FAVORITE! > 1:30 pm - ooooh. bath. bummer . > 4:00 pm - OH BOY! THE KIDS! MY FAVORITE! > 5:30 PM - OH BOY! MOM! MY FAVORITE! > > ***************************************** > > EXCERPTS FROM A CAT'S DIARY > > DAY 752 > > My captors continue to taunt me with bizarre little dangling objects. > They dine lavishly on fresh meat, while I am forced to eat dry cereal. > The only thing that keeps me going is the hope of escape, and the mild > satisfaction I get from ruining the occasional piece of furniture. > Tomorrow I may eat another houseplant. > > DAY 761 > > Today my attempt to kill my captors by weaving around their feet while > they were walking almost succeeded, must try this at the top of the stairs. > In an attempt to disgust and repulse these vile oppressors, I once again > induced myself to vomit on their favorite chair...must try this on their bed. > > DAY 762 > > Decapitated a mouse and brought them the headless body, in attempt to > make them aware of what I am capable of, and to try to strike fear > into their hearts. They only cooed and condescended about what a good > little cat I was...Hmmm. Not working according to plan. > > DAY 768 > > I am finally aware of how sadistic they are. For no good reason I was > chosen for the water torture. This time however it included a burning > foamy chemical called "shampoo." What sick minds could invent such a > liquid. My only consolation is the piece of thumb still stuck between my teeth. > > DAY 771 > > There was some sort of gathering of their accomplices. I was placed in > solitary throughout the event. However, I could hear the noise and smell > the foul odor of the glass tubes they call "beer." More importantly I > overheard that my confinement was due to MY power of "allergies." > Must learn what this is and how to use it to my advantage. > > DAY 774 > > I am convinced the other captives are flunkies and maybe snitches. The > dog is routinely released and seems more than happy to return. He is > obviously a half-wit. The bird on the other hand has got to be an > informant, and speaks with them regularly. I am certain he reports my > every move. Due to his current placement in the metal room his safety > is assured. But I can wait, it is only a matter of time... > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 04:49:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g42InDb23885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 2002 04:49:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g42In7H23881 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 04:49:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3152.bb.online.no [80.212.220.80]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA15344 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 20:37:16 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003701c1f208$625b5f20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 20:37:16 +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 From: "Ed Reppert" > On 5/2/02, Sven Pran wrote: > > >I am, and has always been convinced that the reason Law 16C2 > >does not apply when Law 27B1(a) applies is not that the information > >from the insufficient bid shall be authorized for offender's partner > >but that the use of such information by him shall be handled under > >law 27B1(b) rather than under Law 16 (resulting in a slightly > >different procedure) > > What is the point of that? We have an established procedure under Law > 16C2 to deal with UI in such cases. Why *specifically* exempt this one > case from that procedure, if you're just going to make another law that > does the same thing? Exactly. And it is my opinion that the best way out of this mess is simply to remove the clause that "law 16C2 does not apply" from Law 27B1(a). I believe such a revision in fact could make the entire Law 27B1(b) redundant if we would want to dismiss it. The point is that under Law 27B1(b) the Director is instructed to judge whether the conditions for applying this law is present, and if so to assign an adjusted score. In the commentary (1992) comment 27.6(i) specifies (among other things) that when dealing with Law 27B1(a) cases the Director must remain at the table and monitor the developments after an insufficient bid has been corrected until he is completely satisfied that either damage exists (in which case he shall adjust), or no damage exists (in which case he lets the auction and play continue with no more intervention). This is a stronger line of Director duty than is applicable in Law 16 cases where the whole case is usually tried after the end of the play. How much simpler (and consistent) wouldn't the laws be if there were no exceptions from the rule now known as Law 16C2? (And if it had been possible to bet on this question I would been willing to bet that this has been the intention of the laws all the time. However, that can no longer be proved or disproved.) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 09:04:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g42N3RA23995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 2002 09:03:27 +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 g42N3LH23991 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 09:03:21 +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 173PQ9-000CJs-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 02 May 2002 23:51:32 +0100 Message-ID: <8W6RVAFFGc08Ewv2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 23:45:25 +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> <000901c1f098$50b32ee0$e64e003e@mycomputer> 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 Now that the number of postings on this subject has slowed to a trickle, I thought I would summarise the problem as I see it. I asked the question of what you do if the bidding goes 1H P 1H The TD rules, the player concerns corrects 1H to 2H, and his partner with a complete minimum bids 4H. This duly makes 11 tricks for a normal score. The player who made the IB [insufficient bid] has a normal opening bid of 1H. I also said that, if asked, the IBer would say he did not see the opening bid. The following general type of replies were made. [1] A number of people assumed that when I said "if asked" that the player had said that he did not see the opening bid. I do not see much point in assuming that I did not mean what I said. I think it makes the problem less interesting, apart from being different. Of course if he had blurted out that he did not see the opening bid I would have said it. I propose to ignore this. If the player is not asked he will not say it. [2] A number of people assumed that the TD had made a mistake. This seems to me arrogant, since the later discussion proved that we are not agreed on what should be done, and also silly. How does anyone know the TD made an error? It is also of no interest whatever, and I propose to ignore it. I shall assume the TD did whatever is required of him. [3] Some people want to know why responder did not correct to 4H. If you really want to give bidding problems I suggest RGB [rec.games.bridge] is the place. We have to deal with what people do, not what we think they should do!!! Now for the more interesting posts! [4] A number of people assume that when someone bids 1H in this position it means he has an opening bid. That does not accord with my experience as a player or as a Director. Certainly, it is true that some mistakes are more likely than others. But people make all sorts of mistakes, and there is no real evidence to presume this is correct. However, it is of interest if people believe it to be true. That means that people will assume it during the play, and in this case they will be right. Of course, they may come unstuck when another hand appears where it is not true, but the question remains as to how we should rule on this hand. Going off at a tangent for a moment, the ruling itself may give information. I dislike the fact that there is a different rule for conventional IBs from non-conventional IBs, because [a] people do not have agreements about IBs, and [b] it seems an unnecessary rule. That is not to say that it should be the same if the lowest sufficient bid was conventional. If a player bids 1H, and his LHO bids 1C, playing Precision Club, TDs in some parts of the world take the player away from the table to find out why he bid 1C. If the TD returns and gives a ruling based on 1C not being conventional it is obvious that he player did not intend 1C as an opening bid. Anyway, some people assume in the original scenario that responder is known to have an opening bid, some people do not. [5] A number of people assume that it will be known by other things apart from the call itself whether responder intended it as an opening bid. This most often happens if there is some sort of comment. Of course, if an incompetent TD were to ask why he bid 1H then the answer would make it clear. Now we would have TD error, of course. If you forget TD error, I am surprised that people here think that this does not change the situation. There is little difference between these two scenarios: A. 1H P 1H "Oh, dear, I did not see the opening bid!" B. 1H P 2H "Oh, dear, I did not see the opening bid!" In case B, of course, there is no IB, but there is UI to partner, and L16 and L73 kick in. In case A, there is UI to partner from the remark. L27B1A says that the UI Law does not apply to the IB, but I do not believe that means that the normal UI Laws are suspended for the extraneous remark. So I think it is easy if, as several people assume, opener knows what responder is up to by other means than the calls made, usually by responder's remark or demeanour. This is just a UI position, and we can deal with those: is Pass an LA? Is 4H suggested over Pass by the UI? The EBL TD Guide comments on positions where the meaning of the IB is known, without commenting on how it is known. I think that knowing how opener knows responder has an opening bid is a very important part of the correct ruling in this position. [6] So now we come to the substantive question that I posed. Let me restate it, excluding the by-paths. The bidding goes 1H P 1H The TD takes the IBer away from the table, asks him what was happening, and away from the table the IBer says he did not see the opening bid. No unfortunate remarks are made, so the opener has no knowledge of why the IBer made his IB. The TD rules correctly, telling the players everything he should, the player concerns corrects 1H to 2H, and his partner with a complete minimum bids 4H. This duly makes 11 tricks for a normal score. The player who made the IB [insufficient bid] has a normal opening bid of 1H. Do we adjust? It appears to me that there were two main answers now, excluding the by-paths discussed earlier, which might be called the French approach, and the English approach. [7] The French approach is as follows: L27B1A says that L16C2 does not apply, so the knowledge of responder's 1H bid is not unauthorised. L27B1B says we adjust if the IB conveyed such information as to damage the NOS. Damage means that the NOS [non- offending side] get a poorer score than they would have without the IB. In the example hand if there had been no IB it is reasonable to assume that 4H would be reached. So, if 4H is reached anyway, the NOS is not damaged since that is the normal contract. Thus they are not damaged when their opponents reach 4H even though they have used the knowledge of the IB, so no adjustment is necessary. Note that opener knows that responder's actions are constrained between bidding 2H or silencing opener, so the 2H bid must cover a lot of hands. The strength of this argument is that a careful reading of the Law supports it. Using the IB is not an infraction, apparently, nor is it UI. The infraction is the IB itself, and the argument is that that has not damaged opponents if the final contract is normal. This also has support from some important people, notably Ton, and the top French TDs. It should not be lightly dismissed. [9] The English approach is as follows: While L27B1A says that L16C2 does not apply, that is not the same thing as saying that people should use the information from the IB. The normal approach from most people is to assume that when partner bids 2H you have no right to assume you know his hand because of an earlier infraction. As Kojak put it: "When the second 1H bid is made, unless it is accepted by the opponents, it is CANCELLED. That means it never happened. That means it doesn't exist. That means that there can be no information on the table for either side reference this call." For many people this is obvious, and hardly needs stating. Probably the people who blithely talked about TD error assumed this. It does seem obvious to me, possibly because of my feeling of what is fair. Thus if the opener starts using information from a cancelled call as well as from the real auction some will adjust, arguing this damages the opponents. But is this right? This approach has also got strong support. Kojak appears to support it, possibly Grattan as well, though it is not entirely clear. Sven takes this line. [10] As is customary, there are also complaints from the people who think writing Laws is an easy job. "Why did they not make it clearer ...?" Some of these complaints wonder why players are allowed to correct at all. There is no reason to penalise people and destroy an auction in some cases. If the bidding goes: 1S 2C 2D 4C 3S it matters very little to allow opener to substitute 4S for 3S. Trying to allow it in that case and not in the example under discussion is very difficult. We do not want a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and hopefully the 2007 Laws will remove any ambiguity without making it too unfortunate in less contentious positions. [11] Israel is worried about people using the French way to adopt a cheating mechanism. I think this is far-fetched, and if there is any sign of it we can pummel them with other Laws, eg L72B1. Our main worry should be the average player making a normal mistake. [12] What is the solution? I do not really have one. I think the English way is based on history and what fair-minded people expect. I think the French way is more obviously based on a careful reading of the laws. Probably it needs NBOs to tell their TDs and ACs how to rule on this until such a time as the WBFLC makes an official decision and promulgates it, or until the 2007 Laws appear. Does it matter? Yes, I think so. As more and more people communicate with people in other countries and travel to them we see more and more comparison of methods. The auction that started this is likely to lead to major upset amongst players, with some believing that you can use the information from responder's 1H bid, and others thinking that to do so is cheating. It may not be a common occurrence, but it needs to be sorted out by NBOs and other authorities. Furthermore, when the bidding starts 1H P 1H competent TDs will tell the players the ramifications of the Laws: they need to knwo what those are. cc Max Bavin Brad Holtsberry -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 09:04:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g42N3Ik23989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 2002 09:03:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g42N3BH23985 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 09:03:12 +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 173PPx-000CJt-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 02 May 2002 23:51:24 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 14:25:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25 again 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 > >>>Recent auction at my local club, using bidding boxes: >>> >>>LHO Pard RHO Me >>>1H Pass 3H 3H, immediately corrected to 4H >>> >> >>What were you actually trying to bid when you first removed your call >>from the box? >> >>Until you answer this question, I can't answer yours. cheers john > >Two possibilities: > >1. I noticed that the 4H bidding card I thought I was playing had > turned into a 3H bidding card (Law 25A). > >2. I noticed that RHO's 2H bidding card had turned into a 3H > bidding card (Laws 21A and 27B2). > >I inadvertently cannot remember which of these possibilities is true. I do not find that people do not know which of these two applied if asked immediately. Sure, they may not remember some days later! >How would you rule? I expect to judge which at the table. I suppose if I really cannot I would go with #2, ruling against the person who caused the problem, but I find having to use this old rule-of-thumb getting incredibly rare these days. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 12:14:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g432DU624128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 2002 12:13:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g432DPH24124 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 12:13:25 +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 MAA11988 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 12:15:03 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 03 May 2002 11:58:45 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 12:00:37 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 03/05/2002 11:58:38 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: [big snip] >[10] As is customary, there are also complaints >from the people who think writing Laws is an easy >job. "Why did they not make it clearer ...?" > Some of these complaints wonder why players are >allowed to correct at all. > > There is no reason to penalise people and destroy >an auction in some cases. If the bidding goes: > > 1S 2C 2D 4C > 3S > >it matters very little to allow opener to substitute >4S for 3S. Trying to allow it in that case and not >in the example under discussion is very difficult. >We do not want a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and >hopefully the 2007 Laws will remove any ambiguity >without making it too unfortunate in less >contentious positions. [big snip] My original opinion was that an insufficient bid should bar partner (possibly for one round only). I have since been persuaded by discussion on this thread that the wholesale "destroying" of auctions that this rule change would make is contrary to the nature of the game. Mea culpa. [snip] >[12] What is the solution? I do not really have >one. I think the English way is based on history >and what fair-minded people expect. I think the >French way is more obviously based on a careful >reading of the laws. Probably it needs NBOs to >tell their TDs and ACs how to rule on this until >such a time as the WBFLC makes an official decision >and promulgates it, or until the 2007 Laws appear. > > Does it matter? Yes, I think so. [snip] I think so too. The nature of the game has tended more towards information from changed/irregular actions being UI to the OS. It was interesting that in an earlier thread on L24, the consensus of blml was that although L16C2 did not apply during the auction (since the exposed card was not "withdrawn"), the offender's partner was still constrained by L16A. L16C2 is specifically excluded from relevance to L27B1a (except where the TD rules that L27B1b applies). However, to be consistent with their previous interpretation of L24, the same blml consensus should assert that L16A *is* relevant to L27B1a. 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 May 3 16:14:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g436DQ724253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 2002 16:13:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g436DLH24249 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 16:13:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47413.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.57.53]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g4361V921631 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 08:01:31 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CD22803.9080903@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 08:02:43 +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: <007f01c1eb89$f8dc0420$3e5f003e@mycomputer> <000901c1f098$50b32ee0$e64e003e@mycomputer> <8W6RVAFFGc08Ewv2@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 Very good posting, David, may I comment in parts ? David Stevenson wrote: > > > [4] A number of people assume that when someone bids 1H in this > position it means he has an opening bid. That does not accord with my > experience as a player or as a Director. Certainly, it is true that > some mistakes are more likely than others. But people make all sorts of > mistakes, and there is no real evidence to presume this is correct. > > However, it is of interest if people believe it to be true. That > means that people will assume it during the play, and in this case they > will be right. Of course, they may come unstuck when another hand > appears where it is not true, but the question remains as to how we > should rule on this hand. > > Going off at a tangent for a moment, the ruling itself may give > information. I dislike the fact that there is a different rule for > conventional IBs from non-conventional IBs, because [a] people do not > have agreements about IBs, and [b] it seems an unnecessary rule. That > is not to say that it should be the same if the lowest sufficient bid > was conventional. > > If a player bids 1H, and his LHO bids 1C, playing Precision Club, TDs > in some parts of the world take the player away from the table to find > out why he bid 1C. If the TD returns and gives a ruling based on 1C not > being conventional it is obvious that he player did not intend 1C as an > opening bid. > > Anyway, some people assume in the original scenario that responder is > known to have an opening bid, some people do not. > David is suggesting that there might be a different rule about the player saying nothing and the player revealing in some manner that he thought he was dealer, making the IB AI, but the accompanying remark UI. I think that there are too few instances of the revelation being absolutely absent for this to be of significance. I believe that the reason for the IB ought to be AI as well. Nothing in the Laws suggests that it isn't. > -- 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 May 3 16:19:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g436JbF24265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 2002 16:19:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g436JWH24261 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 16:19:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47413.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.57.53]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g4367fa24415 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 08:07:41 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CD22974.6070604@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 08:08:52 +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] Insufficient bid References: <007f01c1eb89$f8dc0420$3e5f003e@mycomputer> <000901c1f098$50b32ee0$e64e003e@mycomputer> <8W6RVAFFGc08Ewv2@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 Stevenson wrote: > > > > [5] A number of people assume that it will be known by other things > apart from the call itself whether responder intended it as an opening > bid. This most often happens if there is some sort of comment. Of > course, if an incompetent TD were to ask why he bid 1H then the answer > would make it clear. Now we would have TD error, of course. > > If you forget TD error, I am surprised that people here think that > this does not change the situation. There is little difference between > these two scenarios: > > A. 1H P 1H "Oh, dear, I did not see the opening bid!" > > B. 1H P 2H "Oh, dear, I did not see the opening bid!" > > In case B, of course, there is no IB, but there is UI to partner, and > L16 and L73 kick in. In case A, there is UI to partner from the remark. > L27B1A says that the UI Law does not apply to the IB, but I do not > believe that means that the normal UI Laws are suspended for the > extraneous remark. > There is a big difference in the two: In A. the UI contradicts the AI. In B. the UI clarifies the AI. In A. L16 applies. In B. L16 is specifically said not to apply. I realize that this does not prove in itself that L16 does not apply to the remark, but it does show why David's example is flawed. I believe that there are too few cases where the IB says absolutely nothing for us to start ruling on those and then add the UI of the remark to it. > So I think it is easy if, as several people assume, opener knows what > responder is up to by other means than the calls made, usually by > responder's remark or demeanour. This is just a UI position, and we can > deal with those: is Pass an LA? Is 4H suggested over Pass by the UI? > The of course you have to also rule on some other problem. Would partner have worked out the reason for the IB without the remark? I think we are opening cans of worms that are far mor easily kept closed, or L27B1b might just as well be scrapped from the Lawbook. > The EBL TD Guide comments on positions where the meaning of the IB is > known, without commenting on how it is known. I think that knowing how > opener knows responder has an opening bid is a very important part of > the correct ruling in this position. > I don't. > -- 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 May 3 16:32:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g436WZC24284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 2002 16:32:35 +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 [212.74.114.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g436WUH24280 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 16:32:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.64.130.45] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 173WQk-000J2f-00; Fri, 03 May 2002 07:20:34 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c1f26a$d4f27840$2d82403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" , "John \(MadDog\) Probst" References: <001e01c1f15e$1fa34c60$654c003e@mycomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 22:42:50 +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, May 02, 2002 12:42 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws > > Grattan's view is that the TD can apply 27B1b when he > > judges that the NO is damaged. > +=+ When he "judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side." Law27B1(b) presents this as a bridge judgement that the Director should make. I believe that some have gone wrong because they did not grasp the effect of 'but'. They understood the law to say that no information from the IB is UI. The law actually says that, whilst 16C2 does not apply, the Director may form the opinion that the information was damaging to the NOS and adjusts the score if he does - not because of 16C2 but because of 27B1(b). Information that the Director does not judge such as to damage is AI even if under 16C2 it would have been UI. The French Directors, on the other hand, seem to be saying that, for them, if the contract arrives where it would arrive if there had been no IB the information conveyed by the IB is not such as to damage the NOS. That is their bridge judgement and they have the power to make it; the essential of it would be that they judge that the information has not deprived the NOS of any reasonable possibility that the contract might arrive somewhere less successful. Kaplan judged that to know that a response at the one level was made on an opening hand should be considered to overstep the line and used it as his example of the kind of thing to look 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 Fri May 3 17:23:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g437MaL24319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 2002 17:22:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g437MUH24315 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 17:22:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47413.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.57.53]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g437AYG10553 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 09:10:34 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CD23832.6080109@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 09:11:46 +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] IB and the Laws References: <001e01c1f15e$1fa34c60$654c003e@mycomputer> <000901c1f26a$d4f27840$2d82403e@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > Kaplan judged that to know that a response at the one level > was made on an opening hand should be considered to > overstep the line and used it as his example of the kind of > thing to look for. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Yes, an example to look out for. That does not equate to Kaplan being of the opinion that opponents are damaged in this particular instance! > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 18:08:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4388fm24348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 2002 18:08:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4388ZH24344 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 18:08:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.76.171]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GVI00I96ZE9PI@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 03 May 2002 10:56:35 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 10:57:05 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Herman De Wael Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <002b01c1f280$a7352c20$c94b003e@mycomputer> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <007f01c1eb89$f8dc0420$3e5f003e@mycomputer> <000901c1f098$50b32ee0$e64e003e@mycomputer> <8W6RVAFFGc08Ewv2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3CD22803.9080903@village.uunet.be> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 8:02 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > Very good posting, David, may I comment in parts ? > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > > . > > > > > David is suggesting that there might be a different rule about the > player saying nothing and the player revealing in some manner that he > thought he was dealer, making the IB AI, but the accompanying remark UI. > I think that there are too few instances of the revelation being > absolutely absent for this to be of significance. > I believe that the reason for the IB ought to be AI as well. Nothing > in the Laws suggests that it isn't. Hi Herman As much as I disagree with you I applaud your courage in takin g a clear stand ,and not beating around the bush. Best regards Israel > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 18:33:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g438XHF24381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 2002 18:33:18 +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 g438XCH24377 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 18:33:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.76.171]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GVJ00IL40JBRT@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 03 May 2002 11:21:13 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 11:22:47 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Herman De Wael Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <003201c1f284$17dc4140$c94b003e@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: <007f01c1eb89$f8dc0420$3e5f003e@mycomputer> <000901c1f098$50b32ee0$e64e003e@mycomputer> <8W6RVAFFGc08Ewv2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3CD22974.6070604@village.uunet.be> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 8:08 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > > > > [5. > > > > So I think it is easy if, as several people assume, opener knows what > > responder is up to by other means than the calls made, usually by > > responder's remark or demeanour. This is just a UI position, and we can > > deal with those: is Pass an LA? Is 4H suggested over Pass by the UI? > > > > > The of course you have to also rule on some other problem. > Would partner have worked out the reason for the IB without the remark? > I think we are opening cans of worms that are far mor easily kept > closed, or L27B1b might just as well be scrapped from the Lawbook. Hallo Herman So you admit there are cans of worms and you think that they can easily be kept closed. I don't Best regards Israel . > > > The EBL TD Guide comments on positions where the meaning of the IB is > > known, without commenting on how it is known. I think that knowing how > > opener knows responder has an opening bid is a very important part of > > the correct ruling in this position. > > > > I don't. > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 22:14:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g43CDL424509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 2002 22:13:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (listserv.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g43CDDH24499 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 22:13:14 +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 NAA00056; Fri, 3 May 2002 13:59:46 +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 OAA09327; Fri, 3 May 2002 14:01:05 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020503140409.025a2880@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 14:07:11 +0200 To: "Grattan Endicott" , "bridge-laws" , "John \(MadDog\) Probst" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws In-Reply-To: <000901c1f26a$d4f27840$2d82403e@dodona> References: <001e01c1f15e$1fa34c60$654c003e@mycomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 22:42 2/05/2002 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ When he "judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such >information as to damage the non-offending side." > Law27B1(b) presents this as a bridge judgement that >the Director should make. I believe that some have gone >wrong because they did not grasp the effect of 'but'. They >understood the law to say that no information from the >IB is UI. The law actually says that, whilst 16C2 does not >apply, the Director may form the opinion that the information >was damaging to the NOS and adjusts the score if he does > - not because of 16C2 but because of 27B1(b). > Information that the Director does not judge such as >to damage is AI even if under 16C2 it would have been UI. > The French Directors, on the other hand, seem to be >saying that, for them, if the contract arrives where it would >arrive if there had been no IB the information conveyed by >the IB is not such as to damage the NOS. That is their >bridge judgement and they have the power to make it; the >essential of it would be that they judge that the information >has not deprived the NOS of any reasonable possibility that >the contract might arrive somewhere less successful. >Kaplan judged that to know that a response at the one level >was made on an opening hand should be considered to >overstep the line and used it as his example of the kind of >thing to look for. AG : as an example, consider the following sequence : 1H 1S 2C 3C Is it forcing ? Day after day, pairs that seemed solid have accidents when they don't think the same about it. The early knowledge that responder has opening values annihilates any risk that it happens. So, one might argue that it diminished the probability of an absurd result - enough to consider it helps the OS and adjust. 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 May 3 23:00:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g43CxqJ24577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 2002 22:59:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe17.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.121]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g43CxiH24573 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 22:59:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 3 May 2002 05:47:52 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [65.59.57.124] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: Subject: [BLML] What is Bridge?? Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 00:18:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 May 2002 12:47:52.0619 (UTC) FILETIME=[BD35BFB0:01C1F2A0] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From the thread Insufficient bid came: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 21:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid | | David Stevenson wrote: | > There is no reason to penalise people and destroy | >an auction in some cases. If the bidding goes: | > | > 1S 2C 2D 4C | > 3S | > | >it matters very little to allow opener to substitute | >4S for 3S. Trying to allow it in that case and not | >in the example under discussion is very difficult. | >We do not want a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and | >hopefully the 2007 Laws will remove any ambiguity | >without making it too unfortunate in less | >contentious positions. | | [big snip] | My original opinion was that an insufficient bid | should bar partner (possibly for one round only). I | have since been persuaded by discussion on this | thread that the wholesale "destroying" of auctions | that this rule change would make is contrary to the | nature of the game. | Best wishes | | Richard A relevant question. What is the nature of the game? What is Bridge? Regards roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 23:42:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g43DgEX24607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 2002 23:42:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g43Dg5H24603 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 23:42:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47413.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.57.53]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g43DU9a29111 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 15:30:09 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CD29126.4010501@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 15:31:18 +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] IB and the Laws References: <001e01c1f15e$1fa34c60$654c003e@mycomputer> <5.1.0.14.0.20020503140409.025a2880@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 22:42 2/05/2002 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> +=+ When he "judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such >> information as to damage the non-offending side." >> Law27B1(b) presents this as a bridge judgement that >> the Director should make. I believe that some have gone >> wrong because they did not grasp the effect of 'but'. They >> understood the law to say that no information from the >> IB is UI. The law actually says that, whilst 16C2 does not >> apply, the Director may form the opinion that the information >> was damaging to the NOS and adjusts the score if he does >> - not because of 16C2 but because of 27B1(b). >> Information that the Director does not judge such as >> to damage is AI even if under 16C2 it would have been UI. >> The French Directors, on the other hand, seem to be >> saying that, for them, if the contract arrives where it would >> arrive if there had been no IB the information conveyed by >> the IB is not such as to damage the NOS. That is their >> bridge judgement and they have the power to make it; the >> essential of it would be that they judge that the information >> has not deprived the NOS of any reasonable possibility that >> the contract might arrive somewhere less successful. >> Kaplan judged that to know that a response at the one level >> was made on an opening hand should be considered to >> overstep the line and used it as his example of the kind of >> thing to look for. > > > AG : as an example, consider the following sequence : > > 1H 1S > 2C 3C > > Is it forcing ? Day after day, pairs that seemed solid have accidents > when they don't think the same about it. The early knowledge that > responder has opening values annihilates any risk that it happens. So, > one might argue that it diminished the probability of an absurd result - > enough to consider it helps the OS and adjust. > > Best regards, > I do see your point, Alain, but I feel you are using L16-style restrictions. L27B1b is (deliberately so) less stringent than L16. If we are going to be so severe about it, we might just as well simply put the penalty for the insufficient call at equal to the others : IB must select the final bid. Don't forget that we still have to tell the TD - at the conclusion of this thread - about how he should rule the IB. At the moment, I am saying : if you change to 2He, then all is OK. If the British view wins this thread, I will have to change this into something like - and the fact that he bid 1He is AI, but the fact that he thought he was dealer is UI, and your partner is not allowed to use that UI. That's just making it difficult for the IB'er. I don't believe this is what the Lawmakers had in mind when they wrote L27B1b. I rather see that law as closing a gap against things like: (4He) - 1Sp-oh I did not see / 4Sp That's a clear case, this one is not. > Alain. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 23:58:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g43DsuA24620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 2002 23:54:56 +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-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g43DsmH24616 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 23:54:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.36.224] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 173dKn-000AZ9-00; Fri, 03 May 2002 14:42:53 +0100 Message-ID: <002601c1f2a8$57dccc00$e024e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <001e01c1f15e$1fa34c60$654c003e@mycomputer> <000901c1f26a$d4f27840$2d82403e@dodona> <3CD23832.6080109@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 14:39:14 +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 Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: 03 May 2002 08:11 Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > Kaplan judged that to know that a > > response at the one level was made > > on an opening hand should be considered to > > overstep the line and used it as his example > > of the kind of thing to look for. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > Yes, an example to look out for. > That does not equate to Kaplan being of the > opinion that opponents are damaged in this > particular instance! > +=+ Herman, You are not reading very well. In his notes on Law changes EK said that the knowledge that the IB had opening values was a case where (b) should apply. In his judgement. He went on to show it as an example. However, it is not Kaplan's judgement, nor mine, that matters in any case that arises. The Law puts the question expressly with the Director of the tournament. Ton does not think it should be left to the Director to judge the case but, as the law is, each individual case calls for a bridge judgement in respect of the facts of that case as to whether 27B1(b) should be invoked. ~ 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 May 4 00:17:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g43ECfB24644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 May 2002 00:12:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g43ECWH24640 for ; Sat, 4 May 2002 00:12:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47413.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.57.53]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g43E0gk00620 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 16:00:43 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CD29851.2020607@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 16:01:53 +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] Insufficient bid References: <007f01c1eb89$f8dc0420$3e5f003e@mycomputer> <000901c1f098$50b32ee0$e64e003e@mycomputer> <8W6RVAFFGc08Ewv2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3CD22974.6070604@village.uunet.be> <003201c1f284$17dc4140$c94b003e@mycomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Israel Erdnbaum wrote: >> >>The of course you have to also rule on some other problem. >>Would partner have worked out the reason for the IB without the remark? >>I think we are opening cans of worms that are far mor easily kept >>closed, or L27B1b might just as well be scrapped from the Lawbook. >> > > Hallo Herman > So you admit there are cans of worms and you think that they can easily be > kept closed. When analysing for a reply to this post, it struck me that the problem has in fact three parts : 1) Is East allowed to bid 4He, knowing only the bidding, including the change from 1He to 2He. Despite what Kojak thinks of it, that answer in unequivocally YES. L16 has been suspended, and East is entitled to know that 2He is NOT a systemic bid, but rather a Ruling-inspired raise to the lowest sufficient bid in the same suit as a natural bid of 1He. He is allowed to guess that partner thought he was opening the bidding and conclude from that whatever he wants, and bid 4He. Similarly, West is entitled to know that East knows all this and that 4He does not show anything more, and East is also entitled to pass. That, IMO, is without discussion. I repeat, if East only knows that West bid 1He, not the why of it. 2) The British problem. East knows more than what I was talking about supra. He knows, from some action at the table, what West's error was in bidding 1He. According to DWS, this is UI. This is the can of worms that I was talking of. I don't believe that the lawmakers intended to make this distinction. There are too few instances of this not being known. Almost always is there some indication that shows what happened. Almost always this corresponds to the "logical guess" of what happened. If we are to rule "yes, I know that it is logical for you to deduce that, but since he also told you, that is UI and I feel that you cannot be 100% sure, and then L16 tells you to not choose from among LA...." we might just as well write the law making 1He UI from the start. This is the can of worms that need not be opened. 3) the French problem Even after we allow East to bid 4He, and without using L16, we should look at L27B1b. This is where we need to see if, through the extra information contained in the IB, the final contract is reached that could not be reached otherwise. That is a totally different problem, and I feel taht we have tackled it thoroughly. Alain has just shed some new light on this problem, and I feel that he is being overly harsh, but that is another matter. So you see, I do not believe that the British and French points of view are opposed. They tackle a different problem. > I don't > Best regards > Israel > . > >>> The EBL TD Guide comments on positions where the meaning of the IB is >>>known, without commenting on how it is known. I think that knowing how >>>opener knows responder has an opening bid is a very important part of >>>the correct ruling in this position. >>> >>> >>I don't. >> > >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >>-- >>======================================================================== >>(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >>"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >>A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ >> > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 4 00:23:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g43EJFb24660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 May 2002 00:19:15 +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.tiscali.com [212.74.114.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g43EJ6H24656 for ; Sat, 4 May 2002 00:19:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.57.76] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 173diJ-0009wG-00; Fri, 03 May 2002 15:07:11 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01c1f2ab$bccc0060$4c39e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Roger Pewick" , "blml" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] What is Bridge?? Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 15:05:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott > What is the nature of the game? > What is Bridge? > > Regards > roger pewick > +=+ From one of the dictionaries: 'Bridge' : something which is intended to reconcile or form a connection between two (or more) seemingly incompatible things. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 5 03:56:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g44Hpue25357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 May 2002 03:51:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.tiscali.nl (rhea.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.178]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g44HpoH25353 for ; Sun, 5 May 2002 03:51:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from tkooij (unknown [195.241.224.236]) by rhea.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id F002C38D5E; Sat, 4 May 2002 19:39:57 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <014c01c1f391$b2d07d20$8edef1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: , , Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 19:32:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0149_01C1F3A2.67635860" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0149_01C1F3A2.67635860 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Israel,=20 =20 It's interesting that after all these years you haven't changed at = all Who has, but the environment?=20 =20 . =20 When the second 1H bid is made, unless it is accepted by the = opponents, it is CANCELLED. That means it never happened. =20 =20 I tried to get out of this, since not only no person ever changes = but even opinions never change, so what sense do discussions make? But = now my name was mentioned, a clever way to get me involved again.=20 Could you, Kojak, tell me why cancelling something means that it = never happened. I assume that you are not talking about something that = didn't happen yet and has been cancelled. Then I agree: the = worldchampionships in Bali 2001 never happened and were cancelled. But = the IB did happen and then was cancelled. Didn' t it occur anymore? = Strange conclusion.=20 We could try to define 'cancelling' as you see it, but even then we = don't solve this case since the laws don't speak about cancellation = here, but describe the situation as ' as though the irregularity has not = occurred', whatever that means. =20 =20 =20 That means it doesn't exist. That means that there can be no = information on the table for either side reference this call. =20 With your trick you might be right but in real live you might be = wrong.=20 =20 =20 I'm not sure what you (and Ton, according to your message) are = saying, but nobody may take any inference about a no longer existng = call,unless the non- offenders want to do so at their own risk.. After = that the TD is tasked -- yea -- tasked to use his noodle and arrive at = an adjustment, if needed, to fix things. =20 Now, I'm sure that you would like to have a route that takes all = responsibility off your shoulders, makes it a recipe, and involves no = thinking. But, thank God (both yours and mine), that's not what the = Law says. =20 I know Israel for almost 20 years now, we first met in Wiesbaden = 1983, but I don't know him as an non thinking automatic. We probably are = equally astonished that this issue could come up without the same clear = answer for all of us. I disagree with you (if you say so) and Grattan ( = if he said so) - from both thinking you say so - and possibly others = that the TD here can do what he thinks to be right, leaving it to the AC = to do what it thinks to be right.=20 =20 ton =20 At the risk of repeating myself, let me again say, "if you're can't = stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen..." I understand this may be = particularly difficult for you after the Venice Cup appeal by the Women = in Paris (which was ridiculous and only at Mrs. Berman's behest), but, = hey fellow, that's the game. =20 We PLAY bridge at the table. When things go wrong we try to adjust = them as fairly as possible, and when we do, then WE are subject to = having to justify our actions. =20 =20 Mazeltov, Kojak=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0149_01C1F3A2.67635860 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
Dear Israel,

It's = interesting=20 that after all these years you haven't changed  at=20 all
Who has, but the environment?   .

When the second 1H = bid is=20 made, unless it is accepted by the opponents, it is CANCELLED.  = That=20 means it never happened. 
  I tried to get out of this, since not only no person ever = changes but=20 even opinions never change, so what sense do discussions make? But = now my=20 name was mentioned, a clever way to get me involved again. = Could you, = Kojak,  tell me why=20 cancelling something means that it never happened. I assume that you = are not=20 talking about something that didn't happen yet and has been = cancelled. Then=20 I agree: the worldchampionships in Bali 2001 never happened and were = cancelled. But the IB did happen and then was cancelled. Didn' t it = occur=20 anymore? Strange conclusion. We could try to define 'cancelling'  as you see it, = but even=20 then we don't solve this case since the laws don't speak about = cancellation=20 here, but describe the situation as ' as though the irregularity has = not=20 occurred', whatever that means.      That means it doesn't = exist.  That=20 means that there can be no information on the table  for either = side=20 reference this call.   With your trick you might be right but in real live you = might be=20 wrong.  
I'm not sure what you = (and Ton,=20 according to your message) are saying, but  nobody may take any = inference about  a no longer existng call,unless the non- = offenders=20 want to do so at their own risk..  After that the TD is tasked = -- yea=20 -- tasked to use his noodle and arrive at an adjustment, if needed, = to fix=20 things.

Now, I'm sure that you would like to have a route = that takes=20 all responsibility  off your shoulders, makes it a recipe, and = involves=20 no thinking.  But, thank God (both yours and mine),  = that's not=20 what the Law says.
  I know Israel for almost 20 years now, we first met in = Wiesbaden=20 1983, but I don't know him as an non thinking automatic. We probably = are=20 equally astonished that this issue could come up without the same = clear=20 answer for all of us. I disagree with you (if you say so) and = Grattan ( if=20 he said so) - from both thinking you say so - and possibly others = that the=20 TD here can do what he thinks to be right, leaving it to the AC to = do what=20 it thinks to be right.   ton

At the risk of = repeating=20 myself, let me again say, "if you're can't stand the heat, stay = out of=20 the kitchen..."  I understand this may be particularly = difficult=20 for you after the Venice Cup appeal  by the Women in Paris = (which was=20 ridiculous and only at Mrs. Berman's behest),  but, hey fellow, = that's=20 the game.

We PLAY bridge at the table. When things go wrong = we try to=20 adjust them as fairly as possible, and when we do, then WE are = subject to=20 having to justify our actions. 

Mazeltov, =20 Kojak
------=_NextPart_000_0149_01C1F3A2.67635860-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 5 08:52:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g44Mpde25519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 May 2002 08:51:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g44MpXH25515 for ; Sun, 5 May 2002 08:51:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.74.29]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GVL003LOYXRXC@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 05 May 2002 01:39:30 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 01:41:03 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] IB and the Laws To: David Stevenson , Grattan Endicott , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: ayala hiler , John Probst , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <002901c1f3c5$28ae4120$1d4a003e@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-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear Bmlists I was aTD for over 40 years [not active for 12] English isn't my mother language, I started typing about a year ago, and the process of writing i.e putting my thoughts on paper extremely difficult. Therefore I tried to Get across my message by examples of rulings at the table. You apparently did not like it [no feedback] but this is the best I can do. This time I am even asking you to help me find the applicable Laws. I have waited all that time for somebody to tackle it as nobody did ,so here it is. The bidding goes 1H -P - 1H TD . The TD arrives reads the Law explains the options and asks S whether he accepts the 1H bid S - first tell me please *why don't you apply Law 24* TD - Law 24 is about an exposed card - something different. S - Not at all - They play 5card majors so E named [exposed] *5 cards* TD rules E must pass when next is his turn to call, and advises E/W that they have the right to appeal. BTW In any further discussions this fact is to be taken into account. Most probably E has no way to show that he has 5+ H in his hand. Best regards 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 Sun May 5 09:59:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g44NwXa25557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 May 2002 09:58:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g44NwSH25553 for ; Sun, 5 May 2002 09:58:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id g.173.7c77b46 (4402); Sat, 4 May 2002 19:45:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <173.7c77b46.2a05ccb0@aol.com> Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 19:45:52 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws To: erdnbaum@netvision.net.il, bridge@blakjak.com, cyaxares@lineone.net, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: nemeshh@012.net.il, john@probst.demon.co.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_173.7c77b46.2a05ccb0_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_173.7c77b46.2a05ccb0_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Bmlists I was aTD for over 40 years [not active for 12] English isn't my mother language, I started typing about a year ago, and the process of writing i.e putting my thoughts on paper extremely difficult. You do better than most whose native language is not English. Even an American English user has no trouble understanding you. Therefore I tried to Get across my message by examples of rulings at the table. You apparently did not like it [no feedback] but this is the best I can do. This time I am even asking you to help me find the applicable Laws. I have waited all that time for somebody to tackle it as nobody did ,so here it is. So I'll try. The bidding goes 1H -P - 1H TD . The TD arrives reads the Law explains the options and asks S whether he accepts the 1H bid S - first tell me please *why don't you apply Law 24* TD - Law 24 is about an exposed card - something different. S - Not at all - They play 5card majors so E named [exposed] *5 cards* TD rules E must pass when next is his turn to call, and advises E/W that they have the right to appeal. Why? Why would the TD change his mind? Who is South? BTW In any further discussions this fact is to be taken into account. Most probably E has no way to show that he has 5+ H in his hand. Let's make sure I have this right, before I get it wrong. West bid one heart, North passed, East bid One Heart , and you were called to the table. South now brings out a question based on incorrect knowledge of the meaning, wording, purpose, and applicability of Law 24. I would read the Law to him/her -- particularly the part about the "...were in a position for the face to be seen..." try to explain that this is not an applicable Law, and then go to Law 27, as I presume you tried to do. Has anyone "faced" a card? " I don't find it hard to restrict the meaning of "exposed" in this case to being synonymous with "faced." Remember the headings in the Law Book you are probably looking at are not part of the Law, and the only place "exposed" shows up is in 24 C where it states "...if two or more cards are SO exposed,.....(italics mine)..." clearly again reinforcing and explaining the Law's meaning to be cards that are faced. Then I think you find yourself in 27 B 1.(b) if you "...judge that the insufficient bid conveys such information as to damage the non-offending side....." Are you suggesting that East deliberately infringed Law 72 B 2? If this is a contention (one I would never make as a TD) of the South player I would advise South of the seriousness of his apparent accusation and his rights to bring this to a Conduct and Ethics Committee. Should he/she not wish to do so, I would insist upon an apology to the opponents. In any case I would record this incident to myself in whatever manner I had available for possible future consideration for action under Laws 74, 75, and 91. Best regards Israel PS. No longer active? What're doing with yourself? --part1_173.7c77b46.2a05ccb0_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Bmlists
I was aTD for over 40 years [not active for 12] English isn't my mother
language, I started typing about a year ago, and the process of writing i.e
putting my thoughts on paper extremely difficult.

You do better than most whose native language is not English. Even an American English user has no trouble understanding you.

Therefore I tried to Get across my message by examples of rulings at the
table. You apparently did not like it [no feedback] but this is the best I
can do.
This time I am even asking you to help me find the applicable Laws.
I have waited all that time for somebody to tackle it as nobody did ,so here
it is.

So I'll try.

The bidding goes 1H -P - 1H  TD . The TD arrives reads the Law explains the
options and asks S
whether he accepts the 1H bid
S -  first tell me please *why don't you apply Law 24*
TD -  Law 24 is about an exposed card - something different.
S - Not at all  - They play 5card majors so E named [exposed]  *5 cards*

TD rules E must pass when next is his turn to call, and advises E/W that
they have the right to appeal.

Why? Why would the TD change his mind? Who is South?

BTW In any further discussions this fact is to be taken into account. Most
probably E has no way to show that he has 5+ H in his hand.

Let's make sure I have this right, before I get it wrong.

West bid one heart,  North passed, East bid  One Heart , and you were called to the table.

South now brings out a question based on incorrect knowledge of the meaning, wording, purpose, and applicability of Law 24. 

I would read the Law to him/her -- particularly the part about the "...were in a position for the face to be seen..." try to explain that this is not an applicable Law, and then go to Law 27, as I presume you tried to do. Has anyone "faced" a card? " I don't find it hard to restrict the meaning of "exposed" in this case to being synonymous with "faced."  Remember the headings in the Law Book you are probably looking at are not part of the Law, and the only place  "exposed" shows up is in 24 C where it states "...if two or more cards are SO exposed,.....(italics mine)..." clearly again reinforcing and explaining the Law's meaning to be cards that are faced.

Then I think you find yourself in 27 B 1.(b) if you "...judge that the insufficient bid conveys such information as to damage the non-offending side....."
Are you suggesting that East deliberately infringed Law 72 B 2?  If this is a contention (one I would never make as a TD) of the South player I would advise South of the seriousness of his apparent accusation and his rights to bring this to a Conduct and Ethics Committee. Should he/she not wish to do so, I would insist upon an apology to the opponents.


In any case I would record this incident to myself in whatever manner I had available for possible future consideration for action under Laws 74, 75, and 91.

Best regards
Israel

PS.  No longer active? What're doing with yourself?



--part1_173.7c77b46.2a05ccb0_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 5 22:34:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g45CXL625895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 May 2002 22:33:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail3.svr.pol.co.uk (mail3.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g45CXEH25891 for ; Sun, 5 May 2002 22:33:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-37.coral-beauty.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.252.37] helo=4nrw70j) by mail3.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 174L0x-0005P3-00; Sun, 05 May 2002 13:21:20 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c1f42f$832ba380$25fc883e@4nrw70j> From: "grandeval" To: "David Stevenson" , "bridge-laws" References: <007f01c1eb89$f8dc0420$3e5f003e@mycomputer> <000901c1f098$50b32ee0$e64e003e@mycomputer> <8W6RVAFFGc08Ewv2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 13:21:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:45 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > This also has support from some important people, > notably Ton, and the top French TDs. It should not >be lightly dismissed. > +=+ I do not dismiss it lightly. I say the TDs are empowered to make such a decision. They simply judge the information from the IB is not such as to damage the NOS. But it is not an automatic decision. They are required to judge so in each case. +=+ > ------------------ \x/ -------------------------- > This approach has also got strong support. Kojak > appears to support it, possibly Grattan as well, though it > is not entirely clear. Sven takes this line. > +=+ My position is more complex. We are mixing in this thread, as we often do, oil and water. This is what I say: Firstly, the function of the Laws Committee is to interpret the law. It says what the words mean. In this I have been defending a simple matter of English language. The Law says that Law 16C2 does not apply, but that the Director may judge that the information from the IB is 'such as to damage the non-offending side'. I have drawn attention to the fact that the use of 'but' in 27B1(a) has the effect of expressing an exception that says whilst 16C2 does not apply in this situation nevertheless 27B1(b) does apply. This is concerned with a judgement to be made by the Director. That is as far as interpretation of the Law, and the Laws Committee's responsibility goes. We now move out of the oil into the water. It is the responsibility of the Director, and of the appeals committee, to judge how the meaning of the Law applies to the facts of each particular case. Kaplan was of the opinion that whenever such a bid showed an opening hand the information is 'such as to damage'; the French Directors, if I understand David correctly, are of the view that it never does. My standpoint is that neither of these positions is correct; when the IB shows an opening hand it *may* be a case for invoking 27B1(b) since the Director (or AC) may judge that in the particular circumstances the "insufficient bid conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side" (sic). Information from any remark etc. of the infractor is in any case UI. What we are discussing here is information from the insufficient bid itself. In the 1992 commentary we used an illustration where it was wholly apparent from the IB itself that it was made on an opening hand. In the example that David put forward the 4H bid was seemingly based on the belief that the IB was made on a hand with opening values. I have introduced a question that the Director should be exploring - 'why did the player think so and why did he not allow that it might have been an overcall or a response to one of a minor?'. I have also, as an aside, looked at the possibility if the players are astute that the simple correction to 2H and the jump to 4H may reflect (i) the desire of the second player not to prevent unlimited partner from reaching a higher contract than 4H, and (ii) a message conveyed by the 4H bid that he does not wish to explore other potential contracts. These were matters that the Director no doubt addressed before allowing the contract to stand. It is also open to question why, in not substituting 4H immediately for his IB, did the player risk partner's possible pass? Could he not only do so if he was confident that partner knew his insufficient bid was an opener, or at least that he would not pass? Is he not either confident the IB conveyed such a message or that the message has been conveyed otherwise? Or do they have an agreement about such situations? In the case quoted by David, I am therefore suspicious of the facts. I allow that the Director has acted within his powers, whatever he decides, but I expect him not to have made his ruling robotically according to a law that does not exist. "Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." I look back to Edgar Kaplan and wonder if his perception penetrated more deeply than I knew. ~ 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 May 6 00:09:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g45E94B25963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 May 2002 00:09:04 +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.tiscali.com [212.74.114.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g45E8xH25959 for ; Mon, 6 May 2002 00:08:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.64.131.43] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 174MVX-000L04-00; Sun, 05 May 2002 14:56:59 +0100 Message-ID: <001601c1f43c$ee2fa700$f804e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ton Kooijman" , , "Israel Erdnbaum" , "bridge-laws" References: <014c01c1f391$b2d07d20$8edef1c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 14:57:27 +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, May 04, 2002 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws > I tried to get out of this, since not only no person ever changes but even opinions never change, so what sense do discussions make? But now my name was mentioned, a clever way to get me involved again. > Could you, Kojak, tell me why cancelling something means that it never happened. I assume that you are not talking about something that didn't happen yet and has been cancelled. Then I agree: the worldchampionships in Bali 2001 never happened and were cancelled. But the IB did happen and then was cancelled. Didn' t it occur anymore? Strange conclusion. > We could try to define 'cancelling' as you see it, but even then we don't solve this case since the laws don't speak about cancellation here, but describe the situation as ' as though the irregularity has not occurred', whatever that means. > +=+ I think, ton, that it is certainly right to question the use of 'cancel' here. I can think of Laws 10B, 27B3, and 34 as places where the laws refer to things being cancelled. There may be others. But they do not seem to include 27B1 where the reference is to the bid being 'corrected' - and I could infer from the mention of Law 16C2 that the insufficient bid is to be considered 'withdrawn' but I do not know about that - perhaps it exists together with its correction? That might fit with the fact that, first, 16C2 does not apply since nothing is withdrawn, and secondly, that the Director has to decide something about the information conveyed. Something withdrawn did happen and was then taken away; if one withdraws a remark or an opinion it is to be disregarded. The concept of correction could be thought to imply that what we then have in place is an error plus its correction. As to what that follows, in terms of the Director's action, this is something that I have expressed an opinion on, most recently earlier today in reply at length to David Stevenson. ~ 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 May 6 06:19:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g45KHTx26132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 May 2002 06:17:29 +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 g45KHOH26128 for ; Mon, 6 May 2002 06:17:25 +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 QAA19337 for ; Sun, 5 May 2002 16:05:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA21458 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 5 May 2002 16:05:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 16:05:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205052005.QAA21458@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From Grattan, at a new account: > ...the use of 'but' in 27B1(a) has the > effect of expressing an exception that says whilst 16C2 > does not apply in this situation nevertheless 27B1(b) does > apply. I don't think I've seen anyone disagree with this. > That is as far as interpretation of the Law, and the Laws > Committee's responsibility goes. Not quite, I'm afraid. Isn't it up to the LC (or perhaps related bodies) to define what constitutes damage? The CoP says something to the effect of "any reduction in the table score for the NOS from what would have been expected immediately prior to the irregularity." (These are not the exact words, but I'm fairly sure they express the intent.) Where the CoP is in place, the definition of damage reduces to deciding what constitutes "the irregularity." It would seem we still need some guidance on that point. The "French view" appears to be that the only irregularity is the IB itself, while the "English view" is (evidently) that the irregularity is something after the IB has already been made. Both groups are happy to apply L27B1b when they judge that damage has occurred; it is the difference of opinion about damage that leads to the different results. > It is the responsibility of the Director, and > of the appeals committee, to judge how the meaning of the > Law applies to the facts of each particular case. Indeed so. > I have introduced a question that the Director should > be exploring - 'why did the player think so and why did he > not allow that it might have been an overcall or a response > to one of a minor?'. Indeed a good point. Even if there is no obvious UI, the position is so strange that there is likely to have been some subtle UI available. It would seem to be the TD's duty to explore the possibility. There is still an interesting question for BLML (and perhaps for the LC or CoP group) of how to rule if no relevant UI can be found. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 6 07:38:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g45LcBH26168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 May 2002 07:38:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g45Lc6H26164 for ; Mon, 6 May 2002 07:38:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.94.92]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GVN0090RQ79WD@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 06 May 2002 00:26:00 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 00:27:32 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] IB To: Schoderb@aol.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: ayala hiler , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <002001c1f484$0e380fa0$5c5e003e@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-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear Kojak It was a pleasure to get your note,because it brought back pleasant memories from New Orleans. After a long tough day on the floor ,in the early hours of the morning we [and Joachim von Richthofen] sat in the bar and talked *not about bridge. About "taking all responsibility off my shoulders' and "staying out of the kitchen" this usually applies to politics.I not only stayed out of politics ,but since I stated [and was quoted] back in 1974 that there should be no appeals commitees ,I was not the politicians favourite. But I 'stood the heat' and took all the responsibility on the *floor. For me it always meant not waiting for the call but anticipating it ,so no sitting at thae TD desk ,no talking with other TDs but just walking the floor . As a result I can say that I probably took at least twice so many calls as any other TD.-- And I had one appeal - rejected. I probably took the 'heat' and 'responsibility' not so badly and whenthe EBL decided to award to 5 TD the title of Honorary Chief Tournament Director I was one of them the other four being Harold Franklin , Jo van der Borre, Irene de Heredia and J.Pitoeff. In 1989 I retired, and since then have no contact with any Bridge organisation - so, sorry but the first I heard about Paris and an appeal was from your note. BTW if you are in contact with Joachim ,give him my regards please. Mazal Ubracha 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 Mon May 6 08:32:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g45MWWe26198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 May 2002 08:32:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g45MWQH26194 for ; Mon, 6 May 2002 08:32:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.94.92]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GVN00ABMSPVCM@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 06 May 2002 01:20:22 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 01:21:54 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] IB and the Laws To: Grattan Endicott , Schoderb@aol.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: John Probst , ayala hiler , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <001901c1f48b$a691f7a0$5c5e003e@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-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear BLMLists In these postings I try to find ways to protect the NOS. Pairs ,Matchpoints Board No.1 N dealer N P - E 1H- S P - W 1H N TD The TD reads the Law and explains the options N accepts the bid and passes E/W reach 4H N TD! The TD arrives and N asks to be protected in case E used UI Afterwards the TD adjusts the score based on Law 72 B1 Best regards 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 Mon May 6 09:22:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g45NLpw26233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 May 2002 09:21:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m09.mx.aol.com (imo-m09.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.164]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g45NLkH26229 for ; Mon, 6 May 2002 09:21:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id g.76.1bd44af1 (26119); Sun, 5 May 2002 19:09:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <76.1bd44af1.2a0715b3@aol.com> Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 19:09:39 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws To: erdnbaum@netvision.net.il, cyaxares@lineone.net, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: john@probst.demon.co.uk, nemeshh@012.net.il MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_76.1bd44af1.2a0715b3_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_76.1bd44af1.2a0715b3_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Fine, but this is not the sequence you proposed the first time. If it goes like this, you are doing what I would recommend, but when S comes in with the question before any action or explanation of the Laws and decisions are made by the players you have what is commonly referred to as a different "kettle of fish." Kojak --part1_76.1bd44af1.2a0715b3_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Fine, but this is not the sequence you proposed the first time.  If it goes like this, you are doing what I would recommend, but when S comes in with the question before any action or explanation of the Laws and decisions are made by the players you have what is commonly referred to as a different "kettle of fish."

Kojak
--part1_76.1bd44af1.2a0715b3_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 6 11:11:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g461AZE26275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 May 2002 11:10:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g461ATH26271 for ; Mon, 6 May 2002 11:10:30 +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 g4610L504085 for ; Sun, 5 May 2002 17:00:22 -0800 Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 16:55:33 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Levity Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Given all the hot and heavy debates we've been having lately, I thought I'd post something fun I found in my lawbook today. Some of you may have seen it before: LAW 87. Fouled board A. Definition A board is considered to be "fooled" if the Director determines that one or more cards were misplaced in the board, in such manner that contestants who should have had a direct score comparison did not play the board in identical form. Yes, that's really what it says. (ACBL laws, second edition, November 1997.) It has been fixed on the web page. A very Freudian slip, though, considering the kinds of foolishness that most common result in the fooling of a board in my club. 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 Mon May 6 13:56:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g463uHC26400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 May 2002 13:56:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe34.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g463uCH26396 for ; Mon, 6 May 2002 13:56:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 5 May 2002 20:44:15 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [209.244.117.158] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <014c01c1f391$b2d07d20$8edef1c3@tkooij> <001601c1f43c$ee2fa700$f804e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 11:18:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 May 2002 03:44:15.0458 (UTC) FILETIME=[4B1B3420:01C1F4B0] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Ton Kooijman ; ; Israel Erdnbaum ; bridge-laws Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws | | Grattan Endicott | To: ; | ; | | Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 6:32 PM | Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws | | | | > I tried to get out of this, since not only no person ever | changes but even opinions never change, so what sense | do discussions make? But now my name was mentioned, | a clever way to get me involved again. | > Could you, Kojak, tell me why cancelling something | means that it never happened. I assume that you are not | talking about something that didn't happen yet and has | been cancelled. Then I agree: the worldchampionships | in Bali 2001 never happened and were cancelled. But | the IB did happen and then was cancelled. Didn' t it | occur anymore? Strange conclusion. | > We could try to define 'cancelling' as you see it, but | even then we don't solve this case since the laws don't | speak about cancellation here, but describe the situation | as ' as though the irregularity has not occurred', whatever | that means. | > | +=+ I think, ton, that it is certainly right to question | the use of 'cancel' here. I can think of Laws 10B, 27B3, | and 34 as places where the laws refer to things being | cancelled. There may be others. But they do not seem | to include 27B1 where the reference is to the bid being | 'corrected' - and I could infer from the mention of | Law 16C2 that the insufficient bid is to be considered | 'withdrawn' but I do not know about that - perhaps it | exists together with its correction? That might fit with | the fact that, first, 16C2 does not apply since nothing | is withdrawn, and secondly, that the Director has to | decide something about the information conveyed. | Something withdrawn did happen and was then taken | away; if one withdraws a remark or an opinion it is to | be disregarded. The concept of correction could be | thought to imply that what we then have in place is | an error plus its correction. As to what that follows, | in terms of the Director's action, this is something | that I have expressed an opinion on, most recently | earlier today in reply at length to David Stevenson. | ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I was under the impression that the reason that 16C2 did not apply was not because no call was cancelled but because 27B1a said so. In other words, if the orignal call is not canceled [or whatever you want to call it] upon correction it would have been no need to put anything in 27B1a about 16C2 to avoid applying 16C2. What strikes Israel and I as unfair is for the OS to get three or four turns during a rotation of the bidding which is what happens if IB's are left alive after correction: 1H- P- 1H and 2H- P 2H and 3H- P- 3S- P 4D- P- 4H---- 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 May 6 17:49:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g467mnd26552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 May 2002 17:48:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (zomeruniversiteit.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g467mhH26548 for ; Mon, 6 May 2002 17:48:44 +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 JAA19364; Mon, 6 May 2002 09:35:26 +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 JAA06873; Mon, 6 May 2002 09:36:41 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020506093812.025abaa0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 09:42:52 +0200 To: Gordon Bower , Bridge Laws Mailing List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Levity In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g467mjH26549 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:55 5/05/2002 -0800, Gordon Bower wrote: >LAW 87. Fouled board > >A. Definition > >A board is considered to be "fooled" if the Director determines that one >or more cards were misplaced in the board, in such manner that contestants >who should have had a direct score comparison did not play the board in >identical form. > >Yes, that's really what it says. (ACBL laws, second edition, November >1997.) It has been fixed on the web page. A very Freudian slip, though, >considering the kinds of foolishness that most common result in the >fooling of a board in my club. AG : now I understand what Gilbert Montagné meant : No, non don't make me play The fooled 'Cause the thing you ask Is not permitted by the rules ... (he really pronounces 'the fool' as if it were 'the fooled') -:)ly yours, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 6 18:58:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g468vTM26586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 May 2002 18:57:29 +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 [212.74.114.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g468vNH26578 for ; Mon, 6 May 2002 18:57:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.18.214] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 174e7V-0002Co-00; Mon, 06 May 2002 09:45:21 +0100 Message-ID: <005601c1f4da$90eec6e0$d612e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Roger Pewick" , "blml" References: <014c01c1f391$b2d07d20$8edef1c3@tkooij> <001601c1f43c$ee2fa700$f804e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 08:57:30 +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: "blml" Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 5:18 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws -------- \x/ ---------- > > I was under the impression that the reason that 16C2 did > not apply was not because no call was cancelled but > because 27B1a said so. In other words, if the orignal call > is not canceled [or whatever you want to call it] upon > correction it would have been no need to put anything > in 27B1a about 16C2 to avoid applying 16C2. > > What strikes Israel and I as unfair is for the OS to get > three or four turns during a rotation of the bidding which > is what happens if IB's are left alive after correction: > > 1H- P- 1H and 2H- P > 2H and 3H- P- 3S- P > 4D- P- 4H---- > +=+ Fair enough. I was not making any assertion about it - by 'correction' the first call is probably withdrawn and substituted. I was reflecting upon a lack of definition of the implications of 'correction'. However, the point is not very significant since Law 27B establishes the position for the Director. ~ 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 May 6 18:58:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g468vXl26587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 May 2002 18:57:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g468vQH26582 for ; Mon, 6 May 2002 18:57:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.18.214] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 174e7Y-0002Co-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 06 May 2002 09:45:24 +0100 Message-ID: <005801c1f4da$92dd2960$d612e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <200205052005.QAA21458@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 09:45:22 +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: Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 9:05 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > From Grattan, at a new account: +=+ Actually fairly longstanding, but not one from which I normally post to blml. I was doing other work on it and opened up the blml folder used as a kind of 'archive'. +=+ > > > That is as far as interpretation of the Law, and the Laws > > Committee's responsibility goes. > > Not quite, I'm afraid. Isn't it up to the LC (or perhaps related > bodies) to define what constitutes damage? The CoP says > something to the effect of "any reduction in the table score for > the NOS from what would have been expected immediately > prior to the irregularity." > (These are not the exact words, but I'm fairly sure they > express the intent.) > +=+ Strangely the WBFLC minutes do not seem to record any discussion of 'damage'. Perhaps I have not read them carefully enough, you would think the subject sufficiently significant to have come up some time or other. Or it may be that the existence of damage is a matter of bridge judgement, an area on which the Laws Committee may comment if it wishes, but which it is the prerogative of others to decide. (Twice in recent years the WBFLC has been urged to stick to its own concerns and not to trespass into the fields of other authorities.) The CoP is an official WBF document. Even where it is not 'in force' it is still referable for the WBF standpoint. It is not a WBFLC product. As to what the laws say, possibly the clue lies in 73C; damage from UI would seem to occur if an advantage accrues to the player from the possession of it. Maybe that could be expressed more positively. +=+ > > Where the CoP is in place, the definition of damage > reduces to deciding what constitutes "the irregularity." > It would seem we still need some guidance on that point. > The "French view" appears to be that the only irregularity > is the IB itself, while the "English view" is (evidently) > that the irregularity is something after the IB has already > been made. > +=+ I think you have made a quantum leap here. I do not see the relevance of 'what constitutes the irregularity' to the application of 27B1(b). This section of the Laws is concerned with information "that the insufficient bid conveyed" and the questions for the Director are what information the insufficient bid conveyed, and whether the OS gained an advantage from that information. For information conveyed otherwise than from the IB it does not require an irregularity to convey UI, but only that the information is conveyed extraneously to the ways authorised for communication between partners. The irregularity arises in its use. ~ 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 May 7 00:45:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g46EhZb26866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 May 2002 00:43:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g46EhTH26862 for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 00:43:30 +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 KAA17987 for ; Mon, 6 May 2002 10:31:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA04814 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 May 2002 10:31:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 10:31:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205061431.KAA04814@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" > +=+ Strangely the WBFLC minutes do not seem to record > any discussion of 'damage'. I apologize for having confused the CoP group with the LC. They have some connection in my mind and (I think) some members in common, but indeed they are separate bodies. > The CoP is an official WBF document. Even where it > is not 'in force' it is still referable for the WBF standpoint. > It is not a WBFLC product. Thanks for the clarification. > +=+ I think you have made a quantum leap here. I do not > see the relevance of 'what constitutes the irregularity' to > the application of 27B1(b). This section of the Laws is > concerned with information "that the insufficient bid > conveyed" and the questions for the Director are what > information the insufficient bid conveyed, and whether > the OS gained an advantage from that information. The "quantum leap" is to equate my "damage to the NOS" with your "OS gained an advantage." I really don't see how those are different. In order for there to be any adjustment, there has to be damage. I hope we all agree on that much, at least. > For information conveyed otherwise than from the > IB it does not require an irregularity to convey UI, but > only that the information is conveyed extraneously to > the ways authorised for communication between > partners. The irregularity arises in its use. Why are we talking about UI? We all understand how to rule when UI is present. The problem is that there is (apparently) no UI when L27B1 applies (unless, of course, there are remarks or such that are separate from the IB itself). The difference between the "French" and "English" views can be reduced to this question: when East makes an IB and then corrects under L27B1a, is there an irregularity on the part of West if he guesses what East has and uses that information? Or is the only irregularity the IB itself? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 7 02:58:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g46Gr7k26924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 May 2002 02:53:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g46Gr1H26920 for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 02:53:02 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g46Gf0O27533 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 May 2002 17:41:00 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 17:41 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] 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: <000b01c1f42f$832ba380$25fc883e@4nrw70j> grandeval" wrote: > These were matters that the Director no doubt > addressed before allowing the contract to stand. It is also > open to question why, in not substituting 4H immediately > for his IB, did the player risk partner's possible pass? > Could he not only do so if he was confident that partner > knew his insufficient bid was an opener, or at least that he > would not pass? Is he not either confident the IB conveyed > such a message or that the message has been conveyed > otherwise? Or do they have an agreement about such > situations? Does one need an agreement? Surely by pure bridge logic the *only* hands on which a competent player would bid 2H are those where he wants partner to bid again. If one has a weak hand and finds oneself in this situation a pre-emptive correction to 3H (or even 4H) makes sense. Opponents will rarely be in a position to double and partner will be barred so he can't go overboard. As partner of an IBer I would assume that because he has corrected in the only way that leaves me as an active participant in the auction it means that a failure to co-operate is not an LA. One probably hasn't had any discussion about this situation (unless addicted to BLML) but if one is generally a believer in "fast arrival" then 4H is probably the right bid. 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 May 7 03:17:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g46HHax26977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 May 2002 03:17:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g46HHVH26973 for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 03:17:31 +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 g46H5b904602 for ; Mon, 6 May 2002 10:05:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001001c1f520$2fba9480$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200205052005.QAA21458@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 10:05:08 -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: "Steve Willner" >. Isn't it up to the LC (or perhaps related > bodies) to define what constitutes damage? > The CoP says something to > the effect of "any reduction in the table score for the NOS from what > would have been expected immediately prior to the irregularity." > (These are not the exact words, but I'm fairly sure they express the > intent.) > I haven't been into this thread, but this reminds me of what the LC said at Lille: "...advantage gained by an offender...shall be construed as an advantage in the table score whether consequent or subsequent to the infraction." Which is to say that even if the NOS isn't damaged by an irregularity (as when an irrational act is what actually damages them), the OS will be treated as though damage had been inflicted. 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 May 7 05:42:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g46JfmB27059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 May 2002 05:41:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout3.netvision.net.il (mxout3.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.24]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g46JfhH27055 for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 05:41:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.80.129]) by mxout3.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GVP00GMMFHKR0@mxout3.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 06 May 2002 22:30:01 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 22:30:23 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, "Marvin L. French" Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <001c01c1f53c$f6137e00$8150003e@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: <200205052005.QAA21458@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001001c1f520$2fba9480$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Are you sayin that if after W 1H N P E 1C TD!! and after hearing the options E bids a 25 % 6 NT which makes because of an extreme ly lucky lead "the OS will be treated as though damage has been inflicted"*. Does that mean that NOS will get redress?? Of course 6NT bid and made is an absolute 'top' for OS. Best regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 7:05 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > From: "Steve Willner" > > >. Isn't it up to the LC (or perhaps related > > bodies) to define what constitutes damage? > > The CoP says something to > > the effect of "any reduction in the table score for the NOS from what > > would have been expected immediately prior to the irregularity." > > (These are not the exact words, but I'm fairly sure they express the > > intent.) > > > I haven't been into this thread, but this reminds me of what the LC said at > Lille: > > "...advantage gained by an offender...shall be construed as an advantage in > the table score whether consequent or subsequent to the infraction." > > Which is to say that even if the NOS isn't damaged by an irregularity (as > when an irrational act is what actually damages them), the OS will be > treated as though damage had been inflicted. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 7 06:03:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g46K3CK27077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 May 2002 06:03:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout3.netvision.net.il (mxout3.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.24]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g46K36H27073 for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 06:03:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.76.59]) by mxout3.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GVP00GUAGHLTS@mxout3.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 06 May 2002 22:51:25 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 22:52:02 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Schoderb@aol.com Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <002e01c1f53f$f2723400$3b4c003e@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_ruU4b8HpKqcUv0vi0JpqRw)" 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_ruU4b8HpKqcUv0vi0JpqRw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I admit a bad idea , a bad example. Let's forget about it. ----- Original Message ----- From: Israel Erdnbaum To: ayala hiler Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 2:39 PM Subject: Fw: [BLML] IB and the Laws ----- Original Message ----- From: Schoderb@aol.com To: erdnbaum@netvision.net.il ; bridge@blakjak.com ; cyaxares@lineone.net ; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: nemeshh@012.net.il ; john@probst.demon.co.uk Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 1:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws Dear Bmlists I was aTD for over 40 years [not active for 12] English isn't my mother language, I started typing about a year ago, and the process of writing i.e putting my thoughts on paper extremely difficult. You do better than most whose native language is not English. Even an American English user has no trouble understanding you. Therefore I tried to Get across my message by examples of rulings at the table. You apparently did not like it [no feedback] but this is the best I can do. This time I am even asking you to help me find the applicable Laws. I have waited all that time for somebody to tackle it as nobody did ,so here it is. So I'll try. The bidding goes 1H -P - 1H TD . The TD arrives reads the Law explains the options and asks S whether he accepts the 1H bid S - first tell me please *why don't you apply Law 24* TD - Law 24 is about an exposed card - something different. S - Not at all - They play 5card majors so E named [exposed] *5 cards* TD rules E must pass when next is his turn to call, and advises E/W that they have the right to appeal. Why? Why would the TD change his mind? Who is South? BTW In any further discussions this fact is to be taken into account. Most probably E has no way to show that he has 5+ H in his hand. Let's make sure I have this right, before I get it wrong. West bid one heart, North passed, East bid One Heart , and you were called to the table. South now brings out a question based on incorrect knowledge of the meaning, wording, purpose, and applicability of Law 24. I would read the Law to him/her -- particularly the part about the "...were in a position for the face to be seen..." try to explain that this is not an applicable Law, and then go to Law 27, as I presume you tried to do. Has anyone "faced" a card? " I don't find it hard to restrict the meaning of "exposed" in this case to being synonymous with "faced." Remember the headings in the Law Book you are probably looking at are not part of the Law, and the only place "exposed" shows up is in 24 C where it states "...if two or more cards are SO exposed,.....(italics mine)..." clearly again reinforcing and explaining the Law's meaning to be cards that are faced. Then I think you find yourself in 27 B 1.(b) if you "...judge that the insufficient bid conveys such information as to damage the non-offending side....." Are you suggesting that East deliberately infringed Law 72 B 2? If this is a contention (one I would never make as a TD) of the South player I would advise South of the seriousness of his apparent accusation and his rights to bring this to a Conduct and Ethics Committee. Should he/she not wish to do so, I would insist upon an apology to the opponents. In any case I would record this incident to myself in whatever manner I had available for possible future consideration for action under Laws 74, 75, and 91. Best regards Israel PS. No longer active? What're doing with yourself? Thanks for asking. Am doing nothing ,but doing it well. Moreover I learned that the less I do, the less time I have Israel --Boundary_(ID_ruU4b8HpKqcUv0vi0JpqRw) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
I admit a bad idea , a bad example. Let's forget about it.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 2:39 PM
Subject: Fw: [BLML] IB and the Laws

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 1:45 AM
Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws

Dear Bmlists
I was aTD for over 40 years [not active for 12] English isn't my mother
language, I started typing about a year ago, and the process of writing i.e
putting my thoughts on paper extremely difficult.

You do better than most whose native language is not English. Even an American English user has no trouble understanding you.

Therefore I tried to Get across my message by examples of rulings at the
table. You apparently did not like it [no feedback] but this is the best I
can do.
This time I am even asking you to help me find the applicable Laws.
I have waited all that time for somebody to tackle it as nobody did ,so here
it is.

So I'll try.

The bidding goes 1H -P - 1H  TD . The TD arrives reads the Law explains the
options and asks S
whether he accepts the 1H bid
S -  first tell me please *why don't you apply Law 24*
TD -  Law 24 is about an exposed card - something different.
S - Not at all  - They play 5card majors so E named [exposed]  *5 cards*

TD rules E must pass when next is his turn to call, and advises E/W that
they have the right to appeal.

Why? Why would the TD change his mind? Who is South?

BTW In any further discussions this fact is to be taken into account. Most
probably E has no way to show that he has 5+ H in his hand.

Let's make sure I have this right, before I get it wrong.

West bid one heart,  North passed, East bid  One Heart , and you were called to the table.

South now brings out a question based on incorrect knowledge of the meaning, wording, purpose, and applicability of Law 24. 

I would read the Law to him/her -- particularly the part about the "...were in a position for the face to be seen..." try to explain that this is not an applicable Law, and then go to Law 27, as I presume you tried to do. Has anyone "faced" a card? " I don't find it hard to restrict the meaning of "exposed" in this case to being synonymous with "faced."  Remember the headings in the Law Book you are probably looking at are not part of the Law, and the only place  "exposed" shows up is in 24 C where it states "...if two or more cards are SO exposed,.....(italics mine)..." clearly again reinforcing and explaining the Law's meaning to be cards that are faced.

Then I think you find yourself in 27 B 1.(b) if you "...judge that the insufficient bid conveys such information as to damage the non-offending side....."
Are you suggesting that East deliberately infringed Law 72 B 2?  If this is a contention (one I would never make as a TD) of the South player I would advise South of the seriousness of his apparent accusation and his rights to bring this to a Conduct and Ethics Committee. Should he/she not wish to do so, I would insist upon an apology to the opponents.


In any case I would record this incident to myself in whatever manner I had available for possible future consideration for action under Laws 74, 75, and 91.

Best regards
Israel

PS.  No longer active? What're doing with yourself?

Thanks for asking.
Am doing nothing ,but doing it well. Moreover I learned that the less I do, the less time  I have
Israel

--Boundary_(ID_ruU4b8HpKqcUv0vi0JpqRw)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 7 06:14:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g46KDsU27094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 May 2002 06:13:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g46KDmH27090 for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 06:13:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0840.bb.online.no [80.212.211.72]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA26792 for ; Mon, 6 May 2002 22:01:47 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000d01c1f538$da9ed2e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200205052005.QAA21458@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001001c1f520$2fba9480$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <001c01c1f53c$f6137e00$8150003e@mycomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 22:01:42 +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: "Israel Erdnbaum" > Are you sayin that if after W 1H N P E 1C TD!! and after hearing the > options E bids a 25 % 6 NT which makes because of an extreme > ly lucky lead "the OS will be treated as though damage has been > inflicted"*. Does that mean that NOS will get redress?? > Of course 6NT bid and made is an absolute 'top' for OS. > Best regards > Israel ....... > > From: "Steve Willner" > > > > >. Isn't it up to the LC (or perhaps related > > > bodies) to define what constitutes damage? > > > The CoP says something to > > > the effect of "any reduction in the table score for the NOS from what > > > would have been expected immediately prior to the irregularity." > > > (These are not the exact words, but I'm fairly sure they express the > > > intent.) > > > > > I haven't been into this thread, but this reminds me of what the LC said > at > > Lille: > > > > "...advantage gained by an offender...shall be construed as an advantage > in > > the table score whether consequent or subsequent to the infraction." > > > > Which is to say that even if the NOS isn't damaged by an irregularity (as > > when an irrational act is what actually damages them), the OS will be > > treated as though damage had been inflicted. Here we go again: What constitutes "damage" - for the application of Law 27B1(b)? However, Law27B1(b) definitely does not apply if East just bids 6NT, he has no UI at all so Law 16 does not apply, and he "could not have known" at the time of his IB that this irregularity or the consequential enforced pass by West would be likely to damage NOS, therefore neither Law 23 nor Law72B1 applies. Is there any law left that permits (or authorizes) the Director to award an adjusted score for either OS or NOS here? I cannot think of any. Please spare me any argument on Law 12A1, Law 27B2 is the primary applicable law here, and after that law has been applied the only remaining relevant law that I can see is Law 12B which indeed prohibits the Director from making any adjustment. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 7 06:23:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g46KMgC27109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 May 2002 06:22:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g46KMaH27105 for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 06:22:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0840.bb.online.no [80.212.211.72]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA07543 for ; Mon, 6 May 2002 22:10:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001401c1f53a$15e4a9a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <002e01c1f53f$f2723400$3b4c003e@mycomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed card(s) Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 22:10:36 +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: "Israel Erdnbaum" > I admit a bad idea , a bad example. Let's forget about it. Indeed. But did you ever wonder why saying "I have the Ace of spades" (or words to that effect) makes the Ace of spades an exposed card if this happens during the play, but not if it happens during the auction? Compare Laws 24 and 49. I wonder if this is intentional? (In the very old days named cards were treated as exposed whether it happened during the auction or during the play) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 7 08:21:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g46MKtg27171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 May 2002 08:20:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g46MKmH27167 for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 08:20:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.74.35]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GVP00GANMUCTH@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 07 May 2002 01:08:38 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 01:09:33 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Sven Pran Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <002001c1f553$2da40860$234a003e@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: <200205052005.QAA21458@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001001c1f520$2fba9480$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <001c01c1f53c$f6137e00$8150003e@mycomputer> <000d01c1f538$da9ed2e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > (These are not the exact words, but I'm fairly sure they express the > > > > intent.) > > > > > > > > > > Which is to say that even if the NOS isn't damaged by an irregularity > (as > > > when an irrational act is what actually damages them), the OS will be > > > treated as though damage had been inflicted. Well Sven I am not going to argue at all ,certainly not about paragraphs,as I have a splitting headache. I did not understand the the above lines ,so I gave a practical example ,the NOS side are damaged not by the irregularity but by 'an irrational act' [probably caused by the irregularity] I hoped Steve will clarify how the OS will be treated ,and more important to me will in his opinion the NOS get redress. I admit all this is new to me , but I am ready to learn. Best regards Israel > Here we go again: > What constitutes "damage" - for the application of Law 27B1(b)? > > However, Law27B1(b) definitely does not apply if East just bids 6NT, > he has no UI at all so Law 16 does not apply, and he "could not have > known" at the time of his IB that this irregularity or the consequential > enforced pass by West would be likely to damage NOS, therefore > neither Law 23 nor Law72B1 applies. > > Is there any law left that permits (or authorizes) the Director to award an > adjusted score for either OS or NOS here? I cannot think of any. > > Please spare me any argument on Law 12A1, Law 27B2 is the > primary applicable law here, and after that law has been applied the > only remaining relevant law that I can see is Law 12B which indeed > prohibits the Director from making any adjustment. > > Sven > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 7 09:56:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g46Nu9Y27219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 May 2002 09:56:09 +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 [212.74.114.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g46Nu4H27215 for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 09:56:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.36.129] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 174s9A-0007Jr-00; Tue, 07 May 2002 00:44:00 +0100 Message-ID: <001201c1f558$1b941020$8124e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , "bridge-laws" References: <200205061431.KAA04814@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 00:44:13 +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: Monday, May 06, 2002 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > In order for there to be any adjustment, there has > to be damage. I hope we all agree on that much, at least. > +=+ Yes. Marvin draws attention to an interesting point in this connection. I have not yet thought over what he says. +=+ > > Why are we talking about UI? We all understand > how to rule when UI is present. The problem is that > there is (apparently) no UI when L27B1 applies (unless, > of course, there are remarks or such that are separate > from the IB itself). > +=+ My turn to apologize because I confused the point with an aside about the general situation with UI. +=+ > > The difference between the "French" and "English" > views can be reduced to this question: when East > makes an IB and then corrects under L27B1a, is > there an irregularity on the part of West if he > guesses what East has and uses that information? > Or is the only irregularity the IB itself? > +=+ The point I have tried to make is that the application of 27B1(b) does not depend in any way at all upon what irregularities may occur after there has been an insufficient bid. It depends solely upon whether the Director judges that the IB conveyed information that was such as to damage the NOS. Nor is there is any reference to UI in 27B1(b); the question concerns *any* information conveyed by the IB that leads to damage. The Director is not required to find that the information is UI, only that its source was the IB and it led to damage. If West 'guesses' what East has and acts upon it, he is acting upon information that he believes to have been conveyed by the IB. Correct 'guessing' is evidence of a message received. ~ 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 May 7 17:49:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g477mvm27422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 May 2002 17:48:57 +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-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g477mpH27418 for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 17:48:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.9.200] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 174zZ4-000ANZ-00; Tue, 07 May 2002 08:39:15 +0100 Message-ID: <000401c1f59a$28671ee0$c809e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <200205052005.QAA21458@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001001c1f520$2fba9480$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 08:28:49 +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: Monday, May 06, 2002 6:05 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > I haven't been into this thread, but this reminds me >of what the LC said at Lille: > > "...advantage gained by an offender...shall be > construed as an advantage in the table score whether > consequent or subsequent to the infraction." > > Which is to say that even if the NOS isn't damaged > by an irregularity (as when an irrational act is what > actually damages them), the OS will be treated as > though damage had been inflicted. > +=+ This is indeed what the WBFLC said in recording a formal change to the interpretation of the law. (It is perhaps accurate to say "should be treated" since ACs are occasionally not as mindful as they should be.) It was the same minute that put on record the requirement that for the NOS to be deprived of benefit from an adjustment, wholly or in part, the 'egregious' nature of its action should meet a standard of 'irrational, wild or gambling' (including the 'double shot' in the meaning of 'gambling'). There is an allied question that occupies my mind. In defining damage, I wonder if we have tended to gloss over, or obscure, damage when the UI gives an assist - when it makes it easier for the OS to reach a successful contract or avoid an unsuccessful one. ~ 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 May 7 18:57:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g478uwY27466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 May 2002 18:56:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout3.netvision.net.il (mxout3.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.24]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g478uqH27462 for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 18:56:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.95.239]) by mxout3.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GVQ00JAIGB7MP@mxout3.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 07 May 2002 11:45:09 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 11:46:17 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Fw: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Sven Pran Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <000f01c1f5ac$0a54e380$ef5f003e@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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Just now reading Grattan's posting I realised that "[as when *an irrational....] means *'their* irrational act. So in the example I gave the NOS are damaged by an irrational act of the OS ,which of course is as Kojak says another 'kettle of fish'. BTW wouldn't it be better had they originally said "their' instead of 'an'. Best regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Israel Erdnbaum" To: ; "Sven Pran" Cc: "Israel Erdenbaum" Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 1:09 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > (These are not the exact words, but I'm fairly sure they express the > > > > > intent.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which is to say that even if the NOS isn't damaged by an irregularity > > (as > > > > when an irrational act is what actually damages them), the OS will be > > > > treated as though damage had been inflicted. > Well Sven I am not going to argue at all ,certainly not about paragraphs,as > I have a splitting headache. I did not understand the the above lines ,so I > gave a practical example ,the NOS side are damaged not by the irregularity > but by 'an irrational act' [probably caused by the irregularity] I hoped > Steve will clarify how the OS will be treated ,and more important to me will > in his opinion the NOS get redress. > I admit all this is new to me , but I am ready to learn. > Best regards > Israel > > Here we go again: > > What constitutes "damage" - for the application of Law 27B1(b)? > > > > However, Law27B1(b) definitely does not apply if East just bids 6NT, > > he has no UI at all so Law 16 does not apply, and he "could not have > > known" at the time of his IB that this irregularity or the consequential > > enforced pass by West would be likely to damage NOS, therefore > > neither Law 23 nor Law72B1 applies. > > > > Is there any law left that permits (or authorizes) the Director to award > an > > adjusted score for either OS or NOS here? I cannot think of any. > > > > Please spare me any argument on Law 12A1, Law 27B2 is the > > primary applicable law here, and after that law has been applied the > > only remaining relevant law that I can see is Law 12B which indeed > > prohibits the Director from making any adjustment. > > > > Sven > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 7 20:30:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g47AThv27520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 May 2002 20:29:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g47ATbH27516 for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 20:29:38 +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 MAA04454; Tue, 7 May 2002 12:15:06 +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 MAA13769; Tue, 7 May 2002 12:17:38 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020507121056.025b04f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 12:23:51 +0200 To: Israel Erdnbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Schoderb@aol.com From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws Cc: Israel Erdenbaum In-Reply-To: <002e01c1f53f$f2723400$3b4c003e@mycomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_3874053==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --=====================_3874053==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 22:52 6/05/2002 +0200, Israel Erdnbaum wrote: >You do better than most whose native language is not English. Even an >American English user has no trouble understanding you. AG : do you dare suggest that the native language of American English users is English ? Deep position indeed :-S >The bidding goes 1H -P - 1H TD . The TD arrives reads the Law explains the >options and asks S >whether he accepts the 1H bid >S - first tell me please *why don't you apply Law 24* >TD - Law 24 is about an exposed card - something different. >S - Not at all - They play 5card majors so E named [exposed] *5 cards* > >TD rules E must pass when next is his turn to call, and advises E/W that >they have the right to appeal. > >Why? Why would the TD change his mind? Who is South? > >BTW In any further discussions this fact is to be taken into account. Most >probably E has no way to show that he has 5+ H in his hand. AG : he has, if playing extended Bergen (3NT/4C/4D are 5-card raises), but he could have no way to tell he's got both 5 cards and opening values. Although, in relay systems (including those where 2NT is an asking raise), I don't know how this knowledge could affect West's bidding. We aren't allowed to take this into account when determining E's options, alas and alack. If it sounds like I suggest to adapt L27 and L31 to take methods into account, I do. >I would read the Law to him/her -- particularly the part about the >"...were in a position for the face to be seen..." try to explain that >this is not an applicable Law, and then go to Law 27, as I presume you >tried to do. Has anyone "faced" a card? " I don't find it hard to restrict >the meaning of "exposed" in this case to being synonymous with >"faced." Remember the headings in the Law Book you are probably looking >at are not part of the Law, and the only place "exposed" shows up is in >24 C where it states "...if two or more cards are SO exposed,.....(italics >mine)..." clearly again reinforcing and explaining the Law's meaning to be >cards that are faced. AG : this remembers me of an old question. Perhaps it has been treated by blml ; I can't remember. Case 1 : East makes an IB in some suit (presumably natural), replaces it with a pass, and thereafter Lightner-doubles a slam. West will exclude the bid suit from the possibilities, which is an unfair advantage. However, you can't invoke L72B1, because in most cases the player will not know, at the moment of the IB, that opponents are about to bid a slam. How do you rule ? Case 2 : same question, but E didn't make an IB ; he just happened to drop some card from his hand (possibly not creating lead penalties, according to L50B1). Best regards, Alain. --=====================_3874053==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 22:52 6/05/2002 +0200, Israel Erdnbaum wrote:
You do better than most whose native language is not English. Even an American English user has no trouble understanding you.

AG : do you dare suggest that the native language of American English users is English ? Deep position indeed :-S



The bidding goes 1H -P - 1H  TD . The TD arrives reads the Law explains the
options and asks S
whether he accepts the 1H bid
S -  first tell me please *why don't you apply Law 24*
TD -  Law 24 is about an exposed card - something different.
S - Not at all  - They play 5card majors so E named [exposed]  *5 cards*

TD rules E must pass when next is his turn to call, and advises E/W that
they have the right to appeal.

Why? Why would the TD change his mind? Who is South?

BTW In any further discussions this fact is to be taken into account. Most
probably E has no way to show that he has 5+ H in his hand.

AG : he has, if playing extended Bergen (3NT/4C/4D are 5-card raises), but he could have no way to tell he's got both 5 cards and opening values. Although, in relay systems (including those where 2NT is an asking raise), I don't know how this knowledge could affect West's bidding. We aren't allowed to take this into account when determining E's options, alas and alack. If it sounds like I suggest to adapt L27 and L31 to take methods into account, I do.

I would read the Law to him/her -- particularly the part about the "...were in a position for the face to be seen..." try to explain that this is not an applicable Law, and then go to Law 27, as I presume you tried to do. Has anyone "faced" a card? " I don't find it hard to restrict the meaning of "exposed" in this case to being synonymous with "faced."  Remember the headings in the Law Book you are probably looking at are not part of the Law, and the only place  "exposed" shows up is in 24 C where it states "...if two or more cards are SO exposed,.....(italics mine)..." clearly again reinforcing and explaining the Law's meaning to be cards that are faced.

AG : this remembers me of an old question. Perhaps it has been treated by blml ; I can't remember.

Case 1 : East makes an IB  in some suit (presumably natural), replaces it with a pass, and thereafter Lightner-doubles a slam. West will exclude the bid suit from the possibilities, which is an unfair advantage. However, you can't invoke L72B1, because in most cases the player will not know, at the moment of the IB, that opponents are about to bid a slam. How do you rule ?

Case 2 : same question, but E didn't make an IB ; he just happened to drop some card from his hand (possibly not creating lead penalties, according to L50B1).

Best regards,

        Alain.
--=====================_3874053==_.ALT-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 7 21:16:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g47BG5d27547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 May 2002 21:16:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g47BFxH27543 for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 21:16:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0109.bb.online.no [80.212.208.109]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA05707 for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 13:03:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <008701c1f5b6$e150b3a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020507121056.025b04f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 13:03:55 +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: "Alain Gottcheiner" ..... > >The bidding goes 1H -P - 1H TD . The TD arrives reads the Law explains the > >options and asks S > >whether he accepts the 1H bid > >S - first tell me please *why don't you apply Law 24* > >TD - Law 24 is about an exposed card - something different. > >S - Not at all - They play 5card majors so E named [exposed] *5 cards* 1: "Naming" a card during the auction is not "exposing" it (see Law 24) 2: Giving the information that a hand contains 5 hearts is not "naming" any card. ...... > AG : this remembers me of an old question. Perhaps it has been treated by > blml ; I can't remember. > > Case 1 : East makes an IB in some suit (presumably natural), replaces it > with a pass, and thereafter Lightner-doubles a slam. West will exclude the > bid suit from the possibilities, which is an unfair advantage. However, you > can't invoke L72B1, because in most cases the player will not know, at the > moment of the IB, that opponents are about to bid a slam. How do you rule ? Law 27B2 and Law 16C2: All information from the insufficient bid is unauthorized for West > > Case 2 : same question, but E didn't make an IB ; he just happened to drop > some card from his hand (possibly not creating lead penalties, according to > L50B1). No problem Law 24 and Law 50: The exposed card becomes a penalty card (minor or major does not really matter), and any information gained by West on seeing this card is unauthorized (Law 50C in the case of a minor penalty card) BTW. What is Law50B1 - it is not in my lawbook, not is there any L24B1 in case you just made a typo? Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 7 22:30:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g47CTa327675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 May 2002 22:29:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g47CTSH27671 for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 22:29:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-11.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.11] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 1753uO-00067X-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 07 May 2002 08:17:32 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020507080032.00aee3c0@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, 07 May 2002 08:18:33 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <000401c1f59a$28671ee0$c809e150@dodona> References: <200205052005.QAA21458@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001001c1f520$2fba9480$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 03:28 AM 5/7/02, Grattan wrote: > There is an allied question that occupies my >mind. In defining damage, I wonder if we have tended >to gloss over, or obscure, damage when the UI gives >an assist - when it makes it easier for the OS to >reach a successful contract or avoid an unsuccessful >one. ~ G ~ +=+ I think we have, and have tried a couple of times already to get this point onto the table. The "French" position has been expressed here more or less as, "No damage if the side that made the IB would have achieved the same result without it." I have argued that the principle of "benefit of the doubt to the NOS" must apply here, so that it really should be something like, "No damage if the side that made the IB was not at all likely to have achieved a less successful result without it." IOW, I (as a follower of the "French" school) do not adjust under L27B1(b) in the original case not because the OS would have been most likely to have reached 4H without the IB, but because I judge there to be "no significant likelihood that they would not have". In practical terms, this is a significant difference. 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 May 7 23:44:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g47Dha327742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 May 2002 23:43:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g47DhVH27738 for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 23:43:32 +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 JAA21934 for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 09:31:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id JAA12169 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 May 2002 09:31:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 09:31:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205071331.JAA12169@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ The point I have tried to make is that the > application of 27B1(b) does not depend in any way > at all upon what irregularities may occur after there > has been an insufficient bid. It depends solely upon > whether the Director judges that the IB conveyed > information that was such as to damage the NOS. Yes, we all agree so far. It is over the definition of "damage" that there is disagreement. > Nor is there is any reference to UI in 27B1(b); the > question concerns *any* information conveyed by > the IB that leads to damage. The Director is not > required to find that the information is UI, only > that its source was the IB and it led to damage. Yes again. > If West 'guesses' what East has and acts upon > it, he is acting upon information that he believes to > have been conveyed by the IB. Correct 'guessing' > is evidence of a message received. Indeed. But isn't West allowed and expected to do the best he can for his side, withing the rules? Which rule prevents him from guessing? The issue, of course, is from what instant you decide to measure "damage." The "French" measure it from the instant just prior to the IB, whereas the "English" measure it from some moment after the IB has already occurred. Hmmm... perhaps we can clarify things this way. Suppose you follow the "English school," and decide to adjust using L12C2. What score do you assign? In our original example, several people suggested 2H+3, but why? Clearly this assumes that West's 4H bid is an irregularity, but what justifies that? My suggested answer for the "French school" is below. > From: Eric Landau > The "French" position has been expressed here more or less as, "No > damage if the side that made the IB would have achieved the same result > without it." I have argued that the principle of "benefit of the doubt > to the NOS" must apply here, so that it really should be something > like, "No damage if the side that made the IB was not at all likely to > have achieved a less successful result without it." I think L12C2 gives adequate standards. For the OS, is it "at all probable" that a worse result would have been obtained without the IB? For the NOS, is such a result "likely?" Another way of expressing the same thing: imagine that you decide to adjust. What will your adjustment be? If it is worse for the OS, or better for the NOS, then go ahead and adjust. If not, table 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/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 8 01:00:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g47EuCG27781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 May 2002 00:56:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (radio.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g47Eu6H27777 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 00:56:06 +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 QAA27079; Tue, 7 May 2002 16:42:38 +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 QAA27348; Tue, 7 May 2002 16:44:00 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020507164406.025ae4f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 16:50:14 +0200 To: "Sven Pran" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws In-Reply-To: <008701c1f5b6$e150b3a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020507121056.025b04f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g47Eu8H27778 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:03 7/05/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >BTW. What is Law50B1 - it is not in my lawbook, not is there any L24B1 >in case you just made a typo? AG : there are some cases where the numbering isn't identical in the English and French versions. This is not necessarily an error ; it might be caused by stylistical constraints of the languages. In the French version, L50 is structured as follows : 50 : definition of an exposed card 50A : the exposed card must remain in view 50B : distinction between MPC and mPC (carte pénalisée principale ou secondaire) 50B1 : secondaire (definition) 50B2 : principale (definition) 50C : dealing with mPCs 50D : dealing with MPCs 50D1 : at the offending player's turn 50D2 : at partner's turn (list of options) Thus, by mentioning L50B1, I meant the card will be considered as a mPC (if t is a spot card). Best regards, Alain. >Sven > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 8 01:05:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g47F1MV27797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 May 2002 01:01:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g47F1HH27793 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 01:01:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-11.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.11] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 1756HJ-0002cJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 07 May 2002 10:49:21 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020507103200.00aff7e0@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, 07 May 2002 10:50:22 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <7e.272302fa.2a092d97@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_10955521==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --=====================_10955521==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 09:16 AM 5/7/02, Schoderb wrote: >In a message dated 5/7/02 8:19:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >ehaa@starpower.net writes: > >>IOW, I (as a follower of the "French" school) do not adjust under >>L27B1(b) in the original case not because the OS would have been most >>likely to have reached 4H without the IB, but because I judge there to >>be "no significant likelihood that they would not have". In practical >>terms, this is a significant difference. >Eric, I'm having trouble with the double negative here, and I would >very much like to know exactly what you mean. Could you reword for >me, please? My intention was to distinguish between: Wrong: Determine the most likely result absent the IB. Adjust if it would lead to a score for the OS which would be worse than their result at the table. Right: Determine the set of results which were at all likely absent the IB. Adjust if any of them would lead to a score for the OS which would be worse than their result at the table. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_10955521==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 09:16 AM 5/7/02, Schoderb wrote:

In a message dated 5/7/02 8:19:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ehaa@starpower.net writes:

IOW, I (as a follower of the "French" school) do not adjust under
L27B1(b) in the original case not because the OS would have been most
likely to have reached 4H without the IB, but because I judge there to
be "no significant likelihood that they would not have".  In practical
terms, this is a significant difference.
Eric, I'm having trouble with the double negative here, and I would very much like to know exactly what you mean.  Could you reword for me, please?

My intention was to distinguish between:

Wrong:  Determine the most likely result absent the IB.  Adjust if it would lead to a score for the OS which would be worse than their result at the table.

Right:  Determine the set of results which were at all likely absent the IB.  Adjust if any of them would lead to a score for the OS which would be worse than their result at the table.


Eric Landau                     ehaa@starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607     Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_10955521==_.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 Wed May 8 01:09:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g47F5C527805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 May 2002 01:05:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (radio.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g47F55H27799 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 01:05:06 +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 QAA29159; Tue, 7 May 2002 16:51:46 +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 QAA07447; Tue, 7 May 2002 16:53:09 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020507165238.025a3ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 16:59:23 +0200 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <200205071331.JAA12169@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:31 7/05/2002 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >I think L12C2 gives adequate standards. For the OS, is it "at all >probable" that a worse result would have been obtained without the IB? >For the NOS, is such a result "likely?" > >Another way of expressing the same thing: imagine that you decide to >adjust. What will your adjustment be? If it is worse for the OS, or >better for the NOS, then go ahead and adjust. If not, table score >stands. AG : I don't think this is precise enough. After 1H p 1H oops, one quite probable issue is that the player will just simplify things by bashing 4H, silencing partner but not creating any more damage to his side. Now suppose that the field reaches a good, but failing, 6H. Under L72A5, you are not allowed to adjust. The same holds if the offender decides to bash *six* hearts, which makes with a big chunk of luck. In both cases, the OS's score is better than would have been expected absent the infraction. However, this is not the grounds on which you should base your decision. Excepted the very uncommon case where L72B1 would apply (eg 1NT p 1S corrected to 4S on a very weak hand and very long suit, the opener being barred from doubling the opponents' 5-level bid). Best regards, Alain. >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 8 01:43:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g47Fgpc27838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 May 2002 01:42:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (radio.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g47FgkH27834 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 01:42:46 +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 RAA08185; Tue, 7 May 2002 17:29:26 +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 RAA14847; Tue, 7 May 2002 17:30:49 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020507173005.00a80ad0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 17:37:01 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020507103200.00aff7e0@127.0.0.1> References: <7e.272302fa.2a092d97@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_22667177==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --=====================_22667177==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 10:50 7/05/2002 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 09:16 AM 5/7/02, Schoderb wrote: > >>In a message dated 5/7/02 8:19:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >>ehaa@starpower.net writes: >> >>>IOW, I (as a follower of the "French" school) do not adjust under >>>L27B1(b) in the original case not because the OS would have been most >>>likely to have reached 4H without the IB, but because I judge there to >>>be "no significant likelihood that they would not have". In practical >>>terms, this is a significant difference. >>Eric, I'm having trouble with the double negative here, and I would very >>much like to know exactly what you mean. Could you reword for me, please? > >My intention was to distinguish between: > >Wrong: Determine the most likely result absent the IB. Adjust if it >would lead to a score for the OS which would be worse than their result at >the table. > >Right: Determine the set of results which were at all likely absent the >IB. Adjust if any of them would lead to a score for the OS which would be >worse than their result at the table. AG : as said in a previous post, I disagree. If the IBer decides to substitute some other bid than the minimum bid in the same denomination (say, he bids 4H, which most would do), the penalty is that partner his barred, and if it turns out to be lucky, so be it. L12B and L72A5 explicitly prohibit any score adjustement, unless L72B1 is considered to apply, which doesn't seem to be the case here. --=====================_22667177==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 10:50 7/05/2002 -0400, Eric Landau wrote:
At 09:16 AM 5/7/02, Schoderb wrote:

In a message dated 5/7/02 8:19:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ehaa@starpower.net writes:

IOW, I (as a follower of the "French" school) do not adjust under
L27B1(b) in the original case not because the OS would have been most
likely to have reached 4H without the IB, but because I judge there to
be "no significant likelihood that they would not have".  In practical
terms, this is a significant difference.
Eric, I'm having trouble with the double negative here, and I would very much like to know exactly what you mean.  Could you reword for me, please?

My intention was to distinguish between:

Wrong:  Determine the most likely result absent the IB.  Adjust if it would lead to a score for the OS which would be worse than their result at the table.

Right:  Determine the set of results which were at all likely absent the IB.  Adjust if any of them would lead to a score for the OS which would be worse than their result at the table.

AG : as said in a previous post, I disagree. If the IBer decides to substitute some other bid than the minimum bid in the same denomination (say, he bids 4H, which most would do), the penalty is that partner his barred, and if it turns out to be lucky, so be it. L12B and L72A5 explicitly prohibit any score adjustement, unless L72B1 is considered to apply, which doesn't seem to be the case here. --=====================_22667177==_.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 Wed May 8 02:09:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g47G95r27857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 May 2002 02:09:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g47G90H27853 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 02:09:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-11.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.11] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 1757Kr-0002ql-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 07 May 2002 11:57:05 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020507115422.00af2b50@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 11:58:06 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020507173005.00a80ad0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020507103200.00aff7e0@127.0.0.1> <7e.272302fa.2a092d97@aol.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 11:37 AM 5/7/02, Alain wrote: >At 10:50 7/05/2002 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >>Wrong: Determine the most likely result absent the IB. Adjust if it >>would lead to a score for the OS which would be worse than their >>result at the table. >> >>Right: Determine the set of results which were at all likely absent >>the IB. Adjust if any of them would lead to a score for the OS which >>would be worse than their result at the table. > >AG : as said in a previous post, I disagree. If the IBer decides to >substitute some other bid than the minimum bid in the same >denomination (say, he bids 4H, which most would do), the penalty is >that partner his barred, and if it turns out to be lucky, so be it. >L12B and L72A5 explicitly prohibit any score adjustement, unless L72B1 >is considered to apply, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Of course; I had assumed that was obvious from the context. For "adjust" read "adjust per L27B1(b) when L27B1 applies". 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 May 8 02:38:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g47Gc7h27877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 May 2002 02:38:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g47Gc1H27873 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 02:38:02 +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 g47GQix28132 for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 17:26:44 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 17:20:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <200205061431.KAA04814@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001201c1f558$1b941020$8124e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001201c1f558$1b941020$8124e150@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 <001201c1f558$1b941020$8124e150@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott+=+ The point I have tried to make is that the >application of 27B1(b) does not depend in any way >at all upon what irregularities may occur after there >has been an insufficient bid. It depends solely upon >whether the Director judges that the IB conveyed >information that was such as to damage the NOS. >Nor is there is any reference to UI in 27B1(b); the >question concerns *any* information conveyed by >the IB that leads to damage. The Director is not >required to find that the information is UI, only >that its source was the IB and it led to damage. > If West 'guesses' what East has and acts upon >it, he is acting upon information that he believes to >have been conveyed by the IB. Correct 'guessing' >is evidence of a message received. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I'm 100% behind this interpretation. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 8 03:54:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g47Hs2927947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 May 2002 03:54:02 +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 g47HruH27943 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 03:53:57 +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 NAA07202 for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 13:42:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA12294 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 May 2002 13:42:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 13:42:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205071742.NAA12294@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Case 1 : East makes an IB in some suit (presumably natural), replaces it > > with a pass, and thereafter Lightner-doubles a slam. West will exclude the > > bid suit from the possibilities, which is an unfair advantage. However, > you > > can't invoke L72B1, because in most cases the player will not know, at the > > moment of the IB, that opponents are about to bid a slam. How do you rule > ? > From: "Sven Pran" > Law 27B2 and Law 16C2: All information from the insufficient bid is > unauthorized for West Easy now, but it's amusing to have a short look back in history. Prior to 1997, I think we would have had to use L27B1b. (Even in the rare cases where L72B1 could apply, it didn't exist!) > > Case 2 : same question, but E didn't make an IB ; he just happened to drop > > some card from his hand (possibly not creating lead penalties, according > to > > L50B1). > Law 24 and Law 50: The exposed card becomes a penalty card (minor or major > does not really matter), and any information gained by West on seeing this > card > is unauthorized (Law 50C in the case of a minor penalty card) On this one, I think we were in real trouble until 1997. I recall asking BLML, or maybe RGB, about a similar example, and there was no recourse. The LC got a few things right in the last revision. :-) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 8 05:12:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g47JC9e27984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 May 2002 05:12:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g47JC4H27980 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 05:12:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1953.bb.online.no [80.212.215.161]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA11424 for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 21:00:01 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002101c1f5f9$647c15c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200205071742.NAA12294@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 20:59:52 +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: "Steve Willner" ...... > Easy now, but it's amusing to have a short look back in history. ..... > On this one, I think we were in real trouble until 1997. I agree that the laws have had various to and from rules over the time as to what was authorized for offender's partner. The funny thing is that at least here in Norway this has never caused us any problem what I know! When I was trained to become a director back in 1980 we were told the principles of fair play and how the laws supported those principles. We must have used common sense (it couldn't have been all the laws literally?) and without much ado we ruled against anybody who attempted to get any advantage out of irregularities caused by his side. "Advanced" directors were recommended to acquire, first the Danish translation commented by Bent Keith Hansen, and later the "Commentary" by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen. It was very comforting for us to notice that we found support for all our practice in those books even though the laws could be interpreted differently in many cases. Is it a problem that where we started off with bridge to be a fair play and used the laws to support that, now it seems that people look into the laws to see what they can get away with? (Nasty remark, but somehow I have a feeling it might be justified?) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 8 07:51:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g47Lnwb28072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 May 2002 07:49:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g47LnrH28068 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 07:49:53 +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 RAA24297 for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 17:37:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA12485 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 May 2002 17:37:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 17:37:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205072137.RAA12485@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > Is it a problem that where we started off with bridge to be a fair > play and used the laws to support that... The problem is that different people have different ideas of "fair play." Suppose there's an IB, and the player guesses to bid 3NT, barring partner, and that turns out to be a good score. Is that fair play? I don't think we can expect everyone to agree whether its fair, but I would expect near-universal agreement that it's legal. (Absent special conditions, of course: we could certainly imagine cases where it would be illegal.) The Rottweiler coup was another example; there was no agreement as to its fairness or legality, although the question came down to bridge judgment. Given a different hand for the perpetrator but the same actions, many opinions would have changed. A contrary example was the Alcatraz Coup. It was widely seen as unfair, but I don't think the Laws actually managed to make it illegal as a score-adjustment matter until 1987. Before that, it was a conduct offense, and the score could only be adjusted if the infraction was deemed deliberate. If BLML teaches us anything, it should be that there exists a very wide range of views on almost every subject. How will you define which of those views is the "fair" one? > now it seems that people > look into the laws to see what they can get away with? I don't think we can be sure of people's motives, but I doubt the number of "bridge lawyers" has either increased or decreased over time. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 8 08:39:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g47Md7G28096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 May 2002 08:39:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g47Md1H28092 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 08:39:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.75.32]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GVR000B9ICP0A@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 08 May 2002 01:26:52 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 01:28:25 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Steve Willner Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <001101c1f61e$e3a3d020$204b003e@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: <200205071742.NAA12294@cfa183.harvard.edu> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 7:42 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] IB and the Laws > > > Case 1 : East makes an IB in some suit (presumably natural), replaces it > > > with a pass, and thereafter Lightner-doubles a slam. West will exclude the > > > bid suit from the possibilities, which is an unfair advantage. However, > > you > > > can't invoke L72B1, because in most cases the player will not know, at the > > > moment of the IB, that opponents are about to bid a slam. How do you rule > > ? > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > Law 27B2 and Law 16C2: All information from the insufficient bid is > > unauthorized for West > > Easy now, but it's amusing to have a short look back in history. > > Prior to 1997, I think we would have had to use L27B1b. (Even in the > rare cases where L72B1 could apply, it didn't exist!) > > > > Case 2 : same question, but E didn't make an IB ; he just happened to drop > > > some card from his hand (possibly not creating lead penalties, according > > to > > > L50B1). > > > Law 24 and Law 50: The exposed card becomes a penalty card (minor or major > > does not really matter), and any information gained by West on seeing this > > card > > is unauthorized (Law 50C in the case of a minor penalty card) > > On this one, I think we were in real trouble until 1997. I recall > asking BLML, or maybe RGB, about a similar example, and there was no > recourse. The LC got a few things right in the last revision. :-) Not in this case Laws of *1987 Law *50D disposition of minor penalty card....... Offenders parner is not subject to lead penalty, but information gained through seeing the penalty card is *extraneous,*unauthorized. 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 8 11:08:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4817d028165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 May 2002 11:07:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4817ZH28161 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 11:07:35 +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 LAA29288 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 11:09:12 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 08 May 2002 10:52:41 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Fair play (was IB and the Laws) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 10:54:15 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 08/05/2002 10:52:32 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>From: "Sven Pran" >>Is it a problem that where we started off with bridge to >>be a fair play and used the laws to support that... [snip] Steve Willner replied: >The problem is that different people have different ideas >of "fair play." Suppose there's an IB, and the player >guesses to bid 3NT, barring partner, and that turns out >to be a good score. Is that fair play? I don't think we >can expect everyone to agree whether its fair, but I >would expect near-universal agreement that it's legal. >(Absent special conditions, of course: we could certainly >imagine cases where it would be illegal.) [snip] >If BLML teaches us anything, it should be that there >exists a very wide range of views on almost every subject. >How will you define which of those views is the "fair" >one? [snip] IMHO, L72A5 defines "fair play" for the OS. The big problem occurs when the Laws (or the official WBFLC Laws interpretation) are mismatched to the common-sense feel of fair play. IMHO, the only non-chaotic way of solving such a mismatch is to amend the Laws. Of course, as Steve Willner points out, there is a very wide range of views on what the common-sense feel of fair play would be. Again, IMHO, the only Law I strongly feel is unfair is L72B3. Other opinions differ. Michael Rosenberg, for example, believes that it is unfair that mechanical infractions, such as non-damaging revokes by the opponents, should be penalised under the Laws (so he violates L9B1(a) by refusing to summon the TD when NOS in such cases). 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 May 8 15:46:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g485jmj28430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 May 2002 15:45:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g485jhH28426 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 15:45:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.95.97]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 0.2 (built Apr 26 2002)) with SMTP id <0GVS009PW20DZC@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 08 May 2002 08:31:29 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 08:32:54 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Fair play (was IB and the Laws) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, richard.hills@immi.gov.au Cc: Mark Horton , ayala hiler , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <001d01c1f65a$30b5e0c0$615f003e@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 "All is fair in love and war" Recreational Duplicate Bridge certainly isn't war-- even though, a man was killed playing 'social bridge' Is championship tournament bridge war? How do you rule ? In the ACBL they make a big deal with something called "active ethics"----- Con permiso I'll use this posting to try to make some points .[I.E.] Origi nal Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 2:54 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fair play (was IB and the Laws) > > >>From: "Sven Pran" > >>Is it a problem that where we started off with bridge to > >>be a fair play and used the laws to support that... We [at least an overwhelming majority ] did our best to *play fair' [see Michael Rosenberg,later > [snip] > > Steve Willner replied: > > >The problem is that different people have different ideas > >of "fair play." Suppose there's an IB, and the player > >guesses to bid 3NT, barring partner, and that turns out > >to be a good score. Is that fair play? I don't think we > >can expect everyone to agree whether its fair, but I > >would expect near-universal agreement that it's legal. > >(> [snip] It's not *fair to NOS and It's the *Law that is not fair, and so unfortunately are many other *bridge Laws. [I.E] > >If BLML teaches us anything, it should be that there > >exists a very wide range of views on almost every subject. > >How will you define which of those views is the "fair" > >one? > > [snip] > > IMHO, L72A5 defines "fair play" for the OS. The big > problem occurs when the Laws (or the official WBFLC Laws > interpretation) are mismatched to the common-sense feel > of fair play. IMHO, the only non-chaotic way of solving > such a mismatch is to amend the Laws. The whole concept of penalties should be changed .It may be a*good idea to try it first with a CODE for RECREATIONAL DUPLICATE BRIDGE. [I.E] > Of course, as Steve Willner points out, there is a very > wide range of views on what the common-sense feel of fair > play would be. Again, IMHO, the only Law I strongly feel > is unfair is L72B3. What about the parenthetical in Law 27B1[a] [I. > Other opinions differ. Michael Rosenberg, for example, > believes that it is unfair that mechanical infractions, > such as non-damaging revokes by the opponents, should be > penalised under the Laws (so he violates L9B1(a) by > refusing to summon the TD when NOS in such cases). He should be penalised or L9BI[a] should be left out. When I talked above about changing the concept I meant exactly that we should [for instance] adopt the chess law principle of "piece touche" with clear and universal penalties for *every irregularity. It maybe not easy to 'stomach at the beginning. I knew people who refused to play 'according to Law because they felt it was not fair play. I remember the time when Al Sobel [the legendary American TD] and Tannah Hirsch asked to change a score after the legal period and I refused ,they almost fainted and told me in the States I would be kicked out for it. Well you all know that a few years a go a World championship title was lost because of a mistake in scoring a game. All the best Israel > Best wishes > > Richard > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 8 18:11:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g488BJ928497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 May 2002 18:11:19 +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-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g488BDH28493 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 18:11:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.57.120] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 175MLp-000JwF-00; Wed, 08 May 2002 08:59:07 +0100 Message-ID: <005c01c1f666$71f40880$7839e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200205071331.JAA12169@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 08:58:51 +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: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > If West 'guesses' what East has and acts upon > > it, he is acting upon information that he believes to > > have been conveyed by the IB. Correct 'guessing' > > is evidence of a message received. > > Indeed. But isn't West allowed and expected to do > the best he can for his side, within the rules? Which > rule prevents him from guessing? > +=+ Guessing? He is reading the insufficient bid. And his partner, who has not yet shown his strength you suggest, passes after opener has made a jump rebid? He thinks he has shown his opener. So they share a view of what has been communicated. ~ 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 May 8 18:11:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g488BBk28492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 May 2002 18:11:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g488B6H28487 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 18:11:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.57.120] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 175MLg-000JwF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 08 May 2002 08:58:56 +0100 Message-ID: <005a01c1f666$6c62dcc0$7839e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Fair play (was IB and the Laws) Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 08:09:16 +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, May 08, 2002 1:54 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fair play (was IB and the Laws) > Other opinions differ. Michael Rosenberg, for example, > believes that it is unfair that mechanical infractions, > such as non-damaging revokes by the opponents, should > be penalised under the Laws (so he violates L9B1(a) by > refusing to summon the TD when NOS in such cases). > +=+ I wonder if Michael is amongst those who believe it is unfair to the rest of the field if two teams score 18-14 V.Ps. when 30 VPs is the quota for the match? Presumably not since he considers it fair to them that an opponent should not pay the penalty for an infraction. ~ 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 May 8 19:10:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g489AHj28548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 May 2002 19:10:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g489ABH28544 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 19:10:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48962.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.63.66]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g488w7O25589 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 10:58:07 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CD8E8EA.8070505@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 10:59:22 +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: <200205071331.JAA12169@cfa183.harvard.edu> <005c01c1f666$71f40880$7839e150@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: >>Indeed. But isn't West allowed and expected to do >>the best he can for his side, within the rules? Which >>rule prevents him from guessing? >> >> > +=+ Guessing? He is reading the insufficient bid. > And his partner, who has not yet shown his > strength you suggest, passes after opener has > made a jump rebid? He thinks he has shown his > opener. So they share a view of what has been > communicated. ~ G ~ +=+ > Precisely why I believe this information should be authorized. It is impossible to have IB's without some additional knowledge. If the Lamakers have made the IB AI, then the accompanying knowledge should be AI as well, or there is no way this rule can ever come into application. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 May 8 22:33:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g48CXCG28724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 May 2002 22:33:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g48CX4H28720 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 22:33:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-10.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.10] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 175QRO-0007Wp-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 08 May 2002 08:21:07 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020508081332.00af5b60@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 08:22:09 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <005c01c1f666$71f40880$7839e150@dodona> References: <200205071331.JAA12169@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:58 AM 5/8/02, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Steve Willner" > > > > If West 'guesses' what East has and acts upon > > > it, he is acting upon information that he believes to > > > have been conveyed by the IB. Correct 'guessing' > > > is evidence of a message received. > > > > Indeed. But isn't West allowed and expected to do > > the best he can for his side, within the rules? Which > > rule prevents him from guessing? > >+=+ Guessing? He is reading the insufficient bid. > And his partner, who has not yet shown his >strength you suggest, passes after opener has >made a jump rebid? He thinks he has shown his >opener. So they share a view of what has been >communicated. It doesn't matter whether we call it "guessing" or "reading". If they have reached that shared view independently -- i.e. with no prior agreement or exchange of unauthorized information -- there does not appear to be anything in the laws to preclude them from backing their individual judgments and choosing their calls accordingly, each at their own risk. Steve seems to be asking whether he (and I) have missed something in the laws that would make it inappropriate for them 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 Wed May 8 23:10:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g48DAHI28760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 May 2002 23:10:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g48DABH28756 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 23:10:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (hbge-216-37-205-25.dsl.hbge.epix.net [216.37.205.25]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g48CwAAV026465 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 08:58:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] A question for ACBLScore users Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 08:58:28 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: 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 For anyone who didn't notice the subject line, don't bother reading on if you're not familiar with ACBLScore.... I've been consulted by the TD of my local bridge club, who is currently using a DOS version of ACBLScore (I'm not familiar with the program) for scoring up the duplicates. He'd like to be able to send the results to members via e-mail, but he can't get them in any understandable format other than by using ACBLScore to read the data file. I took a look at the data file that he sent me, and after undoing the LZH compression, confirmed that the enclosed data file was indeed in an internal format. So, the first question - is he missing something? As above, I have zero knowledge of ACBLScore. Is there a way to export the results as a text file, or is there now a Windows upgrade where you could cut and paste the data? I've told him about the possibility of doing screen captures under Windows, and then pasting the screen shots into a Word document, but that seems a bit clunky, to say the least. If there really isn't any other way to get the data out, does anyone know whether the format of the ACBLScore data file is available anywhere? It should be a fairly quick job to write a small conversion utility if I had the input file format. If it's in a restricted version of the ACBL site, I'd be grateful if someone could e-mail me a copy. BTW, I'm making no money out of this unless he needs me to write the conversion utility - and possibly not even then, if it's a simple enough job, I might well do it as a piece of advertising. Thanks, Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 8 23:57:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g48DvKP28804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 May 2002 23:57:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout3.netvision.net.il (mxout3.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.24]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g48DvDH28800 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 23:57:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.75.221]) by mxout3.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GVS005C9OVO0A@mxout3.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 08 May 2002 16:45:28 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 16:46:30 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] Dear Blml To: David Stevenson , Schoderb@aol.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: John Probst , ayala hiler , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <000501c1f69f$26ca2720$dd4b003e@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_H+uG4o8H2Oal+rjDSQfsdQ)" 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_H+uG4o8H2Oal+rjDSQfsdQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Dear Blml'ists All our discussions are about the Laws and the interpretations. What are the intentions of the law makers? We try to find an interpretation that will fit our intention. Even if we don't like the laws, and from what I see -we don't, we have no choice but to follow them .We can voice our dissatisfaction and hope against hope that maybe someone listens and may change them. I don't have in this forum to mention Law 25. But I want to mention Law 13 Ton pointed out that this Law creates an opportunity for an 'honest' player escape a bottom by simply adding a card from an other deck. He also suggested that what can prevent it, is applying PP for not counting his cards. While writing it occurred to me that this won't work if the person is sophisticated enough to slip a card to another hand. Nevertheless it seems to me that educated use of PP may help to solve many problems. BTW law 13 is flawed . Try to explain HOW 13 *C fits in Law13 ? Best regards Israel P.S I am a long time out of the game ,and have no ax to grind . I made mistakes and will probably make more-but I'll be obliged to every one who will point them out. Thanks in advance Israel --Boundary_(ID_H+uG4o8H2Oal+rjDSQfsdQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Dear Blml=92ists = =20 All our discus

Dear Blml=92ists           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp; All our discussions are about the Laws and the interpretations. = What are the intentions of the law makers? We try to find an interpretation that = will fit our intention.

 

Even if we don=92t like the laws, and from what I see -we = don=92t,

 we have no choice but to follow = them .We can voice our dissatisfaction and hope against hope that maybe someone = listens and may change them.  =

 

I don=92t have in this forum to mention Law = 25.

 

   But I want to mention = Law 13 Ton pointed out that this Law creates an opportunity for an =91honest=92 = player escape a bottom by simply adding a

card from an other deck. He also suggested that what can prevent it, is = applying PP for not counting his cards.  = While writing it occurred to me that this won=92t work if the person is = sophisticated enough to slip a card to another hand.

Nevertheless it seems to me that educated use of PP may help to solve many  = problems.

 

BTW law 13 is flawed . Try to explain = HOW 13 *C fits in Law13 ?

Best regards

Israel

 

P.S  I am a long time out of the = game ,and have no ax to grind . I made mistakes and will probably make more=97but = I=92ll be obliged to every one who will point them = out.

Thanks in advance

Israel

--Boundary_(ID_H+uG4o8H2Oal+rjDSQfsdQ)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 9 00:26:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g48EQ1628826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 May 2002 00:26:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g48EPtH28822 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 00:25:55 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g48EDqN03619 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 May 2002 10:13:52 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200205081413.g48EDqN03619@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question for ACBLScore users To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 10:13:52 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Brian Meadows" at May 08, 2002 08:58:28 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 Sure...district 6 (Washington DC area, MD, VA) has been using ACBLscore to post results on the web for several years now. The easiest way to do this is to use the LREC command. It sends the recap information to your choice of ASCII file or printer. So we usually put the recap files out in ASCII files and then merge them into HTML files to post on the web. It's been a while since I've done it, if you need more help than that and can't find the information in the help files then send me a note and I'll go back and try to work it out again. I was the webmaster for the WBL unit for several years but have been out of that for 2-3 years now. If you want to see the output, you can go to http://www.wbl-unit.org/ and look under Event results and see the results as they come out. They look just like the recap sheets that you print out and hang on the wall in clubs. -Ted. > From: Brian Meadows > Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 08:58:28 -0400 > > For anyone who didn't notice the subject line, don't bother > reading on if you're not familiar with ACBLScore.... > > I've been consulted by the TD of my local bridge club, who is > currently using a DOS version of ACBLScore (I'm not familiar with > the program) for scoring up the duplicates. He'd like to be able > to send the results to members via e-mail, but he can't get them > in any understandable format other than by using ACBLScore to > read the data file. > > I took a look at the data file that he sent me, and after undoing > the LZH compression, confirmed that the enclosed data file was > indeed in an internal format. > > So, the first question - is he missing something? As above, I > have zero knowledge of ACBLScore. Is there a way to export the > results as a text file, or is there now a Windows upgrade where > you could cut and paste the data? I've told him about the > possibility of doing screen captures under Windows, and then > pasting the screen shots into a Word document, but that seems a > bit clunky, to say the least. > > If there really isn't any other way to get the data out, does > anyone know whether the format of the ACBLScore data file is > available anywhere? It should be a fairly quick job to write a > small conversion utility if I had the input file format. If it's > in a restricted version of the ACBL site, I'd be grateful if > someone could e-mail me a copy. > > BTW, I'm making no money out of this unless he needs me to write > the conversion utility - and possibly not even then, if it's a > simple enough job, I might well do it as a piece of advertising. > > Thanks, > > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 9 01:01:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g48F1F528862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 May 2002 01:01:15 +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 (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g48F1AH28858 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 01:01:10 +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 KAA13277 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 10:49:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA19091 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 May 2002 10:49:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 10:49:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205081449.KAA19091@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Fair play (was IB and the Laws) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Israel Erdnbaum > I remember the time when Al Sobel [the legendary American TD] and Tannah > Hirsch asked to change a score after the legal period and I refused ... This is a wonderful illustration! I would expect BLML to be near- unanimous that the law is clear and unambiguous, and yet we have two highly respected figures who think it would be fair to change a result after the correction period has expired. I expect all of us will understand both sides of the argument, no matter which side of it we happen to agree with. > ... and told me in the States I would be kicked out for it. Good grief! I hope that has changed by now. > Even if we don't like the laws, and from what I see -we don't, I don't think it's that bad. Probably for every law in the book, you will find one person or a small group who think it ought to be changed. (Perhaps Law 1 is an exception, but I wouldn't care to bet on it.) For a few laws, there is widespread support for change. But I think most of us think most of the laws are OK. It's just that all the messages in this forum are about the laws that are not entirely OK, whether because of difficulty of interpretation or because the effects are not exactly what seems fair. The LC drafting committee will never please everyone, but based on Grattan's comments, I expect they are taking a hard look at laws that have raised questions. Nevertheless, it will surprise me if there are many dramatic changes. BLML rightly focuses on areas where there are problems, and we may lose our perspective on the laws as a whole. I think, however, if we look at all the deals that are played without problems, we may realize that overall the Laws are not so bad. That doesn't (and shouldn't) prevent all of us from lobbying for our particular hobby horses. (Mine are "eliminate mind reading" and "disentangle mechanical and information penalties.") -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 9 01:02:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g48F23j28874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 May 2002 01:02:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g48F1vH28868 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 01:01:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from zshilon ([212.199.34.31]) by fep1.012.net.il with SMTP id <20020508144054.UGR18870.fep1@zshilon>; Wed, 8 May 2002 17:40:54 +0300 From: "Zvi Shilon" To: Cc: "John Probst" , "ayala hiler" Subject: RE: [BLML] Dear Blml Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 17:40:09 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0022_01C1F6B7.65DCC5E0" 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: <000501c1f69f$26ca2720$dd4b003e@mycomputer> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C1F6B7.65DCC5E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear Blml’ists All our discusLaw 13 If a player slips a card from another deck into a hand, his, partner's or opponent's, he is not an honest player!!! 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: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 4:47 PM To: David Stevenson; Schoderb@aol.com; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: John Probst; ayala hiler; Israel Erdenbaum Subject: [BLML] Dear Blml Dear Blml’ists All our discussions are about the Laws and the interpretations. What are the intentions of the law makers? We try to find an interpretation that will fit our intention. Even if we don’t like the laws, and from what I see -we don’t, we have no choice but to follow them .We can voice our dissatisfaction and hope against hope that maybe someone listens and may change them. I don’t have in this forum to mention Law 25. But I want to mention Law 13 Ton pointed out that this Law creates an opportunity for an ‘honest’ player escape a bottom by simply adding a card from an other deck. He also suggested that what can prevent it, is applying PP for not counting his cards. While writing it occurred to me that this won’t work if the person is sophisticated enough to slip a card to another hand. Nevertheless it seems to me that educated use of PP may help to solve many problems. BTW law 13 is flawed . Try to explain HOW 13 *C fits in Law13 ? Best regards Israel P.S I am a long time out of the game ,and have no ax to grind . I made mistakes and will probably make more—but I’ll be obliged to every one who will point them out. Thanks in advance Israel ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C1F6B7.65DCC5E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Blml=92ists = All our discus
Law=20 13
If a player=20 slips a card from another deck into a hand, his, partner's or = opponent's, he is not an honest player!!!
 
zvika   
Modiin,=20 Israel   
 
   
 
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au = [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On=20 Behalf Of Israel Erdnbaum
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 = 4:47=20 PM
To: David Stevenson; Schoderb@aol.com;=20 bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au
Cc: John Probst; ayala hiler; = Israel=20 Erdenbaum
Subject: [BLML] Dear Blml

Dear Blml=92ists           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;=20 All our discussions are about the Laws and the interpretations. = What=20 are the intentions of the law makers? We try to find an interpretation = that=20 will fit our intention.

 

Even = if we don=92t=20 like the laws, and from what I see -we = don=92t,

 we have no choice but to = follow them=20 .We can voice our dissatisfaction and hope against hope that maybe = someone=20 listens and may change them. =20

 

I = don=92t have in=20 this forum to mention Law 25.

 

   But I want to mention = Law 13 Ton=20 pointed out that this Law creates an opportunity for an =91honest=92 = player escape=20 a bottom by simply adding a

card = from an other=20 deck. He also suggested that what can prevent it, is applying PP for = not=20 counting his cards.  = While writing=20 it occurred to me that this won=92t work if the person is = sophisticated enough=20 to slip a card to another hand.

Nevertheless it=20 seems to me that educated use of PP may help to solve many  = problems.

 

BTW = law 13 is=20 flawed . Try to explain HOW 13=20 *C fits in Law13 ?

Best = regards

Israel

 

P.S  I am a long time out of the = game ,and=20 have no ax to grind . I made mistakes and will probably make = more=97but I=92ll be=20 obliged to every one who will point them = out.

Thanks in advance=20

Israel

<= /HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C1F6B7.65DCC5E0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 9 02:15:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g48GF3H28922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 May 2002 02:15:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout3.netvision.net.il (mxout3.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.24]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g48GEvH28918 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 02:14:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.75.221]) by mxout3.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GVS005XRV99PT@mxout3.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 08 May 2002 19:03:11 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 19:04:19 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Fair play (was IB and the Laws) To: "John (MadDog) Probst" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Steve Willner Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <001301c1f6b2$659ec4c0$dd4b003e@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: <200205081449.KAA19091@cfa183.harvard.edu> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Just two remarks , 1]will you please explain what do you mean by " disetangle mechanical and information penalties" I don't have a clue. 2] "eliminate mind reading " as by Law 27 B1[a] ?? Best regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 4:49 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fair play (was IB and the Laws) > > From: Israel Erdnbaum > > I remember the time when Al Sobel [the legendary American TD] and Tannah > > Hirsch asked to change a score after the legal period and I refused ... > > This is a wonderful illustration! I would expect BLML to be near- > unanimous that the law is clear and unambiguous, and yet we have two > highly respected figures who think it would be fair to change a result > after the correction period has expired. I expect all of us will > understand both sides of the argument, no matter which side of it we > happen to agree with. > > > ... and told me in the States I would be kicked out for it. > > Good grief! I hope that has changed by now. > > > Even if we don't like the laws, and from what I see -we don't, > > I don't think it's that bad. Probably for every law in the book, you > will find one person or a small group who think it ought to be > changed. (Perhaps Law 1 is an exception, but I wouldn't care to bet on > it.) For a few laws, there is widespread support for change. But I > think most of us think most of the laws are OK. It's just that all > the messages in this forum are about the laws that are not entirely > OK, whether because of difficulty of interpretation or because the > effects are not exactly what seems fair. > > The LC drafting committee will never please everyone, but based on > Grattan's comments, I expect they are taking a hard look at laws that > have raised questions. Nevertheless, it will surprise me if there are > many dramatic changes. BLML rightly focuses on areas where there are > problems, and we may lose our perspective on the laws as a whole. I > think, however, if we look at all the deals that are played without > problems, we may realize that overall the Laws are not so bad. > > That doesn't (and shouldn't) prevent all of us from lobbying for our > particular hobby horses. (Mine are "eliminate mind reading" and > "disentangle mechanical and information penalties.") > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 9 02:16:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g48GG2328934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 May 2002 02:16:02 +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-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 g48GFuH28930 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 02:15:57 +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 175Tuj-000Lbs-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 08 May 2002 17:03:38 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 17:01:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Cats! References: <7AEOXgA13B34EwXz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Since it is my 'official' birthday today [everyone forgot my real one this year - snarl] I have decided to update the list of my intelligent friends. List of cats Mark Abraham Kittini Michael Albert Bob, Icky Picky RB Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley Dave Armstrong Cookie Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Frits, Gussy Brian Baresch Lao, Gaea Olivier Beauvillain Dode Adam Beneschan Mango MIA Matthias Berghaus * Lester RB David Blizzard Herbie, Mittens Mike Bolster Jess Vitold Brushtunov Chia Everett Boyer Amber Art Brodsky Ralph Pur Byantara Begung Wayne Burrows Fritzi, Nico Konrad Ciborowski Kocurzak Miauczurny Mary Crenshaw Dickens, Cecil Ray Crowe Mo, Vegas, Aspen Claude Dadoun Moustique Hirsch Davis Shadow, Smokey RB, Loki, Snaggs, Rufus Mike Dennis Casino Laval Du Breuil Picatou Simon Edler Incy Michael Farebrother Shadow EL, Tipsy EL Wally Farley Andrew RB, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy, Panda RB, Shaure, Edmund Eric Favager Poppy, Daisy, Smiffie, Ollie, Monty, Fluffy Walt Flory Punkin, Sami Marv French Mozart Anna Gudge * EMale, Bear RB, Taggie, Joss EL Dany Haimovici Shobo, Rosario, Shemaya, Hershey, Spotty, Shuri, Dossie, Kippy, Pushpush, Hershon RB Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Bridget, Depo RB Robert Harris * Paws RB, Monte MIA, Conrad RB, Babe RB, Betty RB, Bobbsie RB, Caruso EL Damian Hassan Bast, Katie, Tepsi, Baroo, Scrap, +1 Craig Hemphill Spook, Snuffy, Snuggles, Squeak, Cub Scout Richard Hull Endora, Putty Tat, Bill Bailey Sergey Kapustin Liza Laurie Kelso Bugs, Sheba MIA Irv Kostal Albert, Abby, Truman, Tuppence, Bill RB, Cleo EL, Sabrina RB Jack Kryst Bentley, Ava John Kuchenbrod RaRe, Leo Patrick Laborde Romeo Eric Landau Glorianna, Wesley, Shadow, Query Paul Lippens Rakker, Tijger, Sloeber Albert Lochli Killer Demeter Manning Nikolai, Zonker Rui Marques Bibi, Kenji, Satann John McIlrath Garfield, Mischief Brian Meadows Katy Bruce Moore Sabrena Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin Sue O'Donnell * Yazzer-Cat RB, Casey RB Henk Pieters Jip, Janneke, Ketie Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Ed Reppert Ayesha, Gracie, The Sarge, Buzz Jack Rhind TC (the cat) Tommy Sandsmark Lillepus, Bittepus, Snoppen Michael Schmahl Sophie Norman Scorbie Starsky RB, Hutch Bob Scruton Squeeky Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey Flemming B-Soerensen Flora, Rose RB Ian Spoors Zeus WV Grant Sterling Big Mac, Flash David Stevenson * Quango RB, Nanki Poo, Ting RB, Pish RB, Tush RB, Tao MIA, Suk RB, Sophie EL Helen Thompson Tom, Tabby, Bubba Les West T.C., Trudy Anton Witzen Beer, Miepje Tom Wood Nikolai, Zonker plus, of course Selassie RB is a cat waiting at Rainbow Bridge, MIA is a cat missing in action, EL is a cat on extended leave [ie staying with someone else known] and WV is a welcome visitor [ie lives elsewhere but visits on a regular basis]. Anyone who wishes to see the story of Rainbow Bridge can ask David for a copy, or look at the article on his Catpage at http://blakjak.com/rbridge.htm The story and a picture of Selassie is at http://blakjak.com/slssie.htm Additions and amendments to this list should be sent to Nanki Poo at . Amended entries are marked *. Schrodinger's cat does not appear, but it has been suggested that if Schrodinger's cat is not on the list then that means that Schrodinger's cat is on the list ... Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! Mrow *NP* -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 9 03:13:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g48HCwV29009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 May 2002 03:12:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g48HCqH29005 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 03:12:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.75.221]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 0.2 (built Apr 26 2002)) with SMTP id <0GVS00CW3XX9ZZ@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 08 May 2002 20:00:48 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 20:02:14 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Fair play (was IB and the Laws) To: Mark Horton , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Steve Willner Cc: "John (MadDog) Probst" , ayala hiler , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <002101c1f6ba$7ce4bd80$dd4b003e@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: <200205081449.KAA19091@cfa183.harvard.edu> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Steve I overlooked that you used the word 'fair' when talking about the Sobel and Hirsch incident [maybe I should have mentioned that this was in the 50's] They were adamant that this was not only unfair but clearly unacceptable . But really Steve do you think it's fair that because of a scoring mistake a wrong score [not the one really achieved at the table] is used. I thought then and I think now that this isn't fair ,but I thought then and I think now that this is the Law and there are very good reasons for this Law. The lesson from this is that if you committed an irregularity you should accept the penalty [and it can be harsh] gracefully. Besides who says life is fair . But ,of course 'fair play' is another kettle of fish' Best regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 4:49 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fair play (was IB and the Laws) > > From: Israel Erdnbaum > > I remember the time when Al Sobel [the legendary American TD] and Tannah > > Hirsch asked to change a score after the legal period and I refused ... > > This is a wonderful illustration! I would expect BLML to be near- > unanimous that the law is clear and unambiguous, and yet we have two > highly respected figures who think it would be fair to change a result > after the correction period has expired. I expect all of us will > understand both sides of the argument, no matter which side of it we > happen to agree with. > > > ... and told me in the States I would be kicked out for it. > > Good grief! I hope that has changed by now. > > > Even if we don't like the laws, and from what I see -we don't, > > I don't think it's that bad. Probably for every law in the book, you > will find one person or a small group who think it ought to be > changed. (Perhaps Law 1 is an exception, but I wouldn't care to bet on > it.) For a few laws, there is widespread support for change. But I > think most of us think most of the laws are OK. It's just that all > the messages in this forum are about the laws that are not entirely > OK, whether because of difficulty of interpretation or because the > effects are not exactly what seems fair. > > The LC drafting committee will never please everyone, but based on > Grattan's comments, I expect they are taking a hard look at laws that > have raised questions. Nevertheless, it will surprise me if there are > many dramatic changes. BLML rightly focuses on areas where there are > problems, and we may lose our perspective on the laws as a whole. I > think, however, if we look at all the deals that are played without > problems, we may realize that overall the Laws are not so bad. > > That doesn't (and shouldn't) prevent all of us from lobbying for our > particular hobby horses. (Mine are "eliminate mind reading" and > "disentangle mechanical and information penalties.") > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 9 06:38:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g48Kbd029087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 May 2002 06:37:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (nuser.dybdal.dk [62.242.254.78]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g48KbXH29083 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 06:37:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 10E76107508 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 22:25:36 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: [BLML] The DBF's suggestions for the new laws Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 22:25:36 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <572jdugcjosltvg2rap9jk3fj26tg87ulo@nuser.dybdal.dk> 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 g48KbZH29084 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have just sent Grattan the link to the Danish Bridge Federation's official suggestions for changes to the laws. Our suggestions can be found at http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 9 06:50:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g48KnkM29105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 May 2002 06:49:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nairobi.ixir.net (nairobi.ixir.com [212.252.122.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g48KneH29101 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 06:49:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from ethemhome ([212.253.81.140]) by nairobi.ixir.net with SMTP id <20020508203539.QYQT10644.nairobi@ethemhome> for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 23:35:39 +0300 Message-ID: <000e01c1f862$8c178680$8c51fdd4@ethemhome> From: "Ethem Urkac" To: Subject: [BLML] 18-14 vp instead of 17-13 Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 23:36:56 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000B_01C1F87B.92B4E8C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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_000B_01C1F87B.92B4E8C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In last nationals there was a ruling thought to be unjust for other = teams. I wonder if the ruling is correct or not. In round-robin team-of-4 one of the player told about a cold 4H contract = loudly which is heard at onather table and a player from that table = called the TD and informed that the board he is just beginning to play = he heard abouth a called 4H contract. TD ruled for ave+ for both teams = and applied a penalty for the other player. match finished scoring 18-14 instead of 17-13. is this the correct = rulling? Ethem Urkac ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C1F87B.92B4E8C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In last nationals there was a ruling = thought to be=20 unjust for other teams. I wonder if the ruling is correct or = not.
 
In round-robin team-of-4 one of = the player=20 told about a cold 4H contract loudly which is heard at onather table and = a=20 player from that table called the TD and informed that the board he is = just=20 beginning to play he heard abouth a called 4H contract. TD ruled for = ave+ for=20 both teams and applied a penalty for the other player.
 
match finished scoring 18-14 instead of = 17-13. is=20 this the correct rulling?
 
Ethem = Urkac
------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C1F87B.92B4E8C0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 9 07:32:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g48LWJJ29134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 May 2002 07:32:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g48LWDH29130 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 07:32:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0775.bb.online.no [80.212.211.7]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA17022 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 23:20:09 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006a01c1f6d6$22859aa0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <000e01c1f862$8c178680$8c51fdd4@ethemhome> Subject: Re: [BLML] 18-14 vp instead of 17-13 Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 23:20:08 +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: "Ethem Urkac" In last nationals there was a ruling thought to be unjust for other teams. I wonder if the ruling is correct or not. In round-robin team-of-4 one of the player told about a cold 4H contract loudly which is heard at onather table and a player from that table called the TD and informed that the board he is just beginning to play he heard abouth a called 4H contract. TD ruled for ave+ for both teams and applied a penalty for the other player. match finished scoring 18-14 instead of 17-13. is this the correct rulling? Ethem Urkac Sure seems correct to me, there is nothing odd here: When calculating the VP you will for each team add 3 IMPs to the IMPs really won, making a victory 3 IMPs greater or a loss 3 IMPs less than what was obtained on the boards scored normally. This will almost always lead to a VP sum greater than 30 in that match. 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 May 9 08:53:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g48MqIZ29182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 May 2002 08:52:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g48MqDH29178 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 08:52:14 +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 175a6X-0000RD-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 08 May 2002 23:40:15 +0100 Message-ID: <0h0j43D2ja28Ew9O@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 23:38:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <200205061431.KAA04814@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001201c1f558$1b941020$8124e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001201c1f558$1b941020$8124e150@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 > If West 'guesses' what East has and acts upon >it, he is acting upon information that he believes to >have been conveyed by the IB. Correct 'guessing' >is evidence of a message received. Hardly strong evidence. If you have three options and guess correctly that is evidence that you have guessed correctly, not that you have any reason whatever to assume one of the three options. Anyway, the question is whether you are allowed to use that guess. Some think yes, some think no, some think you can use additional UI, some think not, and some will leave it up to the TD without guidance. -- 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 Thu May 9 09:25:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g48NPaM29208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 May 2002 09:25:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g48NPVH29204 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 09:25:32 +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 JAA23644 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 09:27:01 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 09 May 2002 09:10:29 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] The DBF's suggestions for the new laws To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 09:11:21 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 09/05/2002 09:10:20 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Law 64A is too complicated and is worded in a way that can >easily be misunderstood. The one major legal difficulty I have as a (playing) club TD is in correctly applying Law 64A. I agree with the official Danish Bridge Federation position that Law 64A should be simplified. I am happy with either the DBF solution, or alternatively restoring the 1975 version of Law 64A. 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 May 9 14:57:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g494uTR29353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 May 2002 14:56:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g494uOH29349 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 14:56:25 +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 OAA20898 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 14:58:01 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 09 May 2002 14:41:28 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 14:43:13 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 09/05/2002 02:41:18 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Grattan Endicott writes > >> If West 'guesses' what East has and acts upon >>it, he is acting upon information that he believes to >>have been conveyed by the IB. Correct 'guessing' >>is evidence of a message received. > > Hardly strong evidence. If you have three options and guess correctly >that is evidence that you have guessed correctly, not that you have any >reason whatever to assume one of the three options. > > Anyway, the question is whether you are allowed to use that guess. >Some think yes, some think no, some think you can use additional UI, >some think not, and some will leave it up to the TD without guidance. > >-- >David Stevenson Psyching was part of the original version of the Kaplan-Sheinwold system. However, eventually Edgar Kaplan and Alfred Sheinwold agreed to drop psyching, because Edgar felt he was receiving subtle subconcious tells (due to years of partnership) when Alfred psyched. Grattan's stance on "guessing" after an IB is therefore consistent with the official EBU and ACBL stance on guessing/ fielding after partner has psyched. Andrew Robson, in the book "Master Class", relates an incident when he guessed to field a Tony Forrester psyche. The TD therefore classified the psyche as a "Red Psyche", adjusting the score. Robson took the Stevensonian "hardly strong evidence" view, arguing that with no recent experience of a Forrester psyche he was legally and ethically entitled to guess correctly. 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 May 9 15:13:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g495CoP29377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 May 2002 15:12:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from web10303.mail.yahoo.com (web10303.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.130.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g495CjH29373 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 15:12:46 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <20020509050047.38976.qmail@web10303.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [61.5.117.36] by web10303.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 08 May 2002 22:00:47 PDT Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 22:00:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Hanafiah Iskandar To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-151966237-1020920447=:35492" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --0-151966237-1020920447=:35492 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th! --0-151966237-1020920447=:35492 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii



Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th! --0-151966237-1020920447=:35492-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 9 15:34:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g495Yl429395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 May 2002 15:34:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g495YdH29388 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 15:34:40 +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 175dCn-000H4l-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 09 May 2002 01:58:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 02:56:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <200205071331.JAA12169@cfa183.harvard.edu> <005c01c1f666$71f40880$7839e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <005c01c1f666$71f40880$7839e150@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: "Steve Willner" >> > If West 'guesses' what East has and acts upon >> > it, he is acting upon information that he believes to >> > have been conveyed by the IB. Correct 'guessing' >> > is evidence of a message received. >> Indeed. But isn't West allowed and expected to do >> the best he can for his side, within the rules? Which >> rule prevents him from guessing? >+=+ Guessing? He is reading the insufficient bid. In what way is he not guessing? An IB has been made, there are a limited number of possible idiocies for pd, the player guesses. Why not? -- 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 Thu May 9 15:34:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g495YjB29394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 May 2002 15:34:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g495YbH29386 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 15:34:38 +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 175dCY-000H4g-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 09 May 2002 01:58:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 23:53:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 18-14 vp instead of 17-13 References: <000e01c1f862$8c178680$8c51fdd4@ethemhome> In-Reply-To: <000e01c1f862$8c178680$8c51fdd4@ethemhome> 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 g495YdH29387 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ethem Urkac writes > In last nationals there was a ruling thought to be unjust for other > teams. I wonder if the ruling is correct or not. >   > In round-robin team-of-4 one of the player told about a cold 4H > contract loudly which is heard at onather table and a player from > that table called the TD and informed that the board he is just > beginning to play he heard abouth a called 4H contract. TD ruled > for ave+ for both teams and applied a penalty for the other player. >   > match finished scoring 18-14 instead of 17-13. is this the correct > rulling? Probably. It is quite normal for unbalanced results in Victory Point scored events. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 9 17:30:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g497Tau29460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 May 2002 17:29:36 +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-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g497TVH29456 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 17:29:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.56.87] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 175iAo-0006kk-00; Thu, 09 May 2002 08:17:11 +0100 Message-ID: <005001c1f729$c81936e0$5738e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ethem Urkac" , References: <000e01c1f862$8c178680$8c51fdd4@ethemhome> Subject: Re: [BLML] 18-14 vp instead of 17-13 Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 08:13:22 +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: Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 9:36 PM Subject: [BLML] 18-14 vp instead of 17-13 In last nationals there was a ruling thought to be unjust for other teams. I wonder if the ruling is correct or not. In round-robin team-of-4 one of the player told about a cold 4H contract loudly which is heard at onather table and a player from that table called the TD and informed that the board he is just beginning to play he heard abouth a called 4H contract. TD ruled for ave+ for both teams and applied a penalty for the other player. match finished scoring 18-14 instead of 17-13. is this the correct rulling? Ethem Urkac +=+ Before the score was finally confirmed the Turkish Bridge Federation obtained advice from William Schoder and myself that the ruling was in conformance with the laws. ~ Grattan Endicott ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 9 23:00:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g49Cxjf29700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 May 2002 22:59:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout3.netvision.net.il (mxout3.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.24]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g49CxWH29694 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 22:59:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.95.188]) by mxout3.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GVU00BL2GVC76@mxout3.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 09 May 2002 15:47:42 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 15:48:45 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] Dear Blmlists To: Schoderb@aol.com, Mark Horton , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: ayala hiler , Israel Erdenbaum , Schoderb@aol.com Message-id: <000501c1f760$3ea36020$bc5f003e@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_zoAxKEbDJXh+ZikA7+9ADQ)" 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_zoAxKEbDJXh+ZikA7+9ADQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Dear Blmlists, It's still about L27 but let me try it from an other angle the TD's. True I haven't ruled for 12 years, but what can happen ,so 'look over my shoulder. TD !! the call came from the third table to the left . Thanks god they're playing with BB. From far I see W N E S P 1H P 1H TD In my club [recreational] there would be excitement. Here - quiet. They know all the tricks. I I; has anything been said? No. I take out the Book --- There has been a change in the Law so I"ll read now the Law and your options - should you need additional explanations you can ask in your turn but be careful not to give any UI to your partner. I turn to W ; You can accept the 1H bid and then the bidding continues normally -if when the hand is played out ,you feel damaged by what happened - call me back. If you don't accept the bid S will have to substitute it by either a sufficient bid or Pass and N is barred from bidding UNLESS S corrects the bid by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination namely- 2H*. In this case the bidding continues normally and THERE IS NO *UI. W - Can I still call you back if I feel We have been damaged? I - you can and should call me whenever you feel damaged But as I said there is no UI. W - You just told me to be careful while asking - and now you tell me there is no UI for my opp. I--- Sorry it's not me ,it's the Law says that W - It's that why the English say 'the law is an ass' ? I - Don't know ,I'm not English ,but you have to make up your mind, we don't have the whole night. W - I accept the 1H . Good boy ,hope he calls me back. I am exhausted and there is still so much to write about, but what stroke me as I was 'ruling' at the table that I might adjust the score on the spot 27 B1 [b]. So have no choice but to explain Even if S had hallucinations and 'did not see N has bid 1H but saw E bid 1C or 1D even then he would try to change his bid And he could still do it [famous Law 25] The more so if he wanted to bid 2H ,he has now more than ever,every reason in the world to let his partner know it Because otherwise his partner will KNOW he has an opening bid. I hope it's clear now. 1H P 1H means opening facing opening bid which also means [if playing 5 card majors] *5 HEARTS on the table which means I ADJUST THE SCORE. Best regards Israel --Boundary_(ID_zoAxKEbDJXh+ZikA7+9ADQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Dear Blmlists,

Dear Blmlists,

It=92s still about L27 but let me try it from = an other angle the TD=92s.

True I haven=92t ruled for 12 years, but what = can happen ,so =91look over my shoulder.

TD !!   the call came from the third table to the left . Thanks god = they=92re playing with BB. From far I see  =

   W        N       = E       = S

    P       1H      P      1H

  = TD

In my club [recreational]  there would be excitement. Here =96 quiet. They know = all the tricks. I

  I;  has anything = been said?

No.

 

 I take out the Book ---  There = has been a change in the Law so I=94ll read now the Law and your options =96 should = you need additional explanations you can ask in your turn but be careful not to = give any UI to your partner.

  = I turn to W ; You can accept the 1H bid and then the bidding continues normally = =96if when the hand is played out ,you feel damaged by what happened =96 call = me back.  =

  = If you don=92t accept the bid S will have to substitute it by either a = sufficient bid or Pass  and N is barred from = bidding

UNLESS  S corrects the bid by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination  namely-   2H*. =

In this case the bidding continues normally = and  THERE IS = NO

*UI.

W =96 Can I still call you back if I feel We = have been damaged?

   I - you can and should call me whenever you feel damaged   =

But as I said there is no = UI.

W =96 You just told me to be careful while = asking =96 and now you tell me there is no UI for my = opp.

   I---  Sorry it=92s = not me ,it=92s the Law  says = that

W -  It=92s that why the English say =91the law is an ass=92 = ?

   I =96 Don=92t know ,I=92m not English ,but you have to make up = your mind, we don=92t have the whole night.

W =96 I accept the 1H .           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;  Good boy ,hope he calls me back.

 

I am exhausted and there is still so much to = write about, but what stroke me as I was =91ruling=92  at the table that I might adjust the score on the = spot 27 B1 [b].

So have no choice but to explain    =

Even if S had hallucinations and =91did not = see N has bid 1H but saw E bid 1C or 1D even then he would try to change his = bid

And he could still do it [famous Law 25] =

The more so if he wanted to bid 2H ,he has = now more than ever,every reason in the world to let his partner know it =

Because otherwise his partner will KNOW he = has an opening

bid.

I hope it=92s clear = now.

 

1H   P    = 1H   means opening facing = opening bid which also means   = [if playing 5 card majors]  *5 HEARTS = on the table

which means I  ADJUST THE SCORE.

 Best regards

Israel

--Boundary_(ID_zoAxKEbDJXh+ZikA7+9ADQ)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 10 01:20:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g49FJTp29772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 01:19:29 +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 g49FJOH29768 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 01:19:24 +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 LAA19311 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 11:07:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA25386 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 May 2002 11:07:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 11:07:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205091507.LAA25386@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Psyching was part of the original version of the Kaplan-Sheinwold > system. This was in the days before alerts, of course. Nowadays, wouldn't we call these "systemic light openings" rather than psychs? I agree that there still might be a UI problem, depending on how the rest of the system is organized and in particular whether responder is expected to "guess" whether an opening is light or normal. But if the system is organized to deal with the light openings, so responder doesn't have to make guesses, I don't see any problem. Of course systemic light openings at the one-level are prohibited in many jurisdictions. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 10 01:30:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g49FURE29799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 01:30:27 +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 g49FULH29795 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 01:30:22 +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 g49FJ5x01282 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 16:19:05 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 16:15:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <200205061431.KAA04814@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001201c1f558$1b941020$8124e150@dodona> <0h0j43D2ja28Ew9O@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <0h0j43D2ja28Ew9O@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 <0h0j43D2ja28Ew9O@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Grattan Endicott writes > >> If West 'guesses' what East has and acts upon >>it, he is acting upon information that he believes to >>have been conveyed by the IB. Correct 'guessing' >>is evidence of a message received. > > Hardly strong evidence. If you have three options and guess correctly >that is evidence that you have guessed correctly, not that you have any >reason whatever to assume one of the three options. > > Anyway, the question is whether you are allowed to use that guess. >Some think yes, some think no, some think you can use additional UI, >some think not, and some will leave it up to the TD without guidance. > I am convinced that if opener "guesses" to bid 4H, and responder "guesses" to pass, we can use L27B1b, because they're evidently wired. 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 May 10 01:33:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g49FX7M29813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 01:33:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g49FX1H29809 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 01:33:01 +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 g49FLkx01287 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 16:21:46 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 16:17:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (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 , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >>Grattan Endicott writes >> >>> If West 'guesses' what East has and acts upon >>>it, he is acting upon information that he believes to >>>have been conveyed by the IB. Correct 'guessing' >>>is evidence of a message received. >> >> Hardly strong evidence. If you have three options and guess correctly >>that is evidence that you have guessed correctly, not that you have any >>reason whatever to assume one of the three options. >> >> Anyway, the question is whether you are allowed to use that guess. >>Some think yes, some think no, some think you can use additional UI, >>some think not, and some will leave it up to the TD without guidance. >> >>-- >>David Stevenson > >Psyching was part of the original version of the Kaplan-Sheinwold >system. However, eventually Edgar Kaplan and Alfred Sheinwold >agreed to drop psyching, because Edgar felt he was receiving >subtle subconcious tells (due to years of partnership) when >Alfred psyched. > >Grattan's stance on "guessing" after an IB is therefore >consistent with the official EBU and ACBL stance on guessing/ >fielding after partner has psyched. > >Andrew Robson, in the book "Master Class", relates an >incident when he guessed to field a Tony Forrester psyche. The >TD therefore classified the psyche as a "Red Psyche", adjusting >the score. Robson took the Stevensonian "hardly strong >evidence" view, arguing that with no recent experience of a >Forrester psyche he was legally and ethically entitled to >guess correctly. > I disagreed with the TD in question at the time. I felt there was insufficient "partnership" evidence, and sufficient "general bridge knowledge" that the guess should have been allowed. I must ask him about it next time I see him - to see whether he's changed his mind. cheers john >Best wishes > >Richard > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 10 01:34:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g49FY5Z29825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 01:34:05 +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-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g49FY0H29821 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 01:34:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.27.124] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 175pjf-000I1h-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 09 May 2002 16:21:39 +0100 Message-ID: <002c01c1f76d$27126f20$7c1be150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200205061431.KAA04814@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001201c1f558$1b941020$8124e150@dodona> <0h0j43D2ja28Ew9O@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 16:02:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 08 May 2002 23:38 Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > Hardly strong evidence. If you have three > options and guess correctly that is evidence > that you have guessed correctly, not that you > have any reason whatever to assume one of >the three options. > +=+ That thought would be naive for a TD with a tenth of David's experience. Speaking from experience with WBF and EBL ACs, it is the case that players who claim to have 'guessed' successfully have received scant credence. The fact is that the player is not guessing; he is making a judgement what information it is that the infraction has conveyed. If he does so successfully from plural options this indicates that he has interpreted correctly what information has been conveyed. A suitably sceptical Director will be convinced that the player has made the diagnosis correctly; he applies the law on that basis. If the partner of the player then happens to act in a way that shows he, too, has the same opinion as to what information may be drawn, the Director will be doubly reassured as to the basis for his ruling. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ==================================== Note Between now and midnight noise from Liverpool will abate; turbulence from the area of Tampa may already have done so. During the next fortnight it is possible disturbances may be apparent in the Republic of Ireland; this could be related to two elderly pundits who are being thumped by their holiday companions for talking about bridge. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 10 04:39:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g49Ibs529954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 04:37:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from col-msxproto2.col.missouri.edu ([128.206.7.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g49IbnH29950 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 04:37:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] ([128.206.98.1]) by col-msxproto2.col.missouri.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Thu, 9 May 2002 13:25:50 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 13:45:05 -0500 To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au, BLML From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] The DBF's suggestions for the new laws X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 May 2002 18:25:50.0182 (UTC) FILETIME=[F20ED060:01C1F786] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>Law 64A is too complicated and is worded in a way that can >>easily be misunderstood. > >The one major legal difficulty I have as a (playing) club TD >is in correctly applying Law 64A. > >I agree with the official Danish Bridge Federation position >that Law 64A should be simplified. > >I am happy with either the DBF solution, or alternatively >restoring the 1975 version of Law 64A. > 64A seems straight-forward to me, especially compared with much else. "Did you win the revoke trick?" I. "Yes." "Did your side win any tricks after the revoke trick?" A. "Yes." "Two tricks." B. "No." "One trick." II. "No." "Did you later win a trick with a card you could have played on the revoke trick?" Etc. No more complex than opening lead out of rotation, but sometimes needing a trip through the play of the hand, from the revoke trick on. REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 10 05:19:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g49JJlm29983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 05:19:47 +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 g49JJfH29979 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 05:19:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1848.bb.online.no [80.212.215.56]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA13425 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 21:07:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <010801c1f78c$c7dcc120$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] The DBF's suggestions for the new laws Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 21:07:35 +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: "Robert E. Harris" ....... > 64A seems straight-forward to me, especially compared with much else. > > "Did you win the revoke trick?" > I. "Yes." "Did your side win any tricks after the revoke trick?" > A. "Yes." "Two tricks." > B. "No." "One trick." > II. "No." "Did you later win a trick with a card you could have played on > the revoke trick?" Etc. > > No more complex than opening lead out of rotation, but sometimes needing a > trip through the play of the hand, from the revoke trick on. Well, we are all different. Because I found the original text to be very complicated and difficult to use my way of handling law 64 has always (since 1987) been: Did the offending side win any trick at all after the revoke? if not - no penalty. Did they win at least two tricks after the revoke, and was one of those tricks won by the offender himself, either by winning the revoke trick or by winning a later trick with a card he could have legally played to the revoke trick (i.e. with a card of the same denomination as that of the card led to the revoke trick)? if yes - two tricks penalty. If neither of the above conditions applies: one trick penalty. >From my reading of the Danish suggestion this seems to be exactly what they suggest. IMO they have made an excellent job (and not only with law 64) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 10 07:52:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g49LpuH00047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 07:51:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from exch01.minfod.com (exchange.midtechnologies.com [207.227.70.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g49LpoH00043 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 07:51:52 +1000 (EST) Received: by al21.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 9 May 2002 16:45:00 -0500 Message-ID: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21F3@al21.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au '" Subject: RE: [BLML] Dear Blmlists Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 16:45:00 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g49LprH00044 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >-----Original Message----- >From: Israel Erdnbaum >To: Schoderb@aol.com; Mark Horton; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Cc: ayala hiler; Israel Erdenbaum; Schoderb@aol.com >Sent: 5/9/02 8:48 AM >Subject: [BLML] Dear Blmlists >Dear Blmlists, >It’s still about L27 but let me try it from an other angle the TD’s. >True I haven’t ruled for 12 years, but what can happen ,so ‘look over my >shoulder. >TD !! the call came from the third table to the left . Thanks god >they’re playing with BB. From far I see > W N E S > P 1H P 1H > TD >In my club [recreational] there would be excitement. Here – quiet. They >know all the tricks. I > I; has anything been said? >No. > > I take out the Book --- There has been a change in the Law so I”ll >read now the Law and your options – should you need additional >explanations you can ask in your turn but be careful not to give any UI >to your partner. > I turn to W ; You can accept the 1H bid and then the bidding continues >normally –if when the hand is played out ,you feel damaged by what >happened – call me back. (SNIP) If the second (insufficient) 1H bid is accepted by W on what basis can you adjust? The accepted bid becomes legal and therefore cannot be UI. 27.A. Insufficient Bid Accepted Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO. It is accepted if that player calls. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 10 08:44:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g49MiN600088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 08:44:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g49MiIH00084 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 08:44:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.17.240] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 175wUi-0006H5-00; Thu, 09 May 2002 23:34:42 +0100 Message-ID: <003001c1f7a9$939f2a20$d58c403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" References: <010801c1f78c$c7dcc120$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] The DBF's suggestions for the new laws Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 23:32:14 +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: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 8:07 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] The DBF's suggestions for the new laws > > From my reading of the Danish suggestion this seems to be > exactly what they suggest. IMO they have made an excellent > job (and not only with law 64) > > Sven > +=+ I am sure you will understand that no member of the drafting committee can enter into a public discussion on these suggestions at this stage. The whole subcommittee will be considering them as a body. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ (Incidentally I am about to close this machine for the duration of my holiday - see parallel message). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 10 09:02:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g49Mxbc00106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 08:59:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g49MxXH00102 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 08:59:33 +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 JAA16673 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 09:01:09 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 10 May 2002 08:44:33 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 08:46:27 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 10/05/2002 08:44:24 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: [snip] >>Andrew Robson, in the book "Master Class", relates an >>incident when he guessed to field a Tony Forrester psyche. The >>TD therefore classified the psyche as a "Red Psyche", adjusting >>the score. Robson took the Stevensonian "hardly strong >>evidence" view, arguing that with no recent experience of a >>Forrester psyche he was legally and ethically entitled to >>guess correctly. John (MadDog) Probst replied: >I disagreed with the TD in question at the time. I felt there was >insufficient "partnership" evidence, and sufficient "general bridge >knowledge" that the guess should have been allowed. I must ask him >about it next time I see him - to see whether he's changed his mind. I disagree with MadDog at this time. Details of the case in question, according to my (possibly imperfect) recollection: Forrester opened 1-of-a-major as dealer, RHO passed. Robson's only LA was to make a strong raise, since slam was possible opposite a non-psyche. Instead Robson made an irrational pre-emptive raise for a good result opposite the actual Forrester psyche. Robson "felt" that Forrester had psyched. My contention is that "feeling" was justified by subconciously reading involuntary subtle psyche-related mannerisms of his long-time partner by Robson. My view is that legitimate guesses can only occur in such a deal as exemplified last night in a major Canberra imps match: Dlr N Me Vul EW J9 643 109 Q108652 Expert Expert Q5 A8763 KJ972 108 8762 AJ53 AK 97 Expert K1042 AQ5 KQ4 J43 NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST 1NT (11-14) Pass 2C (Stayman) Pass All pass My pass of Stayman meant that all three opponents could legitimately *guess* that I had psyched. 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 May 10 10:17:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4A0FBx00162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 10:15:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4A0F6H00157 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 10:15:06 +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 g4A03ox02522 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 01:03:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 01:01:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (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 , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >I wrote: > >[snip] > >>>Andrew Robson, in the book "Master Class", relates an >>>incident when he guessed to field a Tony Forrester psyche. The >>>TD therefore classified the psyche as a "Red Psyche", adjusting >>>the score. Robson took the Stevensonian "hardly strong >>>evidence" view, arguing that with no recent experience of a >>>Forrester psyche he was legally and ethically entitled to >>>guess correctly. > >John (MadDog) Probst replied: > >>I disagreed with the TD in question at the time. I felt there was >>insufficient "partnership" evidence, and sufficient "general bridge >>knowledge" that the guess should have been allowed. I must ask him >>about it next time I see him - to see whether he's changed his mind. > >I disagree with MadDog at this time. Details of the case in question, >according to my (possibly imperfect) recollection: > >Forrester opened 1-of-a-major as dealer, RHO passed. Robson's only >LA was to make a strong raise, since slam was possible opposite a >non-psyche. Instead Robson made an irrational pre-emptive raise for >a good result opposite the actual Forrester psyche. > >Robson "felt" that Forrester had psyched. My contention is that >"feeling" was justified by subconciously reading involuntary subtle >psyche-related mannerisms of his long-time partner by Robson. >From the other side of the screen? Hardly. It is difficult to see how Robson could have got any wire, which is why I disagreed at the time. snip hand > >NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST >1NT (11-14) Pass 2C (Stayman) Pass >All pass > >My pass of Stayman meant that all three opponents could >legitimately *guess* that I had psyched. > this is a baby psyche. I usually wait for east to balance and then double with my 17 count. (playing 12-14). That's a proper psyche. >Best wishes > >Richard > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 10 12:07:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4A25bL00255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 12:05:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4A25RH00242 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 12:05:27 +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 175zaz-000IP1-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 May 2002 02:53:26 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 00:22:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Playing on after a claim MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Let me tell you a story. I have just been a TD at the EBU Spring Foursomes, our best single venue event. Declarer claimed with three cards left, and LHO on lead. The claim was *completely obvious*, and not one player out of a hundred would have challenged it. Declarer has a winner, and can cross-ruff the other two. "Play on" said LHO. Now dummy forgot himself: he is in a position in the EBU where he has to be super-ethical: to be fair to him he is that sort of player anyway. He did not call the TD because he assumed dummy could not. Wrong, of course, because he ceased to be dummy when partner claimed. Anyway, the play continued, and declarer did something moronic. However, dummy had remembered his rights so he called me. I came to the table, voided the play [I never saw what it was], explained that the ex-dummy had a perfect right to call me, told the defender you do not play on at duplicate, and gave declarer all three tricks. Does this sound familiar? England v Belgium, Maastricht, Gunnar Hallberg claimed for England on a double squeeze, and when asked to play on played casually, got it wrong, and was given it by the TD/AC? Back to my case: the defender who had asked declarer to play on asked me whether my ruling was right. I explained it, and suggested he have a word with his captain - who was Gunnar Hallberg!!! Gunnar told me he would explain my ruling to him in Swedish! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 10 12:07:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4A25eH00257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 12:05:40 +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-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 g4A25WH00250 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 12:05:32 +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 175zaz-000IP2-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 May 2002 02:53:26 +0100 Message-ID: <$PIBzAQGVw28Ewft@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 00:24:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] New Laws - claims MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Bruce McIntyre wrote on RGB >The right of the >declarer to make and complete a claim statement needs to be protected a >little better in the Laws. I agree with this. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 10 12:07:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4A25cd00256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 12:05:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4A25RH00241 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 12:05:27 +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 175zaz-000IOx-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 May 2002 02:53:26 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 17:42:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (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 > >>Grattan Endicott writes >> >>> If West 'guesses' what East has and acts upon >>>it, he is acting upon information that he believes to >>>have been conveyed by the IB. Correct 'guessing' >>>is evidence of a message received. >> >> Hardly strong evidence. If you have three options and guess correctly >>that is evidence that you have guessed correctly, not that you have any >>reason whatever to assume one of the three options. >> >> Anyway, the question is whether you are allowed to use that guess. >>Some think yes, some think no, some think you can use additional UI, >>some think not, and some will leave it up to the TD without guidance. >> >>-- >>David Stevenson > >Psyching was part of the original version of the Kaplan-Sheinwold >system. However, eventually Edgar Kaplan and Alfred Sheinwold >agreed to drop psyching, because Edgar felt he was receiving >subtle subconcious tells (due to years of partnership) when >Alfred psyched. > >Grattan's stance on "guessing" after an IB is therefore >consistent with the official EBU and ACBL stance on guessing/ >fielding after partner has psyched. > >Andrew Robson, in the book "Master Class", relates an >incident when he guessed to field a Tony Forrester psyche. The >TD therefore classified the psyche as a "Red Psyche", adjusting >the score. Robson took the Stevensonian "hardly strong >evidence" view, arguing that with no recent experience of a >Forrester psyche he was legally and ethically entitled to >guess correctly. If a player psyches sometimes and his partner picks it up that is not just a guess. If a player makes an IB once and his partner makes a guess which half of BLML seem to think is routine that is not the same unless his pd has a habit of making IBs. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 10 12:22:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4A2Kwq00288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 12:20:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4A2KnH00284 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 12:20:54 +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 MAA24261 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 12:22:25 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 10 May 2002 12:05:49 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 12:07:01 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 10/05/2002 12:05:39 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: [snip] >I agree that there still might be a UI problem, depending >on how the rest of the system is organized and in particular >whether responder is expected to "guess" [snip] Somewhat off-topic side issue. In my regular partnership, I play a set of multi-twos known as RCO Twos. Example: A 2S opening shows 5-9 points with either 5/5 reds or 5/5 blacks. Our partnership agreement is that we often "guess" which option partner holds for the bid, based upon probabilistic evidence of our own suit distributions. (On very rare occasions we have a debacle and play in our 2-1 fit.) Therefore, I believe that a system organised to encourage "guessing" is not inherently unethical, especially when the guessing involved is between two diametrically opposed extreme shapes. 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 May 10 16:52:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4A6op700410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 16:50:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4A6ojH00406 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 16:50:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3755.bb.online.no [80.212.222.171]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA17061 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 08:38:38 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001401c1f7ed$5154b420$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" References: <010801c1f78c$c7dcc120$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003001c1f7a9$939f2a20$d58c403e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] The DBF's suggestions for the new laws Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 08:38:38 +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" > +=+ I am sure you will understand that no member > of the drafting committee can enter into a public > discussion on these suggestions at this stage. The > whole subcommittee will be considering them as a > body. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Absolutely. I should have been extremely surprised if you had said anything else. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 10 17:43:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4A7gpv00452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 17:42:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout2.netvision.net.il (mxout2.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4A7gkH00448 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 17:42:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.74.158]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 0.2 (built Apr 26 2002)) with SMTP id <0GVV00KCLWQ80L@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 May 2002 10:27:48 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 10:29:12 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) To: Mark Horton , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, richard.hills@immi.gov.au Cc: Alain Gottcheiner , ayala hiler , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <000d01c1f7fc$c4d1fd40$9e4a003e@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 > > My pass of Stayman meant that all three opponents could > legitimately *guess* that I had psyched.> > Best wishes You must be kidding , Your pass TOLD all 2 opp. and one enemy that you psyched. Bridge is a game of 'intelligent' guesses ,sometimes when the guess is not so 'intelligent ' you go for a number. I learned in BLML that there are 'wired guesses'and there probably are all other kind of'guesses' ,maybe somebody will undertake to name them . Some people insist on using the term 'guessing' in connection with the insufficient bid thread. Grattan said "Guessing ? he is reading the I.B" . Because some people use the "guessing" to escape the necessity to face the reality of blatanly unauthorised information being miraculously made AI and accepted as such. It is necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there is no guessing at all . There are 3 possible options. 1H P 1H D! In all 3 Responder did not see the 1H bid 1] Responder dreamt he *saw RHO's 1C or 1D bidding card on the TABLE . But then wouldn't he try to change his bid? 2] He wanted to bid 1S [or any other bid, including 2H] won't you witness a classical 'change of bid' reaction ,[ a seasoned player will know he can still change his bid. ] 3] So we are left with - he has a 1H opening bid *and everyone knows it . We haven't heard a French TD and till now only Herman de Wael had the guts to state clearly and unequivocably, that whatever happens there can be *no adjustment*. >From the opposite side on my last posting I had to admit that unfortunatelythis is the situation. But I try to do something about this "horrible" situation. I"'d like to hear your reaction to my ruling. Ages ago Eric wrote on this thread " 1H P 2H - forcing to game I think Eris plays bridge a couple of years so I asked how did he feel writing this? You wrote " I am bending over backwards to avoid the use [or appearance of use] of UI. So now I ask you .How do you feel when the Law makers create an 'autostrada' for transfering UI through IB. Best regards Israel 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 Fri May 10 17:52:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4A7qdf00465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 17:52:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4A7qXH00461 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 17:52:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.74.158]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GVV00DC7XB5AU@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 May 2002 10:40:20 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 10:41:52 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Dear Blmlists To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, John Nichols Cc: ayala hiler , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <000301c1f7fe$89af3780$9e4a003e@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: 8BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21F3@al21.minfod.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Nichols" To: Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 11:45 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Dear Blmlists > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Israel Erdnbaum > >To: Schoderb@aol.com; Mark Horton; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > >Cc: ayala hiler; Israel Erdenbaum; Schoderb@aol.com > >Sent: 5/9/02 8:48 AM > >Subject: [BLML] Dear Blmlists > > >Dear Blmlists, > hand is played out ,you feel damaged by what > >happened – call me back. > > (SNIP) > > If the second (insufficient) 1H bid is accepted by W on what basis can you > adjust? The accepted bid becomes legal and therefore cannot be UI. > > 27.A. Insufficient Bid Accepted > Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of > offender's LHO. It is accepted if that player calls. >I am not a lawyer I am a referee and I want to do justice but of course I have to do it within the Law. So I"ll tell you my thinking and ask you to help me find the right interpretation. I am confronted with this situation 1H P 1H I know that the responder knows it too Do you agree this is UI? But I also know that when I apply the Law responder will correct to 2H and on the way make the UI into AI .If this is right so I don't know what is wrong. So I have to do my best to protect the NOS. I thought maybe that by creating a situation where the bidding goes 1H --P -- 1H - P I can argue that the 1H is legal for bidding purposes only [not transferring information] .I'm wrong. You have not reacted to my final conclusion that I adjust the score -that's wrong too.Because I can't deny the logic of the French approach that when you *tell a player that this information is authorised -you cannot afterwards punish him for using it. So I'm in an impossible situation because " I judge the IB conveyed such information as to damage the NOS" but if I allow responder to bid 2H Iwon't be able to adjust the score. How can I prevent it. What about Law 27 B2 "and the bid substituted are INCONTROVERTIBLY NOT CONVENTIONAL ." 1H P 2H 3+H [ 6-9 HCP] is normal 1H P 1H TD corrected to 2H [5+H 11+HCP} convention So as 2H is not *incontrovertibly not conventional* opener must pass.... It's already morning . Best regards 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 Fri May 10 17:58:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4A7wfP00477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 17:58:41 +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 g4A7waH00473 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 17:58:36 +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 g4A7mJ526976 for ; Thu, 9 May 2002 23:48:19 -0800 Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 23:43:18 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] L25A, sort of Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I am sure this has been covered before, but I can't seem to remember what the decision was: A player makes a pass in error, correctable under L25A. But the bidding ends immediately afterward, and the opening lead is faced already by the time the player says "oops, I meant to ___." What do we do now? Does it matter which side became the declaring side? (Actually, this can't arise without another infraction occuring if the passer's side is defending - passer's partner should have led face down and asked for questions. In that case I won't show much mercy to the "doubly offending side.") Does it matter how the other side behaves after the mispass? (For example, 2C(strong)... pass... pass.... followed by a lightning-fast-pass-face-down-lead-nod-from-partner-face-up-lead) --- This particular problem is made worse, not better, incidentally in online bridge: once the lead is made the dummy is faced for everyone automatically, which pretty much guarantees the board will be unsalvageable. But that is a sidenote to my main question. 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 May 10 18:23:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4A8Mkv00500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 18:22:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4A8MfH00496 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 18:22:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3755.bb.online.no [80.212.222.171]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA14618 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 10:10:34 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <007301c1f7fa$2951dcc0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A, sort of Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 10:10:34 +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: "Gordon Bower" > I am sure this has been covered before, but I can't seem to remember what > the decision was: > > A player makes a pass in error, correctable under L25A. > > But the bidding ends immediately afterward, and the opening lead is faced > already by the time the player says "oops, I meant to ___." > > What do we do now? Nothing, no call can be retracted after the auction has ended, which is when the opening lead has been faced. > > Does it matter which side became the declaring side? (Actually, this can't > arise without another infraction occuring if the passer's side is > defending - passer's partner should have led face down and asked for > questions. In that case I won't show much mercy to the "doubly offending > side.") In no case can a call be altered under Law 25A after that caller's partner has made a subsequent call. > > Does it matter how the other side behaves after the mispass? (For example, > 2C(strong)... pass... pass.... followed by a > lightning-fast-pass-face-down-lead-nod-from-partner-face-up-lead) This is an interesting question; normally I would say it does not matter. But I cannot exclude the possibility that in certain cases I shall have an initial feeling of unethical behaviour by defenders. Even then I cannot roll back the auction, so the only "escape" would be to find some reason for the application of Law 12. However: I am very hard to convince of willfully unethical behaviours. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 10 22:21:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4ACK6m00692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 22:20:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4ACK0H00688 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 22:20:01 +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 OAA12977; Fri, 10 May 2002 14:05:25 +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 OAA28968; Fri, 10 May 2002 14:07:57 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020510141204.00a91c50@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 14:14:16 +0200 To: "Ethem Urkac" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] 18-14 vp instead of 17-13 In-Reply-To: <000e01c1f862$8c178680$8c51fdd4@ethemhome> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_1550188==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --=====================_1550188==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 23:36 10/05/2002 +0300, Ethem Urkac wrote: >In last nationals there was a ruling thought to be unjust for other teams. >I wonder if the ruling is correct or not. > >In round-robin team-of-4 one of the player told about a cold 4H contract >loudly which is heard at onather table and a player from that table called >the TD and informed that the board he is just beginning to play he heard >abouth a called 4H contract. TD ruled for ave+ for both teams and applied >a penalty for the other player. > >match finished scoring 18-14 instead of 17-13. is this the correct rulling? AG : it is. Avg+ for both theams (non-offenders) translates into +3 IMPs for both teams on that deal (L86A). In a round-robin, this could cause the match to yield more than 30 VPs. In a KO match, the scores are compensated according to L86B. --=====================_1550188==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 23:36 10/05/2002 +0300, Ethem Urkac wrote:
In last nationals there was a ruling thought to be unjust for other teams. I wonder if the ruling is correct or not.
 
In round-robin team-of-4 one of the player told about a cold 4H contract loudly which is heard at onather table and a player from that table called the TD and informed that the board he is just beginning to play he heard abouth a called 4H contract. TD ruled for ave+ for both teams and applied a penalty for the other player.
 
match finished scoring 18-14 instead of 17-13. is this the correct rulling?

AG : it is. Avg+ for both theams (non-offenders) translates into +3 IMPs for both teams on that deal (L86A). In a round-robin, this could cause the match to yield more than 30 VPs. In a KO match, the scores are compensated according to L86B. --=====================_1550188==_.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 May 10 22:28:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4ACSV700735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 22:28:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4ACSMH00731 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 22:28:22 +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 1769Js-0006aU-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 May 2002 08:16:20 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020510080809.00afb900@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: ehaa/pop.starpower.net@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 08:17:28 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Dear Blmlists In-Reply-To: <000501c1f760$3ea36020$bc5f003e@mycomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_1347916==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --=====================_1347916==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 09:48 AM 5/9/02, Israel wrote: >TD !! the call came from the third table to the left . Thanks god=20 >they=92re playing with BB. From far I see > > W E S > > P 1H P 1H > > TD > >In my club [recreational] > > I; has anything been said? > >No. > > I take out the Book --- There has been a change in the Law so I=94ll=20 > read now the Law and your options =96 should you need additional=20 > explanations you can ask in your turn but be careful not to give any=20 > UI to your partner. > > I turn to W ; You can accept the 1H bid and then the bidding=20 > continues normally =96if when the hand is played out ,you feel damaged=20 > by what happened =96 call me back. > > If you don=92t accept the bid S will have to substitute it by either=20 > a sufficient bid or Pass and N is barred from bidding > >UNLESS S corrects the bid by the lowest sufficient bid in the same=20 >denomination namely- 2H*. > >In this case the bidding continues normally and THERE IS NO > >*UI. > >W =96 Can I still call you back if I feel We have been damaged? > > I - you can and should call me whenever you feel damaged > >But as I said there is no UI. > >W =96 You just told me to be careful while asking =96 and now you tell me= =20 >there is no UI for my opp. > > I--- Sorry it=92s not me ,it=92s the Law says that > >W - It=92s that why the English say =91the law is an ass=92 ? > > I =96 Don=92t know ,I=92m not English ,but you have to make up your=20 > mind, we don=92t have the whole night. > >W =96 I accept the 1H .Good boy ,hope he calls me back. This sounds like a wrong ruling. If W accepts the 1H IB, it is=20 "treated as legal", and, as I understand the law, there is no further=20 provision for redress. Therefore E-W should have been instructed to=20 play the hand out with the understanding that there is no reason for a=20 callback; the table result must stand. >I am exhausted and there is still so much to write about, but what=20 >stroke me as I was =91ruling=92 > >So have no choice but to explain > >Even if S had hallucinations and =91did not see N has bid 1H but saw E=20 >bid 1C or 1D even then he would try to change his bid > >And he could still do it [famous Law 25] > >The more so if he wanted to bid 2H ,he has now more than ever,every=20 >reason in the world to let his partner know it > >Because otherwise his partner will KNOW he has an opening > >bid. > >I hope it=92s clear now. > >1H P 1H means opening facing opening bid which also means [if=20 >playing 5 card majors] *5 HEARTS on the table > >which means I ADJUST THE SCORE. Using which law? Not L27B1(b), which applies only when the conditions=20 of L27B hold. When W accepted the IB, we are ruling under L27A, not=20 L27B. L27A gives the TD no option to adjust for damage. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618=20 --=====================_1347916==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 09:48 AM 5/9/02, Israel wrote:

TD !!   the call came from the third table to the left . Thanks god they=92re playing with BB. From far I see 

   W       E       S

    P       1H      P      1H

  TD

In my club [recreational]

  I;  has anything been said?

No.

 I take out the Book ---  There has been a change in the Law so I=94ll read now the Law and your options =96 should you need additional explanations you can ask in your turn but be careful not to give any UI to your partner.

  I turn to W ; You can accept the 1H bid and then the bidding continues normally =96if when the hand is played out ,you feel damaged by what happened =96 call me back. =20

  If you don=92t accept the bid S will have to substitute it by either a sufficient bid or Pass  and N is barred from bidding

UNLESS  S corrects the bid by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination  namely-   2H*.

In this case the bidding continues normally and  THERE IS NO

*UI.

W =96 Can I still call you back if I feel We have been damaged?

   I - you can and should call me whenever you feel damaged  

But as I said there is no UI.

W =96 You just told me to be careful while asking =96 and now you tell me there is no UI for my opp.

   I---  Sorry it=92s not me ,it=92s the Law  says that

W -  It=92s that why the English say =91the law is an ass=92 ?

   I =96 Don=92t know ,I=92m= not English ,but you have to make up your mind, we don=92t have the whole night.

W =96 I accept the 1H .Good boy ,hope he calls me back.

This sounds like a wrong ruling.  If W accepts the 1H IB, it is "treated as legal", and, as I understand the law, there is no further provision for redress.  Therefore E-W should have been instructed to play the hand out with the understanding that there is no reason for a callback; the table result must stand.

I am exhausted and there is still so much to write about, but what stroke me as I was =91ruling=92

So have no choice but to explain   

Even if S had hallucinations and =91di= d not see N has bid 1H but saw E bid 1C or 1D even then he would try to change his bid

And he could still do it [famous Law 25]

The more so if he wanted to bid 2H ,he has now more than ever,every reason in the world to let his partner know it

Because otherwise his partner will KNOW he has an opening

bid.

I hope it=92s clear now.

1H   P    1H   means opening facing opening bid which also means   [if playing 5 card majors]  *5 HEARTS on the table

which means I  ADJUST THE SCORE.

Using which law?  Not L27B1(b), which applies only when the conditions of L27B hold.  When W accepted the IB, we are ruling under L27A, not L27B.  L27A gives the TD no option to adjust for damage.


Eric Landau           &nbs= p;         ehaa@starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive            = ;     (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607     Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_1347916==_.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 May 10 22:31:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4ACVgu00747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 22:31:42 +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 g4ACVXH00743 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 22:31:34 +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 1769Mz-00071d-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 May 2002 08:19:33 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020510081845.00afe6f0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: ehaa/pop.starpower.net@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 08:20:41 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <0h0j43D2ja28Ew9O@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <200205061431.KAA04814@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001201c1f558$1b941020$8124e150@dodona> <0h0j43D2ja28Ew9O@blakjak.demon.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 11:15 AM 5/9/02, John wrote: >I am convinced that if opener "guesses" to bid 4H, and responder >"guesses" to pass, we can use L27B1b, because they're evidently wired. Isn't that exactly the "rule of coincidence", which has been discredited as having no basis in the Law? 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 May 10 22:34:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4ACXqg00769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 22:33:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (radio.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4ACXgH00765 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 22:33:43 +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 OAA26717; Fri, 10 May 2002 14:20:15 +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 OAA11020; Fri, 10 May 2002 14:21:39 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020510141902.00a917a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 14:28:00 +0200 To: "Sven Pran" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A, sort of In-Reply-To: <007301c1f7fa$2951dcc0$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 10:10 10/05/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Gordon Bower" > > I am sure this has been covered before, but I can't seem to remember what > > the decision was: > > > > A player makes a pass in error, correctable under L25A. > > > > But the bidding ends immediately afterward, and the opening lead is faced > > already by the time the player says "oops, I meant to ___." > > > > What do we do now? > >Nothing, no call can be retracted after the auction has ended, >which is when the opening lead has been faced. AG : isn't this a little bit harsh ? (or more than that) ? I would consider that an unintentional declaration, when correctible under L25A, hasn't occurred. Thus there weren't three consecutive passes in rotation, and the bidding hasn't ended yet. However, you can't penalize the opening leader for having believed the pass was "authentic". I would then rule this : if you are convinced that the pass was a mispull (perhaps in lieu of a double or an alert), the bidding reverts to the player. Information from the premature lead is UI to partner, AI to opponents. In Belgium, *anything* that can arise because you didn't lead face down is on your own account. Good question : why was the opening lead so quickly done and so quickly faced ? Perhaps because the players saws that there was a mispull, which he wanted to capitalize on. I call this sharp practice. Best regards, Alain. > > > > Does it matter which side became the declaring side? (Actually, this can't > > arise without another infraction occuring if the passer's side is > > defending - passer's partner should have led face down and asked for > > questions. In that case I won't show much mercy to the "doubly offending > > side.") > >In no case can a call be altered under Law 25A after that caller's >partner has made a subsequent call. > > > > > Does it matter how the other side behaves after the mispass? (For example, > > 2C(strong)... pass... pass.... followed by a > > lightning-fast-pass-face-down-lead-nod-from-partner-face-up-lead) > >This is an interesting question; normally I would say it does not >matter. But I cannot exclude the possibility that in certain cases >I shall have an initial feeling of unethical behaviour by defenders. > >Even then I cannot roll back the auction, so the only "escape" >would be to find some reason for the application of Law 12. > >However: I am very hard to convince of willfully unethical behaviours. > >Sven > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 10 22:36:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4ACZve00781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 22:35:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe35.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4ACZnH00777 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 22:35:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 10 May 2002 05:23:43 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [209.245.205.174] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 07:24:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 May 2002 12:23:43.0777 (UTC) FILETIME=[86864110:01C1F81D] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 21:07 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) | | Steve Willner wrote: | | [snip] | | >I agree that there still might be a UI problem, depending | >on how the rest of the system is organized and in particular | >whether responder is expected to "guess" | | [snip] | | Somewhat off-topic side issue. | | In my regular partnership, I play a set of multi-twos known | as RCO Twos. | | Example: A 2S opening shows 5-9 points with either 5/5 reds | or 5/5 blacks. | | Our partnership agreement is that we often "guess" which | option partner holds for the bid, based upon probabilistic | evidence of our own suit distributions. | | (On very rare occasions we have a debacle and play in our | 2-1 fit.) | | Therefore, I believe that a system organised to encourage | "guessing" is not inherently unethical, especially when | the guessing involved is between two diametrically | opposed extreme shapes. My sentiments. But not my sentiments exactly. It is leaves out important qualifications. As such, there are very few players, let alone partnerships, in the world [and I include those considered to be world class] who play such methods without frequently tipping off partner how comfortable he was in selecting his action. I think more than less the pair's success relies on the tip off than skill. The method is 'ok', but it is the players executing it that have the problem. At a club I used to play was a pair of mad scientists who experiment with a new invention every week. Yet, after years of practice they never had smooth tempo, but they bent over backwards a lot to take the worst of it, at least from what I saw. Even then, I was rarely comfortable with all of the UI flying around- which does not make for an enjoyable outing. regards roger pewick | 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 May 10 22:43:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4AChc200854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 22:43:38 +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 g4AChSH00847 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 22:43:28 +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 1769YV-0000uN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 May 2002 08:31:27 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020510082713.00afbd40@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: ehaa/pop.starpower.net@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 08:32:35 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) 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 10:07 PM 5/9/02, richard wrote: >In my regular partnership, I play a set of multi-twos known >as RCO Twos. > >Example: A 2S opening shows 5-9 points with either 5/5 reds >or 5/5 blacks. > >Our partnership agreement is that we often "guess" which >option partner holds for the bid, based upon probabilistic >evidence of our own suit distributions. > >(On very rare occasions we have a debacle and play in our >2-1 fit.) > >Therefore, I believe that a system organised to encourage >"guessing" is not inherently unethical, especially when >the guessing involved is between two diametrically >opposed extreme shapes. A similar example: I occasionally encounter partnerships who have chosen to define certain doubles as either takeout or penalty; partner is expected to be able to figure out which it is from his hand. As with Richard's 2S bid, partner almost always gets it right, but suffers the rare debacle. It would be hard to credit any interpretation of the laws which made this improper; the ACBL certainly doesn't seem to consider it 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 May 10 22:54:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4ACrsE00909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 2002 22:53:54 +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 g4ACrnH00905 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 22:53:49 +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 1769iW-0002dC-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 May 2002 08:41:48 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020510083938.00afa1b0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: ehaa/pop.starpower.net@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 08:42:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A, sort of In-Reply-To: <007301c1f7fa$2951dcc0$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 04:10 AM 5/10/02, Sven wrote: >From: "Gordon Bower" > > > Does it matter how the other side behaves after the mispass? (For > example, > > 2C(strong)... pass... pass.... followed by a > > lightning-fast-pass-face-down-lead-nod-from-partner-face-up-lead) > >This is an interesting question; normally I would say it does not >matter. But I cannot exclude the possibility that in certain cases >I shall have an initial feeling of unethical behaviour by defenders. > >Even then I cannot roll back the auction, so the only "escape" >would be to find some reason for the application of Law 12. Perhaps the hook for applying L12 here might be L74C7. [AHD] "Disconcert: To frustrate by throwing into disorder." 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 May 11 00:28:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4AEReQ00950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 May 2002 00:27:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4AERZH00946 for ; Sat, 11 May 2002 00:27:35 +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 KAA01458 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 10:15:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA01013 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 May 2002 10:15:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 10:15:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205101415.KAA01013@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Example: A 2S opening shows 5-9 points with either 5/5 reds > or 5/5 blacks. > > Our partnership agreement is that we often "guess" which > option partner holds for the bid, based upon probabilistic > evidence of our own suit distributions. > > (On very rare occasions we have a debacle and play in our > 2-1 fit.) If I understand you correctly, this is not "guessing." The system prescribes bidding as though partner has the least favorable option. (I am, of course, making an assumption here about your likely methods, based on the above, but there is no reason any guessing needs to be involved.) The key question is this: after an ambiguous opening, will responder bid the same each time he is dealt a certain hand type? (There will be borderline cases where there are multiple possibilities, but in a normal bidding system they are rare.) Bidding differently when dealt the same hand type is what I mean by "guessing." Let's take "multi 2D" as a familiar example. If responder is, say, 4243 with a 9-count, he bids 2H. In a sense he is "guessing" that opener is weak with hearts, but in fact there is no guesswork involved. This is just the normal system bid, which caters to all possible hand types opener can have. If responder once in awhile makes a preemptive spade raise with such a hand, that would be guessing. If responder does that and is right, I would expect an adjusted score, or at least serious consideration of one. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 11 00:55:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4AEtTG00968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 May 2002 00:55:29 +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 g4AEtMH00964 for ; Sat, 11 May 2002 00:55:23 +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 KAA03127 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 10:43:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA01041 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 May 2002 10:43:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 10:43:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205101443.KAA01041@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 John: > >I am convinced that if opener "guesses" to bid 4H, and responder > >"guesses" to pass, we can use L27B1b, because they're evidently wired. > From: Eric Landau > Isn't that exactly the "rule of coincidence", which has been > discredited as having no basis in the Law? As I understand it, the RoC is not a law in itself, but it's a guideline for assessing evidence. In this case, John is saying that the bidding is so wildly unlikely to be innocent that he would rule a L16A infraction, even absent other evidence. I think he has a point, but of course I hope the TD would assess all the evidence available. The presence or absence of screens, for example, might make a big 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 Sat May 11 05:03:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4AJ2eB01088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 May 2002 05:02:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4AJ2YH01084 for ; Sat, 11 May 2002 05:02:34 +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 176FTI-0008nX-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 May 2002 18:50:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 15:25:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A, sort of References: <007301c1f7fa$2951dcc0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <007301c1f7fa$2951dcc0$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: "Gordon Bower" >> I am sure this has been covered before, but I can't seem to remember what >> the decision was: >> >> A player makes a pass in error, correctable under L25A. >> >> But the bidding ends immediately afterward, and the opening lead is faced >> already by the time the player says "oops, I meant to ___." >> >> What do we do now? > >Nothing, no call can be retracted after the auction has ended, >which is when the opening lead has been faced. The problem with that approach, Sven, is that the way L25A is worded, you can change a call if partner has not called, ie until he calls on the next board! There is no Law that I know of that says you cannot change a call once the auction has ended. I know that it feels wrong, but can you quote a Law? >> Does it matter which side became the declaring side? (Actually, this can't >> arise without another infraction occuring if the passer's side is >> defending - passer's partner should have led face down and asked for >> questions. In that case I won't show much mercy to the "doubly offending >> side.") > >In no case can a call be altered under Law 25A after that caller's >partner has made a subsequent call. True. >> Does it matter how the other side behaves after the mispass? (For example, >> 2C(strong)... pass... pass.... followed by a >> lightning-fast-pass-face-down-lead-nod-from-partner-face-up-lead) > >This is an interesting question; normally I would say it does not >matter. But I cannot exclude the possibility that in certain cases >I shall have an initial feeling of unethical behaviour by defenders. > >Even then I cannot roll back the auction, so the only "escape" >would be to find some reason for the application of Law 12. > >However: I am very hard to convince of willfully unethical behaviours. What is unethical in taking advantage of opponents' idiocies? That's not unethical. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 11 05:19:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4AJJPl01105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 May 2002 05:19:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout3.netvision.net.il (mxout3.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.24]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4AJJJH01101 for ; Sat, 11 May 2002 05:19:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.78.166]) by mxout3.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GVW00H0YT4GRO@mxout3.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 May 2002 22:07:31 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 22:08:35 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: John Probst , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Steve Willner Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , ayala hiler , Sven Pran Message-id: <001301c1f85e$78cb7ae0$a64e003e@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: <200205101443.KAA01041@cfa183.harvard.edu> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ain't we jumping to conclusions [not in "recreational tournaments} you might expect CC or system sheet ,and you might find that [at least] in MP pairs After 1H p 2H P opener never passes 3H and if weaker favourable vul. 4H would be the system bid [preempt] Best regards Israel] Bridge after all isn't such a simple game Original Message ----- : "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > John: > > >I am convinced that if opener "guesses" to bid 4H, and responder > > >"guesses" to pass, we can use L27B1b, because they're evidently wired. > > > From: Eric Landau > > Isn't that exactly the "rule of coincidence", which has been > > discredited as having no basis in the Law? > > As I understand it, the RoC is not a law in itself, but it's a > guideline for assessing evidence. In this case, John is saying > that the bidding is so wildly unlikely to be innocent that he > would rule a L16A infraction, even absent other evidence. > > I think he has a point, but of course I hope the TD would assess > all the evidence available. The presence or absence of screens, > for example, might make a big 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 11 05:50:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4AJoNM01123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 May 2002 05:50:23 +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 g4AJoIH01119 for ; Sat, 11 May 2002 05:50:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.78.166]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GVW00GH7UJC38@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 May 2002 22:38:03 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 22:39:33 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] IBL To: Sven Pran , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Eric Landau Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , ayala hiler , John Probst Message-id: <002301c1f862$ccf24f00$a64e003e@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 You wrote RoC has no basis in the Law. Does that by itself mean ' it does not exist ,it isn't right,. can you [should you] get away with murder because there is no basis in the Law . Shouldn't there be a way to stop it, if existent. You also wrote that I gave a wrong ruling .Thank you for doing it ,. I forgot to thank John Nichols who did that before , and so gave me the opportunity to see and admit my mistake, and also try some other ways to the same objective. I hope you read those 2 posts and even more so ,that you'll give your opinion. Thanks and best regards Israel P.S I sincerely request all BLMLists to let me know promply especially when I slipped. Could "total exposure" apply? 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 Sat May 11 09:21:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4ANJQC01213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 May 2002 09:19:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ptialaska.net (garza.acsalaska.net [209.193.61.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4ANJLH01209 for ; Sat, 11 May 2002 09:19:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-151-121-119-dial-en5.fai.acsalaska.net (208-151-121-119-dial-en5.fai.acsalaska.net [208.151.121.119]) by ptialaska.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g4AN7HD14497 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 15:07:17 -0800 (AKDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 15:08:49 -0800 (Alaskan Daylight Time) From: Michael Schmahl To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A, sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-X-Sender: mschmahl@ptialaska.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 10 May 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > Sven Pran writes > >From: "Gordon Bower" > >> I am sure this has been covered before, but I can't seem to remember what > >> the decision was: > >> > >> A player makes a pass in error, correctable under L25A. > >> > >> But the bidding ends immediately afterward, and the opening lead is faced > >> already by the time the player says "oops, I meant to ___." > >> > >> What do we do now? > > > >Nothing, no call can be retracted after the auction has ended, > >which is when the opening lead has been faced. > > The problem with that approach, Sven, is that the way L25A is worded, > you can change a call if partner has not called, ie until he calls on > the next board! There is no Law that I know of that says you cannot > change a call once the auction has ended. I know that it feels wrong, > but can you quote a Law? > Hmmm. How about L22B? After the auction period has ended, B. One or More Players Have Bid if any player has bid, the final bid becomes the contract, and play begins. Yes, this doesn't mean that a call can't be changed, but it does mean that changing the call (to a bid, at least) would have no effect on the contract. Grasping at straws, but you're right; it does seem that the right to change one's call (even an intentional change, under 25B) lasts throughout the entire play period. Does this mean I can change my final pass to Double, once I've taken the setting trick? Assuming, of course, that I'm willing to settle for Avg- at best. -- 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 Sat May 11 12:20:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4B2JT101279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 May 2002 12:19:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4B2JOH01275 for ; Sat, 11 May 2002 12:19:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from rota.alumni.princeton.edu (pcp01782626pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net [68.32.52.241]) by mtaout04.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.6 (built Apr 26 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GVX00LFKCK4MH@mtaout04.icomcast.net> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 May 2002 22:07:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 22:01:03 -0400 From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) X-Sender: davidgrabiner@mail.comcast.net To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020510220053.01e7ac78@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 12:07 PM 5/10/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >In my regular partnership, I play a set of multi-twos known >as RCO Twos. > >Example: A 2S opening shows 5-9 points with either 5/5 reds >or 5/5 blacks. > >Our partnership agreement is that we often "guess" which >option partner holds for the bid, based upon probabilistic >evidence of our own suit distributions. > >(On very rare occasions we have a debacle and play in our >2-1 fit.) > >Therefore, I believe that a system organised to encourage >"guessing" is not inherently unethical, especially when >the guessing involved is between two diametrically >opposed extreme shapes. In fact, guessing is fairly standard. If the opponents are not playing forcing 1NT, then the double W N E S 1H P 1NT P 2H X is generally played as two-way. The opponents' auction is about to end, so North might want to make a balancing double with Kxxx x Qxxx Axxx; however, the opponents may not have a fit, so North might equally well have made a a trap pass and want a penalty double with Kxx KQTxx xx AKx. South will usually guess right by looking at his own heart length, but there will be the occasional problem when West has seven hearts and East chose to bid 1NT with 4-3-3-3, or when West has six hearts and East was 3-0-5-5. As another example, when you bid RKC Blackwood and have two keycards, you may have to guess whether partner has zero or three. If you have a lot of outside strength, you may know that partner cannot have zero keycards, and you can thus continue with 5NT or a queen ask on the assumption that partner has three. What should be forbidden is guessing that partner has violated system (by a psyche or misbid), when you do not have proof of the violation. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 12 12:20:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4C2J6e01915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 May 2002 12:19:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4C2J0H01911 for ; Sun, 12 May 2002 12:19:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.95.3]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GVZ00L4R77325@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 May 2002 05:06:42 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 05:08:13 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] Dear IBLMists I To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , ayala hiler Message-id: <000501c1f962$423eaec0$035f003e@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_Mm/lWqFyoXFXlPy01lqogw)" 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_Mm/lWqFyoXFXlPy01lqogw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Dear IBLMists I.B. While trying my best to find a way to protect NOS in the 1H P 1H case I wondered WHY so many people accepted with equanimity , this IMO 'horrible' change. How would I explain it. Simple . 1H opening bid facing a1HOpening bid -reached game * Big Deal . They will always reach game so -- no damage . And if NOS want to claim damage They have to prove that without the IB, O5/12/2002Sunday, May 12, 2002S would not have reached the same contract. I hope someone [maybe French TD] provides a better explanation. Israel --Boundary_(ID_Mm/lWqFyoXFXlPy01lqogw) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Dear IBLMists I

Dear IBLMists  I.B.

While trying my best to find a way to protect = NOS in the

1H    P    = 1H    case  I wondered  WHY so many people accepted with equanimity , this = IMO =91horrible=92 change.

 How would I explain it.

Simple .         1H opening = bid facing  a1HOpening = bid  -reached game   * Big Deal  . They will always reach game so --  no

damage . And if NOS want to claim damage They = have to prove that without the IB, O5/12/2002Sunday, = May 12, 2002S would = not have reached the same contract.

 

I hope someone [maybe French TD] provides a = better explanation.

Israel

--Boundary_(ID_Mm/lWqFyoXFXlPy01lqogw)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 12 20:58:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4CAvkD02197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 May 2002 20:57:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nairobi.ixir.net (nairobi.ixir.com [212.252.122.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4CAveH02193 for ; Sun, 12 May 2002 20:57:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from ethemhome ([212.253.78.193]) by nairobi.ixir.net with SMTP id <20020512104323.BNLR10644.nairobi@ethemhome> for ; Sun, 12 May 2002 13:43:23 +0300 Message-ID: <003a01c1fb34$7ae195c0$c14efdd4@ethemhome> From: "Ethem Urkac" To: Subject: [BLML] hessitation Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 13:45:27 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0036_01C1FB4D.9AF2C6E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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_0036_01C1FB4D.9AF2C6E0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0037_01C1FB4D.9AF2C6E0" ------=_NextPart_001_0037_01C1FB4D.9AF2C6E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Leaves N S 10987 A 10987 AK65 K5 AQ82 962 QJ74 N E S W - 2S dbl pass 2N* pass 3N dbl pass pass rdbl* pass 4c all pass 2N=3Dlebensohl rdbl=3Dhessitated for a long while TD called for the hessitation. He ruled for 3N rdbled for 1600 to EW. = Other team appealed and changed to 4c. What is your opinon? =20 Ethem Urkac ------=_NextPart_001_0037_01C1FB4D.9AF2C6E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Leaves

 
   N        =    =20     S
 
10987            = A
10987            = AK65
K5           =20     AQ82
962           = ;   =20 QJ74
 
N       =20 E       S    =20    W
-         2S  = ; =20 dbl        pass
2N*   =20 pass  3N        dbl
pass =20 pass  rdbl*      pass
4c  all pass
 
2N=3Dlebensohl
rdbl=3Dhessitated for a long while
 
TD called for the hessitation. He ruled for 3N rdbled for 1600 = to EW.=20 Other team appealed and changed to 4c.
 
What is your opinon?
 
         
Ethem Urkac

------=_NextPart_001_0037_01C1FB4D.9AF2C6E0-- ------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C1FB4D.9AF2C6E0 Content-Type: image/gif; name="aleabanr.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <003401c1fb34$75a281a0$c14efdd4@ethemhome> R0lGODlhWAI8ANX/AP+ZM/9mAMzMM8yZZsyZM8yZAMxmZsxmM8xmAMwzM8wzAMDAwJmZZpmZM5mZ AJlmZplmM5lmAJkzZpkzM5kzAJkAAGZmZmZmM2ZmAGYzZmYzM2YzAGYAADNmMzMzMzMzADMAMzMA AAAzAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAEAAAsALAAAAABYAjwAQAb/wIVw SCwaj0hh4PFIOp/QqHRKrVqv2Kx2y+16v+CweEwum0foywVigajfl8ca/pbT7+/DW3Ph3+V2eG5q gYN0g2yGcXN4go11i42Kaol/jHSBj5qElpKQlI5rbXByk5aZoIqAj26ti6aIo5ibd6azqHCGhaGV kLakl7OQuG+TvcC2xJq/xYeyyHjKrJurnpygtZTPx6+0zZrVF2jjIw8Wn3cWTBQIEe7vFPEUEfPv CBQAEQjt7+788PLcVVDjp8+bZ3AQYrLlhg8Ec4P8nNNwTtsyQhDcVGT08BefBxAy1HkoxyHITBuv FdTkh9tBZmrU6crER6TBiARF0QIEgY+F/5VxWrWRkxKkzaBMbkLMeWHiRjbeWiqMCbMpSIJXKTKt 46cgVG/m0NGRuSfo0ZMl1yw1WFFkRTZAr+Ihm9PoSJAtHxQ82XCiTlpSbU3dRDfoR7nA1PYMJo5c uY2Z3ClwV4+eP3sFDhAgMJlfhQIQIhygHGHAAQcQEDgoEKEzhAMcPHyQTduDBtt9ftZdHHN34j6Z ThpkqjuhK4N4m/4ZJPzt1uFyVeVs8zYrZEZAMVX8KD0dJb3I4QA9lwHu2ONebxpK2dRPoOJMo5N6 OHw4fKrYwW0P+juhNveNDHVTI6U8F8d10aAnHkbYYGSOT/YVtF9SFdmhkYJl8bfGSu4xl/8hNPVF M+Ev9zVF33BHqRXJSISAZ5xjI1CS0VjK8VOAappBQAACN+pDwGjzyMPPPhEQUEADBOhjmT4QFOAA Ag2086MCDdA2Wx/ZSbighLbw0VUkBe01H04zqnEUhMD1Nx9HIDXU2yF2hBPUIKMANYlEH/knTV2I EaWWmCMZciFKX3V0UHvs8YdIm9NB5Z6LK87ZjJ104BnpOajkxRsc5ZW0XqSMUtKShoeGdc1ybJYJ IHQPTJCol2pykmhSzMXVS0etihVqnYds+aaJXCIFU3NlbQRhIDCW6ZZyBO3jgJEOVHbZBh54sMGS Qv4zWQRO3hNBBQG1piQ7EWww220f3Jb/Iazh5SRRWYGwe868+dFohwYnUlXdJBUlSlVaOBl3r3LH 9YZKvqSE6R95Mu53mCmY7hGqnrmYyOhiGnWF8Fz0OWRgWngZai+c0Sh8KMNrfKUcvh/fOrEwxYh8 FMqXZGfxgCEuwp0Gwp0aIr0Z7ZdOx4zd7LFVEEeq4h9fvtviXoloxW5GA/8l8tJwwIhcxia2YQgf tllZ22yWxUOP2RQoEBAFss02Gwjnnlvt3LLd5kFZHQ7MhFZIobS1Lk9h8ihFIZlYJicimXT4QXyv aHOpAXMVk152eZ0TfcXh+iuzoGjJUL2Q+ER54Rb6xlZHiszbuMqEgc6J6DwXbrlS7X13/2JKKVU1 yjmDpPg6sJXjlBSsJAXsVDH+TpMzRnyf5Ffvyv2E4E3Sf7N86HGM7paqKj7FRMEmzndsNkcjRqBB 45hRBAPg0iPEAxE0oP789Ndv//3456///vz37///SUAABABIwAIa8IAITKACF8hALozjPG6omvfM ZzA6EIBDlTHbt8xWHwEZDhcebNwiKBhBVASHQBiyWPIsJ8FifM87JnxhrxQDOg96DYQnQhOYfhVB VIEjhUNpC3/ugymfCI+CyjFhrBgUORtSbWgDQ5DT5mDCTaEFajXE3NB6aB8XIjFi/VFGcB7ShvTQ yYtJ89PmfMbErThxYzdji1h2yDkufv+sPh1ihNbCpJCMZLAy2+IWAiYQpMmww48EGECQ0sZIdvyR HkOiAJbYJZ4S5cQmebpA4jp4tZdEkW9f8hsp5pU67v2GkjpkUfZ8IsJDubEsmIzEURRBya0B6l/T 4ZvQ8BXFQiWnN8aCGSWHArEcImouHwpmLO0wy0oxZTyx64OH2MK3WEaOcI+YXVzw5sliFoib7VqJ NoV5R3dVg5X+CuavalKXN1WNMV9KneC+M53GkMOUvGuJGyZgowP4UzSaeUcBWHO2doRmH6n5xwEQ MBooNVQzBPjAB0BQm7pV65nDyaRBbGYrQRjxfO3Sl+26SC+OAcwvDQqm0NSExEjJSzn/ZwFngBwn w04sJJUMQoomBHS0be6skyxNhq+ip8k5SvNj30QdSF2oLE7lInm47OksHNKTnrmUpPj6is2CeDSB 4aymMMspObOTHO7sLkMkOccELEJDetIBRifMhZLo4QBujaZbTdoMAipgSEdSgDWrAU079hGks4kr AqFhB4/cpoEO3I1zH/XPwypEVOSoMa7nWQ4rF+KgioXIiJ5KzKrUEloVRS4aC1krG/GzOEiNJ3od jRykcFmfEi6oUllRRdAyGpPYGiisQVGt0lg7HBIRjSHfjMv0OHvaPLLsLii11JseJpZRnNZMJ5ot QTr2NZJdl5wgUS2hxJdEV/LmYHHS/y5ItNYKVIDxApB0wAF6IlG4VYts8shvP/hRDwy4zQMhuEA8 MJDfe0i0WtTKDThaGomUwIqyTIVKJgwlwhA2IylGxYgslJqzlk4YMYvJHVh/gynICM0uDgIZpD4s qK08UU/XmdVxOAwgyKw4FyBOZfGWWuI6eK8v6HhtcHLMCQq+d7htVAxOqEMKvUDmF8RQ43w2HJek nuSWbd0Q50gLkzIeZHR7SkTPRAie98LozGhOM5pD0I55VOAeQopHBdRM5zrb+c54zrOe98znPvv5 z4AOtKAHTehCG/rQiE60ohddvx0xoIGQjrSkJ03pSlu6gYt2zAcmkOlOe/rToA61qP9HTepSm/rU qDY0Lr4nPK4Zprx40MNW+DAPV7RiceiAyqywQeMhPm5lTC4uVjJCouGy2jfFSc6RE9S8jugmdrg+ la47sSjuXcWSwWicc4BDbDzwjLcJY5a2mQfrmRJOaBFpk1AtsutUtbp2zpznytLd7aXWIVTcgbey kXyoczeqgpjAt6/JvWwa+VvY3I72iqYtjEW5G9krkQZC0r1ex/yOdf6BgH7nilhnQoADbyBXkOC8 Nmp9Kaci1CeNGlTUjZy43vN5Z+PC0a8RztSU2FspHp9xcgUjT1UOlpFx0pmyhdyLZjrdecUUTpEJ ROTpdAQGmjoU7THvIXfaDHrRX0L/9DJV6HOKydSWJ3HSm183LS+ver4yl83e4Px3v1WvMQmCdaDf dnHB7iqNvD6SZv8yhxXRGjFRu4YITMCwS+oH2qK1UAoMwB0JJVc/xjV5J9EdfBqme8w1HyYZRtze ssrKrHlupj+0tCEis1mfUCuTOCkcJNtBabm/Ec14Xa47iemZGHPopjWRL/VLNDbSXJ8Mrcq+4A05 9pZzU7pVO+grg7fpvT/Hy9OKcfMK1lKTwT7iziHM+a3HSPFj38EOZyN7n1WHIFChNZ3ppCWIJY2S CCqtAaSmHod8fDwyM4AdXQbx+TUP/8AjXxMnCRIHXeEXTFARa4UgTcQdurA02bEN/5fTJrOTKOp3 Aa6CQvciKBEoTxnIbQjIeQeicCVWVVXRW5LCCYUyB9vECBiGcBhIFBv4CQ+4gt1wMvFyFS4iNSUo GPyWGIAHc980Ve/nVqLAd2NBg0WBDRKSRz34PLyjDUqYEN80g1shEkQYDPOygxHUc9cTKx5zNB5U Hk7VbYIHVKSBf+PCGs6iGYc3D0kSDwJUJKkhLhRAAAelAO3gT/4kABM1G20jiBdQLWJCdii4CRyW WbuxLMGRPGPWe5UCiTLydpGQfIdzQrYXCHjBYMN2dA2yb8TAHY4IDLD3XXJhhky1fNewiMYBL7ID Ko6zIp0IE7EDinNQCbfUER0SU//DEIFIZHVyRG0vc0r8UYvggFH+8h4gFTWGAWFFBi99x2DJAyvE I27xwXt9VyF7NDnPQREY0FB8+COZAT/usCMEUFhmExr6sA9JMlh5aCRNglipsSPUcl93owH62FjM Qkq+915kBnjL0V1NWDSXCBy21yCrUh4PkRc5YwFOt13+0XdapiEdMj6PUBKjwINfuH7rsmXJISfY 91x3ACgMyRv0QROn8iVF0RPqkEfQEWJBqDMb2WKuRE0YKD4Z6BWjqJFadQ0n6ZAqOYvMcUZDqYBb 0YFyYZK8eFuplBznFTByAUa48xx24I8SKYQI2XsQ0n6BU1yW4SzxyI4IIAAI8CP/bWZY26IAdcUa f8WO6sgar9EaAnSPF8VHdrQmkOIXUJiAyGEBDJgL1RZtMKmKN+OKKlVLRpeVl4A6KzVGsxhhGUlF KcgUgjIxLtGK0oQL8pRLMuY6o2I7P+kzPPghSjaZ1UN4GBaaSrZrDiF7vYOYxdJKivIcNsGDNkMf qPcyKnUJQfdsaBVhj6mXWeI4DamMb7BWkgiRUBec9vRA0QcH/sAON9IAd8gjo+EACkAA1tJm+PcP ghQB2nk2a0MZddhm/9UHHdA1xYiMGZmIy8AXzLKDu9eBj4BTrTg71LaZYXQpbsKRLHFOEplvsweL zWOK3sZy3uFz1Kafh1I4tjR7/3LCKwB6nwKaCrxyDcR0kdA4QudFKp9IgstIhVAWSszjiXSEnwfZ jCEJobI4XvnWUjmZIbpRgJmojczDjRaHZW/wJKdhD3kVARVFYAAxnYNlnvFwX9eiQe5wAPUQAoa4 jxcpoevBif94VSjZRTZIeMlHDKPJTE1JQ8+mO74HMuZBoAUnWTX5We7HHiypk1OYlOeDTf9mOw5J SwBZT6pkpsA5lTPpFBFkCmM2Ea72lNNUXO/0O7j4dH9XhNBRFkUJcJUUTp8Qfbv4S8i5p1vTp0a5 RtMFovFCdp3zQm+aLKN4k30gNm5DUbPBpEyqePTgX20zNtUCpf/FWPmIR+I3ev9pQZwep34lEoLQ dFQT+amLmX15GT5JyIqR+XPxFpO75VXuRH1A9WWm2TW4dmIg2lm1FXUyQo0J6ay3Ba0YF0KEKny0 IKw41pnEUa3CSEXE8R0txSHq93nBKJARh6/J6o0G4hJNY5yhanvv8jwbxS/M8ADtBycKRxC28QEm Ry0doAEbgDZrE4BC+gG2imD6iAG4YYhhky4fYJmWg0XkM41VcTXyqZDKQDXWV07j2iJSqTLCgQgS 81vAl2HDZStVg2Lfk1TSqKXZ010SCFwdJno5GnYcUbPLc7Or1bQBF7NP5rMYpbBWCXodNiNQIzqn t5lWZLUv2AmYcjUFaLNLCTn/ukAi9JkRGVAgLueSYQcB6UM/DBAuFKBx9PBol5a3eru3fNu3fvu3 XTC3dQu4hFu4hnu4iJu4/zMZTaC4jvu4kBu5kju5C8AAEdC4lJu5mru5nNu5SABq8ZBqoju6pFu6 pnu6qJu6qru6ePYBCcC6sBu7sju7tFu7tiu7Cjaa/VYzylp9A4IAU1sc9EqRaBezB3qtBCt6jpkh 4cqgLRoRvKNzK8O7suC7ilNULJclT5YnkcWhPvNaHlO24dYbYDhzLplOG7MSulmn1tuazGua5su9 vXu0VyVZlPkzcNRDfLSNSxm9BkKw7Eth7hsfV4cd/vuQOHM626W8Fvi+37i9/21qvB0KFOB7v4qj MqPFIc+ZBjwxMp/gW2pRRumIjfolLfPgAQ6qY93nM+wRsGWLGGYloSBmH0B1ZIlam7wkvqoUVmCl wgzGjJhlWccSprAnwzbpbfBBS9d6Fbv5wt1VxDZsPj4MZaXSHzITZBM5ZIIiETUsi1frgju2NbDo e8gEki0Dxp5HKjEcxUosYj9cxZIKsJ70E3QSQfSCLI7BDACyOBP7Ds/ERRCwATnBAWkZJBUASZC1 DJLojWD4kiA1RStsFUtcjO8bbRYmWp5EglZ4rYewyJKswa+wHtF0ftXKr2GITUMZFFhJWy8IyeDK yYL5kL1KwIdDxyNIxtnUvP+ueFul4E3l5MpdYgkQYoaWPHeXYFXtsa+S/FuxPB6zrKV7/CnQo6Ce Sggw0iF+MRTmY8KT1w/C9XF9cMiJJy2GxSMUsFJ0cZtO5iA783XWMQc5aYlmqsad7EwuohGbczDM Sq/4PM92QSep+DTujJJgJXtfu1lSd4zg4SctbJRf+SH6HM9nJ8b/PDnTvDcDnRfmA1XCIV11cZF7 M79FDFobnc+9ItHPwRxl1jes2Y9qojpzNKIxWjgAfdHrLCwaTdLyZDI7fEd8kLDruhXy9y1rWDaJ ZyQGkCSGR3mt4UiWwYcRwAGHrI+5c5q8tq28Bq4S3Fk0W2F2lyKo46V7omH/PViBM6uyY4eZWd2y 34CFSDOf68u7LIKiSrY6Y/3WMel3SYsVaX04NNtWn7cJIpQx7rzX4BbUISLW6Sq+ypYIsGCnGQZH v7K1hf3XaSJifr3Wq5jY2TR3KdKFHaE1YlccFgAk8DB5Tj1YO5IAkkEBB5AA2aIk7TAZtG0P7lB+ 85vQ5sfMSqPNj/0zJck42Ya9x5pKeeqnEza1MDTRwdtJbhq2FvHbPVe9s6h9U5ivUeRK7hXGngWG esLc4BadDX3L0vddaoLQ0XkXejqf50HJZEWj7mpM9yGMVU17vA3du71Rs/kvohzckApv35As5+M1 RT3UCKA21yJASn1IBUAB/xUwX3No1IasAGpDLguFWPfgCyp4dWdkUx1OkpRKVskKe2VNO9GVyD6I z8M2yjvRQ2PqQowwovAMCVQm47q4PKUZRrhXDFKBNwC8B0o8MCK+CC9OTx3ecJxDFH+9LAS6zDjO RdFLxSe+TtkHT0HuLspac5XKlSj+4+4CwNJ7jLVDknG9a+kVCSimfiUNCGA4PJVyzZnnHpBXD+KM Le+AJAXweKetAPPlZj/iT+lo2/xVWJ1heIeteUZrHJadhGl0U0YVTMj90HoZTK9ZJgI7kcfLrUzc 2Ysun7+GFDWqWbpCRlReEFpYgZFqKvrt2DDk6KSZXZin6Czn6ZD6PTyDov940aFosRsoJYqTzk2s LiK6Xc8rYsN27OPHSOlYk+uv7noGmUSucDFBS8r3GlTLAtQwzo6JN3nbkkgBpXh5CFAN/g4EkAA/ Qo+iUVcNkLG0oY8dkGA8jQ7tJmYcIwvbJnSSDJl07djHzRvA6kOrFa3hwEu55KkW4qAIqsBc+zhe VwpC0y9sUOItsuG7IRHEQB0drggN/xcET00GT6Lng1lvSjMCH5nZ4WxzsYn+fvGYF4GsePD8ovJY tjPVFTOUFbAF//Lw4YPOPImeRQtlgu36mVj79X8E0ABO6objIoBKElD1cJaPh/QEdZYQpQEH1rDq Yo2ZnCAPYnMwBe1Gi4H/CqIL//om142otz4sKhks0O46K8n152rPz5pkpWxd941sp2KYnYiiPCXc Yu/2zRpzcb8gz9xkwUdc5TfkHQbSfE80QgRV3EqSGrX3yJX23oD4783MPXPqklqV9wxMw1R6r+iV 4tsLGoAB/bBQmwEa8sfabnYPA8UtouGW9LAZ57gPDkUAhfhft8GPWHI5E6/wNBSoj93xI1k7O/lq AT8qkQXcmqcve3lvoAghX+GT07sNDJytWT51tfPZ8k39z1ChrMBCpkkvzQT5FqYbcUqT+Nz8AuyK WqE6DvOKZmKuchTz0wz/b38yxA0EkIvlUhwai8SLppgRFh+P5+WBNFaL/0wk0TLVJo/fLlZDZBIh ympZaB5Opdni1KidwJFpOlaehJBHAgUflPyqhJgwECIQHCIKIggaBiIYIyAgIygqIxQYHSAWIw4I KEQpDg46QxFCMTE+NDxklzqWmLSqupas4p4etL6u6obEjCD+6MCsjNDypHR5o5D4mJWY4tTqkpWX odyohZ64eakQia3Y5qx2L5DjmIWB5YwtmJ5yq6uZpe6v/eYkY3bkCrgr4uZIOWcuHpQq85j9cbeE 3EAqhRIiC0ds2jCL5rChc2evF0J38Drmo8avWjeAJzVao2YQCsJ+atIUKwnlIjExU5zBFCQIGUae RTS5GlUgFScEBAioQv+waZOlSgUceELgidFWTQVYMWpQaYOHWLyE4UJyb9k/Je3ernTXpsnauGG6 WOAjb+8Wn2ByEuwHz1u6uF+wOHloJIM1Jo1X7urS2ChDPXUwlgEDeaI0CIjXTmRLD0y7C401dKum GTMY0Kcl8uHc7HGvN7fTMfRYrnWYOaZt92kW+gzu00v2UQnd+a7mMs8tqm1GR/rL3lkOe1SsvLCG fckNZQFP0ts0YUWGBpKmS0uXSqIiOHAAtQCBRqSaUq061ZGlAqa6osoSBP7jpBINPphFrfMak0C5 83gZZyErYsJnpGQo426Ju2oSbJuBpgHvJJT+8os1fSSyTLgNcUORDJr/DiKELXkgyNDFLQgbriUp iAgRwrmy8eu7eXoMBwtfVtSsnRtZjBCkKFy6AhhtYlyIx3KuLFJKDSkUiB0uQYpHMqC49DE3hqZk J0WQqKzpSJMgRGO7Ddc0Lpn2fAsSzCiKS2+Egbgx0JIDGhHFAaYKGIACDjShwNH9CDTFAVU00WQq R98jcJSqZulAA1yC4SdK3fioDItkkqvwyoN0+0gPXfrqZ5jMWtUrosAOKSRF1pzbSQ+XbK3GiSzu XIegmJSLVaLzbC2OIi6xASqaLRDS9Vg8AjsJu23P86ULYBdrM9S3viiKp2xFyugjZdubdrqJrD3K VHGAG0JZudzQsxpd/3Ed6ZgXt+WHGLq6paPOgIazKCY/b6XzgkdMIcWBRTKxJIQPOFgEU0c1toqR /wBsVFBOIAjBrFk8uEVUEaERz6KWZ7Rolyghqu6Ixs7J5TMoP0r2YI+4gDM0ul7etZuQekYSpoFm Fq4Q1oJ+YjYqtPjDu5+pJeNLNTtLC951jW5ojZdb6rlp3nTaCcSDrhYxvCYLA3FZ0XYbLMfpvLvb bKEHJkhurb3ozO8rzniCi+qUmHoXhqmAp+ouKK74k0zM+iCERvUb2cBLOalAgao6MZCCk2OxhTfT UtJy6ZTslNU1vXaVw1bP5JLjs3VySZcLuJkd+witebGnX3+QGBa5OP/uOWTr6YDf7Q3gizOpoDaq vluzvoJP4ozUBrcm9uBT04Z4xvDhOXnByzlc790sGIPbYtCFvQ9UBzdNGHLh7z44LYzP+3Ywj1KO 4qhuXL5xUx+2Nzx/vQth5cjJj7KRLSi9xmm78lP7KKSQJXBiYgQ6VAQwcLKLmaVSGwOQxuBzCct5 wAMYoIAnOGYgFibIU7YoGN02co4JdWgc60tNy6yhN9XBJDDYKFvSiAaNNQgPiMsDIA8zYqUd8mYf FsIN/Zj2jQxqRGccMdwT2Sa49vQQaxhhmUnI0cUz8QZpR0CjBl+mJjhGqw9ZAmNNxle1tLGKjA6p 4xGpoY84ZmQ8tdv/ySGm5Trv8cRtAQxKMhj3DO6UCxIHCGGCSJegD2yghI7iSuYw5QEQJMhkmjyZ WTYwOrPQYgN1AKKznic72yVMlrCRyznUoMHeoY17fPDS2sDAs4hQBEnOcp9yfnbM7QXwPEKoYiOP gsu3MScPzkzX0phWKuWg4R+3zF4skZkcZaYNe8fY0//MgTwt7dB9lZnLJFkSpdn97hjddN44CwGR f43qIfwUFTHekiJEek9r35FZ2D7SLIF1hnFVwNlyeJEyWcyQdCz0QAkxB7pNTAWEoxSlJjFpSlOe 7AKz8EvP0McTZiHNiuaBqLGoNZrdLcNxHBmOWs5mpG82c6HUBNQU/x9Em5qgy00G4akylkgdv8Tk CyFxVu70Bg2jUqinX/wp2qCApzLojYzNgyVSneRONFhRGjs9l2okkhPOGEx/TLWp35qqIZwQgo1U DY5PmYed2Dnjh7fb3V2ggQhlKsFPghRTFj6VoIla9FNMEJknMYe5D4T0lBYtyyZXGQsWfjOIGfxn 0WDSEnfKJE1ElVIaEIPOwBrCrdQzJ0bkuc0AsiMOqGGTvYrVOMOFhDwp9a1sDRvECd3ETX795W+O A1NzZjGRMqutZ5S02vNZyF3cg61zIyNccn5mrsaFR9B0EhRhYM0hLVXtL4kLO+QRC6VC8hBW+TqM bhnruMPs69eM4LMn/e6Xv/v9AFciG+D+DpjABTbwgRGcYAUvmMENdvCDIRxhCU+YwhW28IUxnGEN b1gEsNhYRquyYRGPmMQlNvGJUZxiFa+YxS1O8AJgHGMZz5jGNbZxjCvxKAYswFEQuPGPgRxkIQ+Z yEU28pGRnGQlL5nJTXbyk6EcZSlPmcpVtvKVq0yVCsSYAlj28pfBHGYxj5nMZTbzmdGcZjUDmQGO 2vGa4RxnOc+ZznW2853xnOQgAAA7 ------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C1FB4D.9AF2C6E0 Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="Leaves Bkgrd.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <003501c1fb34$75a40840$c14efdd4@ethemhome> /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAgEASABIAAD/7QZAUGhvdG9zaG9wIDMuMAA4QklNA+0AAAAAABAASAAAAAEA AQBIAAAAAQABOEJJTQPzAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAA4QklNBAoAAAAAAAEAADhCSU0nEAAAAAAACgAB AAAAAAAAAAI4QklNA/UAAAAAAEgAL2ZmAAEAbGZmAAYAAAAAAAEAL2ZmAAEAoZmaAAYAAAAAAAEA MgAAAAEAWgAAAAYAAAAAAAEANQAAAAEALQAAAAYAAAAAAAE4QklNA/gAAAAAAHAAAP////////// //////////////////8D6AAAAAD/////////////////////////////A+gAAAAA//////////// /////////////////wPoAAAAAP////////////////////////////8D6AAAOEJJTQQIAAAAAAAQ AAAAAQAAAkAAAAJAAAAAADhCSU0ECQAAAAAEzwAAAAEAAACAAAAAgAAAAYAAAMAAAAAEswAYAAH/ 2P/gABBKRklGAAECAQBIAEgAAP/+ACdGaWxlIHdyaXR0ZW4gYnkgQWRvYmUgUGhvdG9zaG9wqCA0 LjAA/+4ADkFkb2JlAGSAAAAAAf/bAIQADAgICAkIDAkJDBELCgsRFQ8MDA8VGBMTFRMTGBEMDAwM DAwRDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAENCwsNDg0QDg4QFA4ODhQUDg4ODhQRDAwM DAwREQwMDAwMDBEMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwM/8AAEQgAgACAAwEiAAIRAQMR Af/dAAQACP/EAT8AAAEFAQEBAQEBAAAAAAAAAAMAAQIEBQYHCAkKCwEAAQUBAQEBAQEAAAAAAAAA AQACAwQFBgcICQoLEAABBAEDAgQCBQcGCAUDDDMBAAIRAwQhEjEFQVFhEyJxgTIGFJGhsUIjJBVS wWIzNHKC0UMHJZJT8OHxY3M1FqKygyZEk1RkRcKjdDYX0lXiZfKzhMPTdePzRieUpIW0lcTU5PSl tcXV5fVWZnaGlqa2xtbm9jdHV2d3h5ent8fX5/cRAAICAQIEBAMEBQYHBwYFNQEAAhEDITESBEFR YXEiEwUygZEUobFCI8FS0fAzJGLhcoKSQ1MVY3M08SUGFqKygwcmNcLSRJNUoxdkRVU2dGXi8rOE w9N14/NGlKSFtJXE1OT0pbXF1eX1VmZ2hpamtsbW5vYnN0dXZ3eHl6e3x//aAAwDAQACEQMRAD8A 6/v5hJJLhPYlA/glwklMpKVolP3pp7p++iSldvNKR3+SRS8klK+SU+CRSSUrv5JSOEo7pT2SUpKN EpMeJSJSUr4pJdkvjykp/9Dr+QkJIShKQT8E9iUEvJJLVJStfmkPw8UvglOsH70lK+PCUd0hwl8U lK8kvhwEvNL4JKUSkEtOEklKjxS0S58vNIpKUlB+SUa6duUoSU//0evTd0/YjhL569k9iUUkktJ8 0lKSBKR5S5SUrRLVIeSY68d0lL9vimGif+KXkkpWiXhHzS4S1RUoifIJaBKdPJL4oKV5/elOmiXw SnXQpKf/0uv14SOqQ8PuSPMp7EpLulKRn5JKUkPvT88pu89+ySlJQAl/rCRjg/JJS3h+Cf8AIkkf E/gkpXKQ8kvuSmPJJStO6RSS/KkpXhPdJKfH5JJKf//T69LjQpf6yl+RPYlf6hLzSB/3JdklK8+3 glz/ABKSUapKVPilx/sSB8PklISUqNP70vxCRSSUrRJKI80vNJSu6RS5S0+SSlJcaH70pCUJKf/U 6/4JDwS+CXKexK+KRMJaz8Eo7JKV3SidTwkkQkpRPyS7pSEklK5SS8+6SSla8pJtDpx5J0lLaJz/ ALwl240SJhJSo1+HZL8qXmlqR8UlP//V67wP4JylH3pTrHfunsSkuPNL8vZLySUrlJNyU6SlJdpS Snx7d0lK158UvMfclyNO6XCSlHRIJfxSSUpIpJQkpQ1SS1kSkkp//9br5180pHZKUpjT8U9iVyUu 2iXxCWqSldvBJLTsUuP4pKV2SA/2Jo08E6SlTokEuNEklKmEkw5TwOUlK8kkvwKRSUqfx4TpkuNB 80lP/9kAOEJJTQQGAAAAAAAHAAMBAQABAQD//gAnRmlsZSB3cml0dGVuIGJ5IEFkb2JlIFBob3Rv c2hvcKggNC4wAP/uACFBZG9iZQBkAAAAAAEDABADAgMGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/9sAhAAKBwcHCAcK CAgKDwoICg8SDQoKDRIUEBASEBAUEQwMDAwMDBEMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwM AQsMDBUTFSIYGCIUDg4OFBQODg4OFBEMDAwMDBERDAwMDAwMEQwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwM DAwMDAwMDAz/wgARCADIAMgDAREAAhEBAxEB/8QAfgABAQEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAECBgEBAQEB AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAECAxABAAICAwEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAQARECEgMDFBAkASEQACAgIDAAIDAQEB AQAAAAAAAREhMUEQUWFxgZGxwaEi0RISAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJD/2gAMAwEBAhEDEQAAAO04 bikKQpAUCpAUgWyKigVIpAAi0iUJGqghQCpLRI1QkQpagiLUAtiWKZtsgBSAFJZcVpBbZIW1JAUk tsgKkUAVYlIKsRakBSLUliWkFtSSFKQUJFpKQQ1bItkgFlzVkWhDSySLQEUi2ySLbKQQKublLaRC iipAoJF0kUJGiAhVtSQi6QsQAFBEtsgUAlVGbLAaJUjVFkSyyLpIWWWRagWoIUiGrZIFIUEBSAAR aiFWWI1UgAW2SAsssKCUiipFJLbIWxLELbBJaKEhSQqxm2pVkNEEFIAqrIWJRKsikQ1UEC1JZZVi USrEKLEFhSBDVSBFWWFJZZYhS1IAW1IqRSQoEC1FJVJFJF0kqrJCwokCgKspIAWpIW1M22KkUhVS KlIIVFokW2CFiKKQFCS2xAAUgWpBVgKRFqRCikFIpEKC2wjNVEXVkEQq2ySLUW2SBRUS5soAgqgE isrtIW2QCLRcpYhVWSKCFAsSrZJSFBC0gpFIUEAWsy1FUzFAtSC25LCkiggi2S1FpIWFUhJdWQKC BAAUiKssKCWWJbYktslIUyUssspKQhq2TNagsSyxJpYWpKsSLUC25Z1LAUlJZZYUgssslosgKCFI hRZVkBf/2gAIAQIAAQUAIvB43Di8bhF6Hh84srh86Xh5wOZzewxVdD7wOm4YXsOIcXoHrM1Lx87L xeXFR5XHF4OFc71weB0OQzXI5PXUeV9dS49PvTeXIcnocXzqV03lOlw4Hk4vFYeF4ZXK++8Vyeyp XOudwjn501m8HH5kIPO8ByZXA4E+4cJ1+SuusXPnJ43yvJkzUqXfCs3moPVUeF8w7L4BisOK4h0P vQuXoWf/2gAIAQMAAQUAcMviS4RzeLyS4Rw8jqrorBmuFdd5DjWLw5cV1L0vReDvDFQxXKsuPMOa zfA51ip8hK76wOb43KzX8Liug51/EuayS+Rwrg9FcTsZceN8CXyqpfZXC+dxxfA7jFx7GEcGXB11 hyub4Xi+VcbxfKo8CVj5wDhWaycSLLwcXJkOgl8F5s8x8vi9t32LiulwcmGHi5vNcL5EOLxOFcDs qViv4nj/AP/aAAgBAQABBQB3KK1LQ9B1W2jF78XcQDTN17Bmr1CXvxdyitRN6nsps3EIaLl2hWKh GiVPJ+Xe0BlQExUPFZbELusUEFly9u4bKUZQMbpqqi1EE8w2zcQvSm4XGbt8giaxe/SmXEubC9XB uaJW2VcJ5DcLpLmiBu5VzUqEWNk1B2T6tRKgBNRqW3aSyNSyVPJphG5uqAra/wCf02Mrfsqi5Uqb H47hRPv6LN1shufKI3Wp4nhYlMZutT/NR8FuJA/UEZaT8q4tEblg6nylZRYjKouVLhcQs9+1Ladw dBSEux/WtRu0YVaNghY4ojsBuUXGfm5VwoKx7C4XL3Re58LiDA2rC6Ze/taKZQpo3PES/Z5HT+bp LGA0JPI7gVKqPjU3ZcQumWkvcqo6Ft+lrPmrqXoVjTEQuwhWKLUw3C61EH9O0d/arHsChuWQlaib u3CWWEYfkjUslVDzYlM+toanksSkbYT8iS9sWJZYRnsq5e/Y7n0bmgu1CCTxFtI7l7Z8hVexLnsq 5e7lkPPJWnR/ot3ELqaIm/I+/l3tAZThtKlXCowGts3gES7hNxahbAoqoeLqF2gwsX38ui2IkVq9 CsdzcJuVtdiP5GimDSgu7fal4qoeem4Lfj+q/RWoCYqXr40wuos/IxALt9gVKJtjcLpJRAl1Ny7H FXNxN6on27xtiteT6lyowtbh5RZdK4TdF1YXTU1VDNBdqEu4x9+XumJZu1pKW9Rj6TyAMaIaKKik fH8wd0T7dTUoi6LIeOzyXEZe7qaI1NRowWxodMNKtg0yy/Volq1csIOkYk8jcKnr+jXw1jTGKyiN 1qbsGUW0z75FpG0uErZH9UEaZdN3PIlxRh+ZqbcUWI4fV15LbTXgu9M3QrA38XXy0al0E+t2DVRQ dMfC1QzbZuOwNkbq2eRDNt//2gAIAQICBj8AHH//2gAIAQMCBj8AHH//2gAIAQEBBj8AgghaIm++ MV2SSTJ50KLfRBHRR72RtEQekkpnnQot9EEELQoO+M0j4zx5xmHonJ6Si8mInohueHV9jimS/sp/ BesnpKLIIxw+uJmOz9Mt4EnXF0U4fEiapHpD3xPHpZWeJIWuLJRk/hGOLvo9McTMwJf5x2UuJyie f0KL7P4XkvJ6hLb1x+idk9FZ0Xksqy983ronTJR/rI0ecOiiyrP0OWT+CGRvQuxlCT3sUX2eFuij 9HyOcOyPwVh5Ksh48P8A562y6XZCr1CTyubK5yfI4wfBR+xfoon/AAUWtkf6LtFYGlbREcJ9Hmyh w76KI2LTRP5Jgg+eK+yiUeo7PCinHFqCe+HBOiNEaPT50Mtyxfvj0rJKqMk6I+zwrGx9PBDJeRQf sgvHHR/Bel/klOUyfwf+jjOkTt6474slYZ6RsSX2JHheDw8If0Q8n9Ieez4ou+jMHnRCZ7zWGTsZ Z1xTzwl3sjmBp/SJxx0YJVsT70WRw5Vd8x3hkTZOyetmbRZGivxxiCMoTj5LVlkdEJiivSHxars9 I2eMnZ4uPMnjHcJHq4umXZSlH8JQp/wgcX4yH+Sl9kHpGzx8TscqCSVokh0fOSiUUdvUmBa4hokp Vxk9RD+nxOxyoFURxD/PMvAl2Qvsnok+T4IL2Or7HFMl/YiCETvjqD+kPPZaI09lE95RZGirIJeh PRZKeSxVMiQiMEZIMQxMzkuuOjJEkcQj1Ek5Jynoql4Rh8fI4/HGBw+LP6eHfhDtekdEJl6yekov JOxdmMcUy/s7POz9Dl4JOhrehVfRkjOy8E7RKsspfZZTh9nRK4/0fR1HDKV9FcRkrAv2OVSwyZ4n D4rPXGaIzGxXZDyhTkr74+clEorifwK/khZEiE4YkQSvtMkU/nifwLfZ/CcPZWNkTPpZGxLbIE5t E/k84Z/zsmP+iXo7TPT0iD+FOCBn/JLJMcOU0xtk/jh96PdlEL8EYKox9n7Q+lokrBB8kkZIwQqY qvZiyehzoS6O+ysc5Op4XWyNEFmIjfMqhmJ8I+hdbLxw7nwV42UZyekY7PETB8E6JWDw/pEEctYj RVwTEEjg8I/0hI92T3ji8HjIbvs9QlviFkTxGUdrYqzgsnKeD0vJi9lYITtlo8Z2tirOCycp4P/Z ------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C1FB4D.9AF2C6E0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 12 21:39:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4CBcpj02220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 May 2002 21:38:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4CBcjH02216 for ; Sun, 12 May 2002 21:38:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-95873.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.246.129]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g4CBQKL04902 for ; Sun, 12 May 2002 13:26:20 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CDE51A7.4050100@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 13:27:35 +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] hessitation References: <003a01c1fb34$7ae195c0$c14efdd4@ethemhome> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ethem Urkac wrote: > href="file://C:\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\Stationery\"> > > > > > > N S > > > > 10987 A > > 10987 AK65 > > K5 AQ82 > > 962 QJ74 > > > > N E S W > > - 2S dbl pass > > 2N* pass 3N dbl > > pass pass rdbl* pass > > 4c all pass > > > > 2N=lebensohl > > rdbl=hessitated for a long while > > > > TD called for the hessitation. He ruled for 3N rdbled for 1600 to EW. > Other team appealed and changed to 4c. > > Of course. Ask yourself the following question: What does the redouble show ? Damned if I know. What does the hesitation add to this redouble? We don't need any table manners or non-alerts to know that the Lebensohl meaning did not get accross. Partner thanks that you have a good hand, and thinks he's going to make this. Better run to a safer place. No Info at all conveyed by the hesitation. > > What is your opinon? > > > > > > Ethem Urkac > -- 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 May 13 01:06:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4CF5ZD02393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 01:05:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.tiscali.nl (pandora.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.179]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4CF5TH02389 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 01:05:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from LNV (xs241-222-230.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.222.230]) by pandora.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 5149E99CC5; Sun, 12 May 2002 16:53:21 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004801c1f9c5$1a174250$e6def1c3@LNV> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" , Cc: "Israel Erdenbaum" , "ayala hiler" References: <000501c1f962$423eaec0$035f003e@mycomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dear IBLMists I Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 15:31:51 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001B_01C1F9CA.2390B280" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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_001B_01C1F9CA.2390B280 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear IBLMists I ----- Original Message ----- While trying my best to find a way to = protect NOS in the=20 1H P 1H case I wondered WHY so many people accepted with = equanimity , this IMO =91horrible=92 change. > which horrible change? Do you still have a problem with this case? = 'Didn't 'they' give you the possibility to > decide - as a TD it is - = that no damage occurred?=20 ton How would I explain it.=20 Simple . 1H opening bid facing a1HOpening bid -reached game = * Big Deal . They will always reach game so -- no=20 damage . And if NOS want to claim damage They have to prove that = without the IB, O5/12/2002Sunday, May 12, 2002S would not have reached = the same contract. =20 I hope someone [maybe French TD] provides a better explanation. Israel ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C1F9CA.2390B280 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear IBLMists = I
 
----- Original Message ----- While trying my = best to=20 find a way to protect NOS in the

1H    P    1H    case  I wondered  WHY so many people accepted = with=20 equanimity , this IMO =91horrible=92 = change.

 

>  which = horrible change?  Do you still have a problem = with this=20 case? 'Didn't 'they' give you the possibility to > decide - as a TD = it is -=20 that no damage occurred?

 

ton

 

 

 

 

 How would I explain it.=20

Simple .        =20 1H opening bid facing =20 a1HOpening bid  = -reached=20 game   * Big = Deal  . They will always reach = game so=20 --  no=20

damage . And if = NOS want=20 to claim damage They have to prove that without the IB, = O5/12/2002Sunday, May 12,=20 2002S = would not have=20 reached the same contract.

 

I hope someone = [maybe=20 French TD] provides a better explanation.

Israel

------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C1F9CA.2390B280-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 03:30:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4CHTel02480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 03:29:40 +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 g4CHTYH02476 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 03:29:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3146.bb.online.no [80.212.220.74]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA24902 for ; Sun, 12 May 2002 19:17:23 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003b01c1f9d8$e18f4680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <007301c1f7fa$2951dcc0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A, sort of Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 19:17:22 +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: "David Stevenson" ..... > >Nothing, no call can be retracted after the auction has ended, > >which is when the opening lead has been faced. > > The problem with that approach, Sven, is that the way L25A is worded, > you can change a call if partner has not called, ie until he calls on > the next board! There is no Law that I know of that says you cannot > change a call once the auction has ended. I know that it feels wrong, > but can you quote a Law? My first reaction was David that "you can't be serious"! The foundation for rolling back the auction when misinformation has been detected during the query period preceeding the play period is Law 21B1 together with Laws 17E and 41C. When the auction has been closed it is closed, play has begun and that is it. I see no opportunity to apply Law 25A any differently from law 21B1 when it comes to the absolute time-limits for applying these laws, nor do I see any need for any specific Law stating that calls can no longer be made after the auction has ended. ....... > >> Does it matter how the other side behaves after the mispass? > >> (For example, 2C(strong)... pass... pass.... followed by a > >> lightning-fast-pass-face-down-lead-nod-from-partner-face-up-lead) > > > >This is an interesting question; normally I would say it does not > >matter. But I cannot exclude the possibility that in certain cases > >I shall have an initial feeling of unethical behaviour by defenders. > > > >Even then I cannot roll back the auction, so the only "escape" > >would be to find some reason for the application of Law 12. > > > >However: I am very hard to convince of willfully unethical behaviours. > > What is unethical in taking advantage of opponents' idiocies? That's > not unethical. Well, let us assume that we have some beginners who are fumbling aound with their bid boxes and happen to remove a pass card from the box when in the process of deciding what call they want to make. At the time the pass call technically has been made (bid card just lifted out of the box, but far from placed on the table) the next player (who together with his partner is very experienced) "taking advantage of this" produces his pass card and (he or his partner as the case may be) makes his opening lead - totally confusing the beginner who is still fumbling. I do not know what you would have done, but I should probably have tried to tell those "experienced" players a lesson, simply because I do want the beginners to feel comfortable with learning bridge and wanting to come back for another session. And yes, I would say they were unethical under laws 74A1 and 74A2 Do you not agree? Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 04:01:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4CI1fv02502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 04:01:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4CI1ZH02498 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 04:01:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g4CHnTg03243 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 May 2002 18:49:29 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 18:49 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (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: <5.1.0.14.0.20020510220053.01e7ac78@mail.comcast.net> David Grabiner wrote: > What should be forbidden is guessing that partner has violated system > (by a psyche or misbid), when you do not have proof of the violation. I think proof is definitely the wrong word here. You are playing with a good partner. You deal and it goes: P-P-1N-X, P-P-2D. Partner may have 12-14 with 5/6 good diamonds, he may have psyched the 1N with just diamonds. I see no reason why one shouldn't guess which holding you think is most likely - it is not as if you need any prior experience with partner to be aware of both possibilities. Or if your partner is rather less good and after he opens 1D it goes: 1D-P-1S-P, 3H why should one not guess that he has misbid a strong hand with a heart suit rather than made a splinter in support of 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 Mon May 13 04:14:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4CIE6T02519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 04:14:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4CIE0H02515 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 04:14:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3146.bb.online.no [80.212.220.74]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA02989 for ; Sun, 12 May 2002 20:01:48 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00c101c1f9df$1656e020$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" Subject: [BLML] Illegal convention? Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 20:01:47 +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 We were laughing over a tale the other day: A partnership had included one special convention in their system (which contained several other conventional calls) : 3C: "Partner I do not understand a thing, either you or I must have forgotten the system. All calls from now on shall be non-conventional". After the laughing had ended the discussion began whether such a convention would be legal or not. Personally I see no rule that can be used to ban this "convention" or even make it a brown sticker, does anybody else? 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 May 13 05:32:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4CJWBg02549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 05:32:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout3.netvision.net.il (mxout3.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.24]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4CJW5H02545 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 05:32:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.79.147]) by mxout3.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GW0004NFJ1M7B@mxout3.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 May 2002 22:20:13 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 22:21:15 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A, sort of To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Sven Pran Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <005701c1f9f2$92fadb00$934f003e@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: <007301c1f7fa$2951dcc0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1f9d8$e18f4680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 7:17 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A, sort of > From: "David Stevenson" > ..... > > >Nothing, no call can be retracted after the auction has ended, > > >which is when the opening lead has been faced. > > > > The problem with that approach, Sven, is that the way L25A is worded, > > you can change a call if partner has not called, ie until he calls on > > the next board! There is no Law that I know of that says you cannot > > change a call once the auction has ended. I know that it feels wrong, > > but can you quote a Law? > > My first reaction was David that "you can't be serious"! > > The foundation for rolling back the auction when misinformation has > been detected during the query period preceeding the play period is > Law 21B1 together with Laws 17E and 41C. > > When the auction has been closed it is closed, play has begun and > that is it. I see no opportunity to apply Law 25A any differently from > law 21B1 when it comes to the absolute time-limits for applying these > laws, nor do I see any need for any specific Law stating that calls can > no longer be made after the auction has ended. > > ....... > > >> Does it matter how the other side behaves after the mispass? > > >> (For example, 2C(strong)... pass... pass.... followed by a > > >> lightning-fast-pass-face-down-lead-nod-from-partner-face-up-lead) > > > > > >This is an interesting question; normally I would say it does not > > >matter. But I cannot exclude the possibility that in certain cases > > >I shall have an initial feeling of unethical behaviour by defenders. > > > > > >Even then I cannot roll back the auction, so the only "escape" > > >would be to find some reason for the application of Law 12. > > > > > >However: I am very hard to convince of willfully unethical behaviours. > > > > What is unethical in taking advantage of opponents' idiocies? That's > > not unethical. > > Well, let us assume that we have some beginners who are fumbling > aound with their bid boxes and happen to remove a pass card from > the box when in the process of deciding what call they want to make. > > At the time the pass call technically has been made (bid card just > lifted out of the box, but far from placed on the table) the next player > (who together with his partner is very experienced) "taking advantage > of this" produces his pass card and (he or his partner as the case may > be) makes his opening lead - totally confusing the beginner who is still > fumbling. > > I do not know what you would have done, but I should probably have > tried to tell those "experienced" players a lesson, simply because I do > want the beginners to feel comfortable with learning bridge and wanting > to come back for another session. > > And yes, I would say they were unethical under laws 74A1 and 74A2 > > Do you not agree? I do. Israel > Sven > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 05:52:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4CJqGZ02567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 05:52:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ns1.telekom.ru (root@ns1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4CJqAH02563 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 05:52:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h59.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.59]) by ns1.telekom.ru (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g4CJdnm5009660; Sun, 12 May 2002 23:39:51 +0400 Message-ID: <3CDEC597.34AA104D@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 23:42:15 +0400 From: vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [ru] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sven Pran CC: Bridge Laws Submissions Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal convention? References: <00c101c1f9df$1656e020$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Similar convention was created in the middle of 60-ties by Polish expert. The reasons were: systems in Poland became more and more complicated and there often happened mistakes even between constant partners. But the critical call was "3 Diamonds" and meaning was: "Partner, I've lost sence of our bidding and will Pass over any your bid so part-score as game. I will treat any your bid higher that game as natural and invitational". It made room for two part-score and for all the games. Convention was not created for a joke:)) Guess, such an idea has rights to exist. Best wishes, Vitold Sven Pran ÐÉÛÅÔ: > We were laughing over a tale the other day: A partnership > had included one special convention in their system > (which contained several other conventional calls) : > > 3C: "Partner I do not understand a thing, either you or > I must have forgotten the system. All calls from now on > shall be non-conventional". > > After the laughing had ended the discussion began > whether such a convention would be legal or not. > > Personally I see no rule that can be used to ban this > "convention" or even make it a brown sticker, does > anybody else? > > regards Sven > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 06:28:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4CKSTc02589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 06:28:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4CKSMH02585 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 06:28:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.79.147]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GW0002CDLMM3Z@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 May 2002 23:16:04 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 23:17:31 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Dear IBLMists I To: Mark Horton , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Ton Kooijman Cc: Herman De Wael , ayala hiler , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <008801c1f9fa$6f64c5e0$934f003e@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_TLdYUdKtkcDsEjzewAE+nw)" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <000501c1f962$423eaec0$035f003e@mycomputer> <004801c1f9c5$1a174250$e6def1c3@LNV> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_TLdYUdKtkcDsEjzewAE+nw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Dear IBLMists IThe ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ton Kooijman=20 To: Israel Erdnbaum ; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au=20 Cc: Israel Erdenbaum ; ayala hiler=20 Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Dear IBLMists I ----- Original Message ----- While trying my best to find a way to = protect NOS in the=20 1H P 1H case I wondered WHY so many people accepted with = equanimity , this IMO =91horrible=92 change. > which horrible change? Do you still have a problem with this = case? 'Didn't 'they' give you the possibility to > decide - as a TD it = is - that no damage occurred?=20 ton The Parenthetical which MAKES me*tell the OFFENDER's partner that = the Information Is Authorised ,[and for no good reason]. Problem is 'they' don't give the TD the possibility to decide that = DAMAGE OCCURRED. How will you explain it to player whom you penalised for using UI = [and even made him feel as though he was cheating] .How DO you explain = that in this case because=20 the opp. *committed an* irregularity THIS information is Authorised and he has no reddress if damaged. Just tell him 'this is the Law' and how do you think will he = react? Israel How would I explain it.=20 Simple . 1H opening bid facing a1HOpening bid -reached = game * Big Deal . They will always reach game so -- no=20 damage . And if NOS want to claim damage They have to prove that = without the IB, O5/12/2002Sunday, May 12, 2002S would not have reached = the same contract. =20 I hope someone [maybe French TD] provides a better explanation. Israel --Boundary_(ID_TLdYUdKtkcDsEjzewAE+nw) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Dear IBLMists = I
The
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ton=20 Kooijman
To: Israel Erdnbaum ; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au=
Cc: Israel Erdenbaum ; ayala = hiler=20
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 3:31 = PM
Subject: Re: [BLML] Dear = IBLMists I

 
----- Original Message ----- While trying = my best to=20 find a way to protect NOS in the

1H    P    1H    case  I wondered  WHY so many people = accepted with=20 equanimity , this IMO =91horrible=92 = change.

 

>  which = horrible change?  Do you still have a problem = with this=20 case? 'Didn't 'they' give you the possibility to > decide - as a = TD it is=20 - that no damage occurred?

 

ton

 

The Parenthetical which MAKES me*tell the = OFFENDER's=20 partner that the Information Is Authorised ,[and=20 for no good reason].

 

Problem is 'they' don't give the TD = the=20 possibility to decide  that DAMAGE OCCURRED.

 

How will you explain it to player whom = you=20 penalised for using UI [and even made him feel as though he was = cheating]=20 .How DO you explain that in this case because

the opp. *committed an* irregularity = THIS=20 information is

Authorised and he has no reddress if=20 damaged.

Just tell him   'this is the = Law' =20 and how do you think will he react?

Israel

 

 

 

 

 

 How would I explain it.=20

Simple .        =20 1H opening bid facing  = a1HOpening bid  = -reached=20 game   * Big = Deal  . They will always reach = game so=20 --  no=20

damage . And = if NOS want=20 to claim damage They have to prove that without the IB, = O5/12/2002Sunday, May 12,=20 2002S = would not have=20 reached the same contract.

 

I hope someone = [maybe=20 French TD] provides a better = explanation.

Israel

--Boundary_(ID_TLdYUdKtkcDsEjzewAE+nw)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 08:11:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4CMB9j02642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 08:11:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4CMB4H02638 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 08:11:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from in-addr.btopenworld.com ([62.6.69.118] helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 1771Mn-0004ld-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 May 2002 22:58:57 +0100 Message-ID: <009d01c1fa00$334e5480$7645063e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <00c101c1f9df$1656e020$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal convention? Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 22:58:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes At university in the 1970s, we played that after an auction involving asking bids or relays, 5NT was used as a final asking bid. It asked how sure partner was that his previous responses had been correct. The replies, of course, were by steps: 6C meant that partner had no idea what the auction meant; 6D meant that his ostensibly natural bids had been based on suits of at least four cards; 6H meant that he was fairly confident of having remembered the system. It was felt impractical to assign meanings to higher calls, on the grounds that their frequency would be insufficiently great. Besides, partner might forget them. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 09:33:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4CNXBk02674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 09:33:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4CNX7H02670 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 09:33:07 +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 JAA21089 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 09:34:39 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 13 May 2002 09:17:55 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 09:11:04 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 13/05/2002 09:17:45 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: >>Example: A 2S opening shows 5-9 points with either 5/5 reds >>or 5/5 blacks. >> >>Our partnership agreement is that we often "guess" which >>option partner holds for the bid, based upon probabilistic >>evidence of our own suit distributions. >> >>(On very rare occasions we have a debacle and play in our >>2-1 fit.) Steve Willner replied: >If I understand you correctly, this is not "guessing." The system >prescribes bidding as though partner has the least favorable option. >(I am, of course, making an assumption here about your likely methods, >based on the above, but there is no reason any guessing needs to be >involved.) Clarification: My system also prescribes *Pass* of 2S if the least favourable option is pard holding the black suits, and spades are preferred to clubs. This is where an unlucky probabilistic guess can result in playing in a 2-1 fit. >The key question is this: after an ambiguous opening, will responder >bid the same each time he is dealt a certain hand type? (There will be >borderline cases where there are multiple possibilities, but in a >normal bidding system they are rare.) Bidding differently when dealt >the same hand type is what I mean by "guessing." > >Let's take "multi 2D" as a familiar example. If responder is, say, >4243 with a 9-count, he bids 2H. In a sense he is "guessing" that >opener is weak with hearts, but in fact there is no guesswork >involved. This is just the normal system bid, which caters to all >possible hand types opener can have. If responder once in awhile makes >a preemptive spade raise with such a hand, that would be guessing. If RHO of responder hesitated before passing, then responder has AI to guess that RHO was considering a 2H overcall, and can therefore lawfully further guess that opener is weak with spades. >If responder does that and is right, I would expect an adjusted >score, or at least serious consideration of one. There are two possibilities: 1) Responder has not infracted, or 2) Responder has violated L73B2 and/or L73C. In the second case the TD should initiate disciplinary action, not merely an adjusted score. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 10:47:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4D0kYS02720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 10:46:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4D0kTH02716 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 10:46:29 +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 UAA23999 for ; Sun, 12 May 2002 20:34:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA04059 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 May 2002 20:34:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 20:34:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205130034.UAA04059@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal convention? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > 3C: "Partner I do not understand a thing, either you or > I must have forgotten the system. All calls from now on > shall be non-conventional". > > After the laughing had ended the discussion began > whether such a convention would be legal or not. I assume it would depend on the SO's convention regulations. In the ACBL GCC, this would appear to be legal starting with opener's rebid. In some auctions, it would be legal at earlier stages: for example if opponents use any convention. The only way I can see it would be illegal in the ACBL would be if it was deemed a "psychic control" or "destructive." Neither one appears to apply as far as I can tell, but there's no telling how the powers- that-be might decide. They certainly don't ask my opinion. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 10:47:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4D0lmU02732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 10:47:48 +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 g4D0lhH02728 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 10:47:43 +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 UAA24032 for ; Sun, 12 May 2002 20:35:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA04098 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 May 2002 20:35:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 20:35:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205130035.UAA04098@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Clarification: My system also prescribes *Pass* of 2S if the least > favourable option is pard holding the black suits, and spades are > preferred to clubs. This is what I would have expected. Responder is not "guessing." He is bidding strictly according to system. No problem. > >Let's take "multi 2D" as a familiar example. If responder is, say, > >4243 with a 9-count... > If RHO of responder hesitated before passing, then responder has > AI to guess that RHO was considering a 2H overcall, and can > therefore lawfully further guess that opener is weak with spades. Perhaps, although I don't see why it shouldn't be RHO with the spades and partner with the hearts. In fact, I would have thought the odds rather favored that position, at least if the 2D bidder is fairly likely to have six cards in his suit and RHO is more likely to pass with five than with six. Now if RHO was fingering the 2H card, OK. Or, more practically, if there's something in their system that prevents a 2H overcall but allows 2S, the odds might be different. > >If responder does that and is right, I would expect an adjusted > >score, or at least serious consideration of one. > > There are two possibilities: > > 1) Responder has not infracted, or > 2) Responder has violated L73B2 and/or L73C. > > In the second case the TD should initiate disciplinary action, > not merely an adjusted score. I don't see why you would initiate disciplinary action for what appears to be a routine UI infraction. I suppose if this happens a few times, you might think about starting the video cameras, but the evidence seems far too thin if it's just a single instance. I thought the days of "Every UI infraction is cheating," were long over. And good riddance, too! -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 11:50:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4D1oES02776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 11:50:14 +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-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 g4D1o1H02759 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 11:50:02 +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 1774md-0001ji-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 May 2002 02:37:55 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 02:06:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Netiquette MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wonder whether the time might not have arrived for some words of advice on Netiquette? While a lot of people's words are a joy to read [until we get to the actual material, of course] we do get some posts which are quite horrible to read. The latest growing problem is people who post in HTML. HTML was designed for web sites, not emails, and it makes it very difficult to read. I honestly think I may have to start skipping posts written in HTML - it is such a time-waster. Even worse is replies to HTML posts. While some software, like mine, puts it back into ordinary text, some software seems to make it worse, and the replies are more difficult to read still. Of course, there are other problems. Long sigs at the start [caused, I believe by using Outlook Express and not moving the sig], right margins at 80+ characters [72 is recommended], no doubt because people have big, expensive monitors, and do not realise the problem and other things. I cannot answer for others, of course, but I feel I am going to have to start skipping the least readable posts. It will be sad, because they may have gems in them, but they are such a strain. Please, please, please can we have nice, clear, readable posts! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 11:50:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4D1oH102778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 11:50:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4D1o3H02766 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 11:50:04 +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 1774me-0001jj-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 May 2002 02:37:58 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 02:10:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] hessitation References: <003a01c1fb34$7ae195c0$c14efdd4@ethemhome> <3CDE51A7.4050100@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3CDE51A7.4050100@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 >Ethem Urkac wrote: >> N S >> 10987 A >> 10987 AK65 >> K5 AQ82 >> 962 QJ74 >> N E S W >> - 2S dbl pass >> 2N* pass 3N dbl >> pass pass rdbl* pass >> 4c all pass >> >> 2N=lebensohl >> rdbl=hessitated for a long while >> >> TD called for the hessitation. He ruled for 3N rdbled for 1600 to EW. >> Other team appealed and changed to 4c. >Of course. > >Ask yourself the following question: > >What does the redouble show ? It's going to make? >Damned if I know. > >What does the hesitation add to this redouble? >We don't need any table manners or non-alerts to know that the >Lebensohl meaning did not get accross. Partner thanks that you have a >good hand, and thinks he's going to make this. Better run to a safer >place. > >No Info at all conveyed by the hesitation. So why not pass? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 11:50:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4D1oGI02777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 11:50:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4D1o2H02761 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 11:50:03 +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 1774md-0001jh-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 May 2002 02:37:56 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 01:59:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A, sort of References: <007301c1f7fa$2951dcc0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1f9d8$e18f4680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <003b01c1f9d8$e18f4680$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" >..... >> >Nothing, no call can be retracted after the auction has ended, >> >which is when the opening lead has been faced. >> >> The problem with that approach, Sven, is that the way L25A is worded, >> you can change a call if partner has not called, ie until he calls on >> the next board! There is no Law that I know of that says you cannot >> change a call once the auction has ended. I know that it feels wrong, >> but can you quote a Law? > >My first reaction was David that "you can't be serious"! > >The foundation for rolling back the auction when misinformation has >been detected during the query period preceeding the play period is >Law 21B1 together with Laws 17E and 41C. > >When the auction has been closed it is closed, play has begun and >that is it. I see no opportunity to apply Law 25A any differently from >law 21B1 when it comes to the absolute time-limits for applying these >laws, nor do I see any need for any specific Law stating that calls can >no longer be made after the auction has ended. > >....... >> >> Does it matter how the other side behaves after the mispass? >> >> (For example, 2C(strong)... pass... pass.... followed by a >> >> lightning-fast-pass-face-down-lead-nod-from-partner-face-up-lead) >> > >> >This is an interesting question; normally I would say it does not >> >matter. But I cannot exclude the possibility that in certain cases >> >I shall have an initial feeling of unethical behaviour by defenders. >> > >> >Even then I cannot roll back the auction, so the only "escape" >> >would be to find some reason for the application of Law 12. >> > >> >However: I am very hard to convince of willfully unethical behaviours. >> >> What is unethical in taking advantage of opponents' idiocies? That's >> not unethical. > >Well, let us assume that we have some beginners who are fumbling >aound with their bid boxes and happen to remove a pass card from >the box when in the process of deciding what call they want to make. > >At the time the pass call technically has been made (bid card just >lifted out of the box, but far from placed on the table) the next player >(who together with his partner is very experienced) "taking advantage >of this" produces his pass card and (he or his partner as the case may >be) makes his opening lead - totally confusing the beginner who is still >fumbling. > >I do not know what you would have done, but I should probably have >tried to tell those "experienced" players a lesson, simply because I do >want the beginners to feel comfortable with learning bridge and wanting >to come back for another session. > >And yes, I would say they were unethical under laws 74A1 and 74A2 > >Do you not agree? I do not see how producing a different situation bolsters your argument. Sure, I don't like experts taking advantage of novices, but there was no such suggestion whatever in the original scenario. The question is why you think it unethical in principle to take advantage of an oppo's mistake. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 11:50:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4D1oE302775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 11:50:14 +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-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 g4D1o0H02757 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 11:50:01 +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 1774md-0001jl-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 May 2002 02:37:53 +0100 Message-ID: <9bkB2DEzXx38EwHV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 02:25:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Crockford's final - TDL MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk There I was, enjoying myself, no rulings, except some bitching over an alleged psyche just when I was off to the bar. Then, half-way through the second day a player picks up a weak hand with a long spade suit. He picks a call out of the BB, then says "Damn, I'm fourth in hand!". RHO, a member of BLML, calls the TD. Muggins appears. So, first we get over a few things. Not a mechanical error, but a change of mind. No-one has seen the call: it is a bid, face-down on the table. Partner understands his UI responsibilities. The call was made when it was taken out of the BB. Can he change his call? Ho, hum. My favourite Law - L25B. Remember what someone else said about how much fun it is as the players all think you are making it up? Anyway, apart from every other complaint about TDL [new acronym: it stands for That Damned Law] it is also written as though the player has attempted to change it. What happens when he asks if he can? Well, rightly or wrongly, we tend to explain the Law to him, and then ask him if he wishes to attempt to change his call. So, I do so, several times, with the table in fits of laughter. The player listens carefully. In effect, he seems to have the following options: [1] Tell the TD he has changed his mind, and wants to change nothing. The auction continues - no penalty. [2] Attempt to change and see whether LHO will accept the change - LHO made it clear he will not accept any change [apologetically - this was an amicable ruling]. [3] So, attempt to change, actually change it, and play for a maximum of -3 imps. [4] Attempt to change, then under L25B2B1, let his first call stand. This silences partner for one round. Obviously though, this is silly, because he can make the bid under [1] without penalty. He chooses [4]! He has opened 3S, fourth-in-hand on a weak hand - but fourth-in-hand they play a 3S opening as strong. No problem: he has just silenced partner. The cheers of the multitude were deafening! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 12:22:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4D2Kr502820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 12:20:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4D2KmH02816 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 12:20:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from annescomputer ([62.255.16.3]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020513020841.SXB29981.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@annescomputer> for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 03:08:41 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01c1fa23$17f1b380$0310ff3e@annescomputer> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Netiquette Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 03:08:36 +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 I agree David :-) Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 2:06 AM Subject: [BLML] Netiquette > > I wonder whether the time might not have arrived for some words of > advice on Netiquette? > > While a lot of people's words are a joy to read [until we get to the > actual material, of course] we do get some posts which are quite > horrible to read. > > The latest growing problem is people who post in HTML. HTML was > designed for web sites, not emails, and it makes it very difficult to > read. I honestly think I may have to start skipping posts written in > HTML - it is such a time-waster. Even worse is replies to HTML posts. > While some software, like mine, puts it back into ordinary text, some > software seems to make it worse, and the replies are more difficult to > read still. > > Of course, there are other problems. Long sigs at the start [caused, > I believe by using Outlook Express and not moving the sig], right > margins at 80+ characters [72 is recommended], no doubt because people > have big, expensive monitors, and do not realise the problem and other > things. > > I cannot answer for others, of course, but I feel I am going to have > to start skipping the least readable posts. It will be sad, because > they may have gems in them, but they are such a strain. > > Please, please, please can we have nice, clear, readable posts! > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 14:18:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4D4HmI02877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 14:17:48 +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 g4D4HhH02873 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 14:17:43 +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 OAA14659 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 14:19:16 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 13 May 2002 14:02:33 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 14:04:45 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 13/05/2002 02:02:23 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: [snip] >I don't see why you would initiate disciplinary >action for what appears to be a routine UI >infraction. I suppose if this happens a few >times, you might think about starting the video >cameras, but the evidence seems far too thin if >it's just a single instance. > >I thought the days of "Every UI infraction is >cheating," were long over. And good riddance, >too! I wholeheartedly agree with the "good riddance" sentiments of Steve Willner. But the belief "Every UI infraction is cheating" is still distressingly held by a number of top players who ought to know better. As TD, I used L74A2 to discipline a top player for criticising his opponent's use of UI as unethical. However . . . L16A restricts choice between "logical alternatives" after UI. L16A is the battleground for "routine UI infractions". If a player guesses a non-logical but successful action, then L40A applies, so no "routine UI" adjustment can be made by the TD. I agree that if successful non-logical actions were guessed a few times, the video cameras could be started, but in the meantime there would be no basis for an adjusted score. In a BW editorial, Edgar Kaplan criticised an AC for taking away a player's lucky result after the player guessed to pass a takeout double of a weak 2 with a singleton trump for a good score. His view was that it was not up to ACs to enforce sensible bidding. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 15:32:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4D5W7Y02908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 15:32:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4D5W3H02904 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 15:32:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 4135 invoked by uid 504); 13 May 2002 05:19:53 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 0.963241 secs); 13 May 2002 05:19:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.143) by 0 with SMTP; 13 May 2002 05:19:51 -0000 Message-ID: <005d01c1fa3d$c7419e80$8f16b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Subject: [BLML] Outstanding Trump Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 17:19:34 +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 I don't have the hand on me but I had to adjudicate on this situation last weekend. The defense had set up all of declarer's side suit winners and in declarer, an average player, broached trumps. She had AKQxx opposite xxx. She played two tops and said good hearts (not trumps) and trumps. The law book says "... it is at all likely..." that declarer "...was unaware ..." of the trump. Not hoping for any universality what practical guidelines if any exist for an interpretation of the phrase "...it is at all likely..." ? TIA Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Phone 0064 6 3551259 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 15:38:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4D5cZV02921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 15:38:35 +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 g4D5cVH02917 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 15:38:31 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 7687 invoked by uid 504); 13 May 2002 05:26:21 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 0.905738 secs); 13 May 2002 05:26:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.143) by 0 with SMTP; 13 May 2002 05:26:20 -0000 Message-ID: <006301c1fa3e$aeea6dc0$8f16b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Subject: [BLML] The role of Team Captains Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 17:26:05 +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 Hi I have been a team captain and my less experienced team-mates have requested that I attend an appeal. This occurred at a National Championships. I spoke at this appeal. I have also been on a committee where a Captain not at the table attended and presented his side's case. There were no problems in either of these cases. Recently the right of a Captain, not present at the table, to attend an appeal has been questioned. Are there any guidelines/regulations in use in other parts of this planet? If so do the regulations distinguish between a playing, but not present, and a non-playing captain? TIA Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Phone 0064 6 3551259 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 16:38:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4D6cDT02958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:38:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4D6c8H02954 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:38:09 +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 QAA09816 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:39:43 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:22:57 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Crockford's final - TDL To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 16:24:44 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 13/05/2002 04:22:48 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] >[1] Tell the TD he has changed his mind, and wants to change nothing. >The auction continues - no penalty. >[2] Attempt to change and see whether LHO will accept the change - LHO >made it clear he will not accept any change [apologetically - this was >an amicable ruling]. >[3] So, attempt to change, actually change it, and play for a maximum of >-3 imps. >[4] Attempt to change, then under L25B2B1, let his first call stand. >This silences partner for one round. Obviously though, this is silly, >because he can make the bid under [1] without penalty. > > He chooses [4]! > > He has opened 3S, fourth-in-hand on a weak hand - but fourth-in-hand >they play a 3S opening as strong. No problem: he has just silenced >partner. > > The cheers of the multitude were deafening! > >-- >David Stevenson I cheerfully and deafeningly note that L25B2B1 specifically cross- references L23 - would a French TD rule damaging enforced pass? :-) Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 17:03:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4D73Tl02983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 17:03:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4D73NH02979 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 17:03:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2262.bb.online.no [80.212.216.214]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA11050 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 08:51:11 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000b01c1fa4a$9179ff60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <007301c1f7fa$2951dcc0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1f9d8$e18f4680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A, sort of Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 08:51:11 +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" ...... > I do not see how producing a different situation bolsters your > argument. Sure, I don't like experts taking advantage of novices, but > there was no such suggestion whatever in the original scenario. The > question is why you think it unethical in principle to take advantage of > an oppo's mistake. Come on, David, please: Unless I misunderstood your post: You challenged me on a question of law that no call can be changed after the play period begins. I gave you the laws that in my opinion support my view. You challenged me on a question that taking advantage of opponents idiocies could be unethical. In my original post I had written (and please pay attention also to the last sentence): >> >This is an interesting question; normally I would say it does not >> >matter. But I cannot exclude the possibility that in certain cases >> >I shall have an initial feeling of unethical behaviour by defenders. >> > >> >Even then I cannot roll back the auction, so the only "escape" >> >would be to find some reason for the application of Law 12. >> > >> >However: I am very hard to convince of willfully unethical behaviours. In my last post I gave you one example where I quite possibly might rule unethical behaviour. And this example was clearly within the scope of the original situation. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 17:07:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4D77kO02996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 17:07:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4D77eH02992 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 17:07:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2262.bb.online.no [80.212.216.214]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA28309 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 08:55:29 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001901c1fa4b$2aec3960$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Netiquette Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 08:55:25 +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 Thanks David! I was just about to consider producing a similar suggestion myself. You save me the "trouble", now I can second yours instead. Sven From: "David Stevenson" > > I wonder whether the time might not have arrived for some words of > advice on Netiquette? > > While a lot of people's words are a joy to read [until we get to the > actual material, of course] we do get some posts which are quite > horrible to read. > > The latest growing problem is people who post in HTML. HTML was > designed for web sites, not emails, and it makes it very difficult to > read. I honestly think I may have to start skipping posts written in > HTML - it is such a time-waster. Even worse is replies to HTML posts. > While some software, like mine, puts it back into ordinary text, some > software seems to make it worse, and the replies are more difficult to > read still. > > Of course, there are other problems. Long sigs at the start [caused, > I believe by using Outlook Express and not moving the sig], right > margins at 80+ characters [72 is recommended], no doubt because people > have big, expensive monitors, and do not realise the problem and other > things. > > I cannot answer for others, of course, but I feel I am going to have > to start skipping the least readable posts. It will be sad, because > they may have gems in them, but they are such a strain. > > Please, please, please can we have nice, clear, readable posts! > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 18:04:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4D84XY03023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 18:04:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl ([145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4D84SH03019 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 18:04:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g4D7qAr16329 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 09:52:20 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon May 13 09:48:04 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KHOB1YJPS2002PD6@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 13 May 2002 09:51:53 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 13 May 2002 09:51:30 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 09:51:46 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Netiquette To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David sighed: > I wonder whether the time might not have arrived for some words of > advice on Netiquette? May be some help in neducation is necessary David. I agree with you, but not all of us do realise the problems we create. Try to read the messages for a week or so and tell us what is wrong in our approach. (I am not joking this time) 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 May 13 19:12:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4D9BNZ03062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 19:11:23 +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 g4D9BGH03058 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 19:11:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.78.225]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GW1004F8KY5DD@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 May 2002 11:58:55 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 12:00:26 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Netiquette To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Anne Jones Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <002601c1fa65$0272bf80$e14e003e@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: <000d01c1fa23$17f1b380$0310ff3e@annescomputer> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Will you please be kind enough to tell me whether I am still doing some wrong things. Thanks ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 4:08 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Netiquette > I agree David :-) > Anne > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Stevenson" > To: > Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 2:06 AM > Subject: [BLML] Netiquette > > > > > > I wonder whether the time might not have arrived for some words of > > advice on Netiquette? > > > > While a lot of people's words are a joy to read [until we get to the > > actual material, of course] we do get some posts which are quite > > horrible to read. > > > > The latest growing problem is people who post in HTML. HTML was > > designed for web sites, not emails, and it makes it very difficult to > > read. I honestly think I may have to start skipping posts written in > > HTML - it is such a time-waster. Even worse is replies to HTML posts. > > While some software, like mine, puts it back into ordinary text, some > > software seems to make it worse, and the replies are more difficult to > > read still. > > > > Of course, there are other problems. Long sigs at the start > [caused, > > I believe by using Outlook Express and not moving the sig], right > > margins at 80+ characters [72 is recommended], no doubt because people > > have big, expensive monitors, and do not realise the problem and other > > things. > > > > I cannot answer for others, of course, but I feel I am going to have > > to start skipping the least readable posts. It will be sad, because > > they may have gems in them, but they are such a strain. > > > > Please, please, please can we have nice, clear, readable posts! > > > > -- > > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( > + )= > > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > -- > > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au > with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 19:30:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4D9ToU03075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 19:29:50 +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 g4D9TiH03071 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 19:29:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2262.bb.online.no [80.212.216.214]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA11117 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 11:17:32 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <008301c1fa5f$03392b80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <000d01c1fa23$17f1b380$0310ff3e@annescomputer> <002601c1fa65$0272bf80$e14e003e@mycomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Netiquette Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 11:17:32 +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: "Israel Erdnbaum" ........ > Will you please be kind enough to tell me whether I am still doing some > wrong things. > Thanks You have from time to time presented a variety of messages that were difficult to read, probably primarily due to unlucky font selections, but this time your message was perfect! regards Sven PS. Usually it is a waste of resources to include addresses other than bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au in the address field(s) as all messages to that address is automatically broadcast to all subscribers. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 20:16:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4DAFpp03168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 2002 20:15:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4DAFiH03164 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 20:15:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-45254.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.48.198]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g4DA3SL06569 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 12:03:28 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CDF8FBB.9040402@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 12:04:43 +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] Crockford's final - TDL References: <9bkB2DEzXx38EwHV@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 Stevenson wrote: > There I was, enjoying myself, no rulings, except some bitching over an > alleged psyche just when I was off to the bar. Then, half-way through > the second day a player picks up a weak hand with a long spade suit. > > He picks a call out of the BB, then says "Damn, I'm fourth in hand!". > Your story is incomplete, David. I gather from the rest of the post that there were three passes, not a bid out of turn. > RHO, a member of BLML, calls the TD. Muggins appears. > > So, first we get over a few things. Not a mechanical error, but a > change of mind. No-one has seen the call: it is a bid, face-down on the > table. OK, let's accept this - although it is difficult not to notice which bid is taken out of the bidding box. > Partner understands his UI responsibilities. The call was made > when it was taken out of the BB. > > Can he change his call? > > Ho, hum. My favourite Law - L25B. Remember what someone else said > about how much fun it is as the players all think you are making it up? > > Anyway, apart from every other complaint about TDL [new acronym: it > stands for That Damned Law] it is also written as though the player has > attempted to change it. What happens when he asks if he can? > > Well, rightly or wrongly, we tend to explain the Law to him, and then > ask him if he wishes to attempt to change his call. So, I do so, > several times, with the table in fits of laughter. > > The player listens carefully. In effect, he seems to have the > following options: > > [1] Tell the TD he has changed his mind, and wants to change nothing. > The auction continues - no penalty. except UI to partner, who should know what differences there are in fourth hand openings. > [2] Attempt to change and see whether LHO will accept the change - LHO > made it clear he will not accept any change [apologetically - this was > an amicable ruling]. And why should a player assume that opponent will accept - unless of course it is to their benefit. > [3] So, attempt to change, actually change it, and play for a maximum of > -3 imps. Considering that you have already given partner UI, simply letting the first bid stand would not be playing good bridge. -3 would seem a reasonable alternative. > [4] Attempt to change, then under L25B2B1, let his first call stand. > This silences partner for one round. Obviously though, this is silly, > because he can make the bid under [1] without penalty. > > He chooses [4]! > > He has opened 3S, fourth-in-hand on a weak hand - but fourth-in-hand > they play a 3S opening as strong. No problem: he has just silenced > partner. > I must confess I have read Richard's response already, so indeed : L23 anyone ? L23 assumes that, at the moment of the infraction, the player knows that silencing partner might work to his benefit. Remember that here, the infraction is not the 3Sp bid, but the attemted change of call. Apparently, he has no way of showing a normal 3Sp opening anymore. Yet he has bid it, and that is no infraction. However, he knows partner thinks it is strong, and also that partner has around 10HCP (three passes and he has ...). So keeping his mouth shut is a sure way of getting into an unmakeable slam (or game). Saying something and then not change his bid produces UI, and the TD will rule the unmakeable contract, which is even worse. So the best thing now is to change your bid, silencing partner. A clear L23 case IMO. > The cheers of the multitude were deafening! > > -- 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 May 14 00:53:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4DEr2k03409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 00:53:02 +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 g4DEquH03405 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 00:52:57 +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 KAA16180 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 10:40:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA09711 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 May 2002 10:40:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 10:40:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205131440.KAA09711@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (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 agree that if successful non-logical actions > were guessed a few times, the video cameras could > be started, but in the meantime there would > be no basis for an adjusted score. L73C, L12A1, L12C2, then maybe 12C3 in some jurisdictions. > In a BW editorial, Edgar Kaplan criticised an > AC for taking away a player's lucky result > after the player guessed to pass a takeout > double of a weak 2 with a singleton trump for > a good score. His view was that it was not > up to ACs to enforce sensible bidding. I think the TD (and then perhaps AC) has to decide, on the preponderance of the evidence, whether it was truly a lucky guess, or whether the player who made the takeout double might have done something to suggest the double was offshape. If they decide the latter is the case, there is no suggestion that the "something" was deliberate, only that the player inadvertently failed "to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner." As we all know, maintaining unvarying manner is very hard to do when there is no call that quite describes the hand one holds. In making their decision, the TD/AC should assess all available evidence. I don't believe anyone can expect them to be correct 100% of the time. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 14 01:11:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4DFAmn03447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 01:10:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4DFAYH03423 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 01:10:35 +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 177HHN-000N8g-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 May 2002 15:58:27 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 14:16:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Outstanding Trump References: <005d01c1fa3d$c7419e80$8f16b9d2@laptop> In-Reply-To: <005d01c1fa3d$c7419e80$8f16b9d2@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 >I don't have the hand on me but I had to adjudicate on this situation last >weekend. > >The defense had set up all of declarer's side suit winners and in declarer, >an average player, broached trumps. She had AKQxx opposite xxx. > >She played two tops and said good hearts (not trumps) and trumps. > >The law book says "... it is at all likely..." that declarer "...was unaware >..." of the trump. > >Not hoping for any universality what practical guidelines if any exist for >an interpretation of the phrase "...it is at all likely..." ? This looks to me like someone testing to see whether they break. I think it pretty unlikely that she had forgotten the other trump. Mind you, it is better to be at the table for this sort of decision. We have to read minds with our special mind-reading device [called a tongue, Steve!]. -- 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 May 14 01:11:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4DFAuw03450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 01:10:56 +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-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 g4DFAaH03430 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 01:10:37 +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 177HHN-000N8f-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 May 2002 15:58:29 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 14:18:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] The role of Team Captains References: <006301c1fa3e$aeea6dc0$8f16b9d2@laptop> In-Reply-To: <006301c1fa3e$aeea6dc0$8f16b9d2@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 >I have been a team captain and my less experienced team-mates have requested >that I attend an appeal. This occurred at a National Championships. I >spoke at this appeal. > >I have also been on a committee where a Captain not at the table attended >and presented his side's case. > >There were no problems in either of these cases. > >Recently the right of a Captain, not present at the table, to attend an >appeal has been questioned. > >Are there any guidelines/regulations in use in other parts of this planet? > >If so do the regulations distinguish between a playing, but not present, and >a non-playing captain? In the EBU a captain has a right to be present and speak at an appeal. I thought this was universal, and it certainly applies in WBF events. Whether he was at the table is irrelevant. -- 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 May 14 01:11:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4DFAsV03448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 01:10:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4DFAZH03427 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 01:10:36 +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 177HHH-000N8h-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 May 2002 15:58:22 +0100 Message-ID: <01Us8uDTw738EwFe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 14:13:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Crockford's final - TDL References: <9bkB2DEzXx38EwHV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3CDF8FBB.9040402@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3CDF8FBB.9040402@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: > >> There I was, enjoying myself, no rulings, except some bitching over an >> alleged psyche just when I was off to the bar. Then, half-way through >> the second day a player picks up a weak hand with a long spade suit. >> >> He picks a call out of the BB, then says "Damn, I'm fourth in hand!". >> > > >Your story is incomplete, David. I gather from the rest of the post >that there were three passes, not a bid out of turn. True. > >> RHO, a member of BLML, calls the TD. Muggins appears. >> >> So, first we get over a few things. Not a mechanical error, but a >> change of mind. No-one has seen the call: it is a bid, face-down on the >> table. > > >OK, let's accept this - although it is difficult not to notice which >bid is taken out of the bidding box. > >> Partner understands his UI responsibilities. The call was made >> when it was taken out of the BB. >> >> Can he change his call? >> >> Ho, hum. My favourite Law - L25B. Remember what someone else said >> about how much fun it is as the players all think you are making it up? >> >> Anyway, apart from every other complaint about TDL [new acronym: it >> stands for That Damned Law] it is also written as though the player has >> attempted to change it. What happens when he asks if he can? >> >> Well, rightly or wrongly, we tend to explain the Law to him, and then >> ask him if he wishes to attempt to change his call. So, I do so, >> several times, with the table in fits of laughter. >> >> The player listens carefully. In effect, he seems to have the >> following options: >> >> [1] Tell the TD he has changed his mind, and wants to change nothing. >> The auction continues - no penalty. > > >except UI to partner, who should know what differences there are in >fourth hand openings. ..... which is why I wrote [see above] 'Partner understands his UI responsibilities'. > >> [2] Attempt to change and see whether LHO will accept the change - LHO >> made it clear he will not accept any change [apologetically - this was >> an amicable ruling]. > > >And why should a player assume that opponent will accept - unless of >course it is to their benefit. > > >> [3] So, attempt to change, actually change it, and play for a maximum of >> -3 imps. > > >Considering that you have already given partner UI, simply letting the >first bid stand would not be playing good bridge. -3 would seem a >reasonable alternative. > > >> [4] Attempt to change, then under L25B2B1, let his first call stand. >> This silences partner for one round. Obviously though, this is silly, >> because he can make the bid under [1] without penalty. >> >> He chooses [4]! >> >> He has opened 3S, fourth-in-hand on a weak hand - but fourth-in-hand >> they play a 3S opening as strong. No problem: he has just silenced >> partner. >> > > >I must confess I have read Richard's response already, so indeed : >L23 anyone ? >L23 assumes that, at the moment of the infraction, the player knows >that silencing partner might work to his benefit. >Remember that here, the infraction is not the 3Sp bid, but the >attemted change of call. You are suggesting he knows TDL? You are suggesting at the time he wanted to change his call he knew he could silence his partner and leave the call unchanged? Really? I think you should read L23 again. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 14 01:11:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4DFAt203449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 01:10:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4DFAcH03437 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 01:10:40 +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 177HHH-000N8g-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 May 2002 15:58:20 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 14:07:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Netiquette 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 >David sighed: > >> I wonder whether the time might not have arrived for some words of >> advice on Netiquette? > > >May be some help in neducation is necessary David. I agree with you, but not >all of us do realise the problems we create. Try to read the messages for a >week or so and tell us what is wrong in our approach. (I am not joking this >time) OK. -- 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 May 14 01:11:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4DFAwr03451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 01:10:58 +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-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 g4DFAZH03428 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 01:10:36 +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 177HHH-000N8f-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 May 2002 15:58:23 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 14:06:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A, sort of References: <007301c1f7fa$2951dcc0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1f9d8$e18f4680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000b01c1fa4a$9179ff60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <000b01c1fa4a$9179ff60$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" >...... >> I do not see how producing a different situation bolsters your >> argument. Sure, I don't like experts taking advantage of novices, but >> there was no such suggestion whatever in the original scenario. The >> question is why you think it unethical in principle to take advantage of >> an oppo's mistake. > >Come on, David, please: > >Unless I misunderstood your post: > >You challenged me on a question of law that no call can be changed >after the play period begins. I gave you the laws that in my opinion >support my view. > >You challenged me on a question that taking advantage of opponents >idiocies could be unethical. > >In my original post I had written (and please pay attention also to the >last sentence): > >>> >This is an interesting question; normally I would say it does not >>> >matter. But I cannot exclude the possibility that in certain cases >>> >I shall have an initial feeling of unethical behaviour by defenders. >>> > >>> >Even then I cannot roll back the auction, so the only "escape" >>> >would be to find some reason for the application of Law 12. >>> > >>> >However: I am very hard to convince of willfully unethical behaviours. > >In my last post I gave you one example where I quite possibly might >rule unethical behaviour. And this example was clearly within the scope >of the original situation. Maybe I misunderstood what you are saying. -- 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 May 14 02:02:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4DG1mK03510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 02:01:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4DG1gH03506 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 02:01:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-34-75-208.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.34.75.208] helo=gordonrainsford.co.uk) by tungsten.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 177I4s-0000A4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:49:34 +0100 Message-ID: <3CDFE082.6070708@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 16:49:22 +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] Netiquette References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: > David sighed: > > >> I wonder whether the time might not have arrived for some words of >>advice on Netiquette? >> > > > May be some help in neducation is necessary David. I agree with you, but not > all of us do realise the problems we create. Try to read the messages for a > week or so and tell us what is wrong in our approach. (I am not joking this > time) > Some of them are, literally, unreadable. One from this week (a reply to an HTML post) causes my email program (Netscape) to crash each time I try to open it. Gordon Rainsford -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 14 03:04:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4DH3uY03884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 03:03:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4DH3jH03880 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 03:03:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-46947.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.55.99]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g4DGpYH17043 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 18:51:34 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CDFEF63.9000405@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 18:52:51 +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] Crockford's final - TDL References: <9bkB2DEzXx38EwHV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3CDF8FBB.9040402@village.uunet.be> <01Us8uDTw738EwFe@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 Stevenson wrote: >>I must confess I have read Richard's response already, so indeed : >>L23 anyone ? >>L23 assumes that, at the moment of the infraction, the player knows >>that silencing partner might work to his benefit. >>Remember that here, the infraction is not the 3Sp bid, but the >>attemted change of call. >> > > You are suggesting he knows TDL? You are suggesting at the time he > wanted to change his call he knew he could silence his partner and leave > the call unchanged? Really? > > I think you should read L23 again. > Well, he "could have known". > -- 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 May 14 05:45:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4DJiKC03996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 05:44:21 +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.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 g4DJi6H03979 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 05:44:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g4DJVxi02616 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 15:31:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 15:20:43 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] The role of Team Captains To: 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 5/13/02, David Stevenson wrote: > In the EBU a captain has a right to be present and speak at an appeal. >I thought this was universal, and it certainly applies in WBF events. > > Whether he was at the table is irrelevant. I tried to find an answer to this on the ACBL web site. No joy. I was surprised to find, however, that non-playing captains are not permitted in Swiss Team events. Not that I've ever seen a non-playing captain in such - it just never occurred to me that Swiss Teams would be different. Are non-playing captains permitted in Swiss Teams in other places? 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 May 14 05:45:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4DJiMR03998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 05:44:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4DJi6H03978 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 05:44:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g4DJVti02543 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 15:31:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 15:25:15 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Crockford's final - TDL To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3CDFEF63.9000405@village.uunet.be> 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 5/13/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >Well, he "could have known". > This is why I don't like this phrase. Anybody "could have known" just about anything, anytime. I have the same reaction to this phrase I've always had to Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (applicable to US Forces): freely translated, it says "and anything else you do that we don't like is also illegal". :-( Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp 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 May 14 05:45:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4DJiLL03997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 05:44:21 +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.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 g4DJi8H03981 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 05:44:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g4DJW0i02654 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 15:32:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 15:20:08 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Crockford's final - TDL To: 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 5/13/02, Herman De Wael wrote: > must confess I have read Richard's response already, so indeed : >L23 anyone ? >L23 assumes that, at the moment of the infraction, the player knows >that silencing partner might work to his benefit. It does not. It says that "if the director deems that he could have known..." If the director deems otherwise, then Law 23 does not apply. >A clear L23 case IMO. Having said the above, I agree with your conclusion in this case. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp 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 May 14 05:45:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4DJiNc03999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 05:44:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4DJiAH03990 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 05:44:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g4DJW2i02698 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 15:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 15:21:24 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Crockford's final - TDL To: 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 5/13/02, David Stevenson wrote: >you are suggesting he knows TDL? You are suggesting at the time he >wanted to change his call he knew he could silence his partner and >leave the call unchanged? Really? I think he's suggesting that there was no infraction until *after* the TD explained Law 25 to him. Then, *knowing* that trying to change his call (and knowing, iirc, that LHO would not accept the change) would silence partner, to attempt to change it at that time violates L23. I don't have the original message at hand, but iirc, the player did not attempt to change his call - he asked the director if changing it was permitted. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp 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 May 14 07:00:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4DKxj504055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 06:59:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4DKxeH04051 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 06:59:40 +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 QAA13757 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:47:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA09955 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:47:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 16:47:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205132047.QAA09955@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Crockford's final - TDL X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > L23 anyone ? > L23 assumes that, at the moment of the infraction, the player knows > that silencing partner might work to his benefit. L23 says "irregularity," not "infraction." Here the irregularity is the attempt to change the 3S bid. Look at it this way... suppose a villain makes a 3S bid, and then realizes it is supposed to be strong, not weak. Surely he "could have known" that calling the TD and getting partner barred would be a good idea. As Herman says, seems easy. Of course you will need to have a look at the actual hand to decide, but if it looks like a normal 3S preempt, then L23 will probably 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 Tue May 14 07:04:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4DL4Ib04071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 07:04:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4DL4DH04067 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 07:04:14 +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 QAA14125 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:52:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA09967 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:52:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 16:52:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205132052.QAA09967@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Outstanding Trump X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Mind you, it is better to be at the table for this sort of decision. > We have to read minds with our special mind-reading device [called a > tongue, Steve!]. Ah, well, we disagree again. My preference would be to rule on the basis of what was said (or not said!), not on what declarer was (or was not!) thinking. >She played two tops and said good hearts (not trumps) and trumps. My inclination is certainly to rule against declarer (assuming one of the hearts will get ruffed and declarer cannot overruff). Why shouldn't she have thought there were only four trumps out? (So much for my reputation of being easy on claimers!) However, it would depend on whether declarer made any relevant gestures and whether the above were indeed declarer's exact words. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 14 08:59:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4DMwqB04464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 08:58:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4DMwlH04460 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 08:58:47 +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 177OaU-000844-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 May 2002 22:46:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 20:00:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Crockford's final - TDL References: <9bkB2DEzXx38EwHV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3CDF8FBB.9040402@village.uunet.be> <01Us8uDTw738EwFe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3CDFEF63.9000405@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3CDFEF63.9000405@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: > >>>I must confess I have read Richard's response already, so indeed : >>>L23 anyone ? >>>L23 assumes that, at the moment of the infraction, the player knows >>>that silencing partner might work to his benefit. >>>Remember that here, the infraction is not the 3Sp bid, but the >>>attemted change of call. >>> >> >> You are suggesting he knows TDL? You are suggesting at the time he >> wanted to change his call he knew he could silence his partner and leave >> the call unchanged? Really? >> >> I think you should read L23 again. >Well, he "could have known". Very funny. -- 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 May 14 09:52:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4DNq6l04498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 09:52:06 +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 g4DNq2H04494 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 09:52:02 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 1809 invoked by uid 504); 13 May 2002 23:39:51 -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 1.562003 secs); 13 May 2002 23:39:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.242) by 0 with SMTP; 13 May 2002 23:39:49 -0000 Message-ID: <001801c1fad7$6ff93440$de16b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <200205132052.QAA09967@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Outstanding Trump Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 11:38:53 +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: Steve Willner To: Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 8:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Outstanding Trump > > From: David Stevenson > > Mind you, it is better to be at the table for this sort of decision. > > We have to read minds with our special mind-reading device [called a > > tongue, Steve!]. > > Ah, well, we disagree again. My preference would be to rule on the > basis of what was said (or not said!), not on what declarer was (or was > not!) thinking. > > >She played two tops and said good hearts (not trumps) and trumps. > > My inclination is certainly to rule against declarer (assuming one of > the hearts will get ruffed and declarer cannot overruff). Why > shouldn't she have thought there were only four trumps out? (So much > for my reputation of being easy on claimers!) However, it would depend > on whether declarer made any relevant gestures and whether the above > were indeed declarer's exact words. It seems to me this is exactly the right time to claim the rest when you know the trumps are breaking. The issues are: How likely is it that declarer thought that either she had 9 trumps (or nearly equivalently the opponents had only four); And how likely is "is at all likely". There were gestures but i was more looking for general advice like: If you judge that there is a 10% or 30% or 50% chance that declarer is unaware of the trump then rule in favour of the opposition. 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 May 14 10:24:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4E0NZa04528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 10:23:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4E0NUH04524 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 10:23:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-122-38-18.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.38.18] helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 177PuS-0002I6-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 May 2002 01:11:21 +0100 Message-ID: <007301c1fadb$dabd37a0$12267ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200205132052.QAA09967@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001801c1fad7$6ff93440$de16b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Outstanding Trump Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 01:11:09 +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 Wayne wrote: > If you judge that there is a 10% or 30% or 50% chance that declarer is > unaware of the trump then rule in favour of the opposition. How much more complicated would it be to have a rule that said: unless declarer states that she will draw the last trump as part of her claim, she is not permitted to draw it? Oh, I realise that directors would not in such a case have to use their judgement, which would be a crying shame, for the spectacle of a TD exercising his discretion is an edifying experience from which we can all learn many valuable lessons. Moreover, there would be no appeals committees convened to hear matters of this kind, to the inestimable detriment of humanity as a whole. But it is possible that there may be some small compensating advantages... David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 14 10:35:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4E0ZQo04540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 10:35:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4E0ZLH04536 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 10:35:22 +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 g4E0P5510110 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:25:05 -0800 Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 16:19:53 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] The role of Team Captains In-Reply-To: <006301c1fa3e$aeea6dc0$8f16b9d2@laptop> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 13 May 2002, Wayne Burrows wrote: > Recently the right of a Captain, not present at the table, to attend an > appeal has been questioned. > > Are there any guidelines/regulations in use in other parts of this planet? Well, just off the top of my head... Players do not lodge appeals. Contestants do. "A contestant", in a team game, you will recall, is the entire team. I can't see any conceivable basis for excluding a player who is by definition a party to the appeal. I can see reasons why either player present at the table where the ruling occured, and the team captain, might have reasons to speak at the appeal. I can't see any reason why we'd need testimoney from a player from the other table - but far as I can see they have a right to be present too in a team appeal. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 14 11:07:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4E16hF04562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 11:06:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ptialaska.net (garza.acsalaska.net [209.193.61.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4E16cH04558 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 11:06:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from 209-193-12-103-dial-as2.fai.acsalaska.net (209-193-12-103-dial-as2.fai.acsalaska.net [209.193.12.103]) by ptialaska.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g4E0sTD19931 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 16:54:29 -0800 (AKDT) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 16:56:06 -0800 (Alaskan Daylight Time) From: Michael Schmahl To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Crockford's final - TDL In-Reply-To: <01Us8uDTw738EwFe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> 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 Mon, 13 May 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael writes > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> [4] Attempt to change, then under L25B2B1, let his first call stand. > >> This silences partner for one round. Obviously though, this is silly, > >> because he can make the bid under [1] without penalty. > >> > >> He chooses [4]! > >> > >> He has opened 3S, fourth-in-hand on a weak hand - but fourth-in-hand > >> they play a 3S opening as strong. No problem: he has just silenced > >> partner. > >> > > > > > >I must confess I have read Richard's response already, so indeed : > >L23 anyone ? > >L23 assumes that, at the moment of the infraction, the player knows > >that silencing partner might work to his benefit. > >Remember that here, the infraction is not the 3Sp bid, but the > >attemted change of call. > > You are suggesting he knows TDL? You are suggesting at the time he > wanted to change his call he knew he could silence his partner and leave > the call unchanged? Really? > Not at the time he wanted to change his call, but at the time he attempted to change his call. Not only could he have known, but he *does* know, having been told of the possibility. -- 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 Tue May 14 11:48:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4E1mEx04585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 11:48:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4E1mAH04581 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 11:48:10 +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 LAA21561 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 11:49:42 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 14 May 2002 11:32:56 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] The role of Team Captains To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Cc: HURLEY Steve Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 11:35:05 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 14/05/2002 11:32:47 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >On 5/13/02, David Stevenson wrote: > >> In the EBU a captain has a right to be present and speak at an appeal. >>I thought this was universal, and it certainly applies in WBF events. >> >> Whether he was at the table is irrelevant. > >I tried to find an answer to this on the ACBL web site. No joy. I was >surprised to find, however, that non-playing captains are not permitted >in Swiss Team events. Not that I've ever seen a non-playing captain in >such - it just never occurred to me that Swiss Teams would be different. >Are non-playing captains permitted in Swiss Teams in other places? > >Regards, > >Ed Non-playing captains are permitted but rare in ABF Swiss Teams. The only internal ABF event where non-playing captains are common are the annual Interstate Teams. I have been non-playing captain in that event several times, and also playing captain in other events. In both cases, I have been responsible for deciding *whether* an appeal should be made, as required by Law 92. Furthermore, when either myself or the opposing captain has appealed, I have always attended and spoke at the Appeals Committee, whether or not I was at the table concerned. However, when I have not been captain, and have not been at the relevant table, I have not attended the Appeals Committee meeting. (But I have given pre-committee informal advice to involved team-mates.) 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 May 14 12:00:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4E20WL04607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 12:00:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4E20MH04599 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 12:00:23 +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 177RQB-0008hx-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 May 2002 02:48:14 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 00:01:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Crockford's final - TDL References: <200205132047.QAA09955@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200205132047.QAA09955@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: Herman De Wael >> L23 anyone ? >> L23 assumes that, at the moment of the infraction, the player knows >> that silencing partner might work to his benefit. > >L23 says "irregularity," not "infraction." Here the irregularity >is the attempt to change the 3S bid. > >Look at it this way... suppose a villain makes a 3S bid, and then >realizes it is supposed to be strong, not weak. Surely he "could >have known" that calling the TD and getting partner barred would >be a good idea. > >As Herman says, seems easy. Of course you will need to have a look at >the actual hand to decide, but if it looks like a normal 3S preempt, >then L23 will probably apply. If he has no way of knowing that he can bar partner please explain to me how L23 applies. I think certain people on BLML are leaving reality behind. :) -- 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 May 14 12:00:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4E20XF04608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 12:00:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4E20MH04600 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 12:00:23 +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 177RQD-0008hy-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 May 2002 02:48:14 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 00:04:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] The role of Team Captains 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 Ed Reppert writes >On 5/13/02, David Stevenson wrote: > >> In the EBU a captain has a right to be present and speak at an appeal. >>I thought this was universal, and it certainly applies in WBF events. >> >> Whether he was at the table is irrelevant. > >I tried to find an answer to this on the ACBL web site. No joy. I was >surprised to find, however, that non-playing captains are not permitted >in Swiss Team events. Not that I've ever seen a non-playing captain in >such - it just never occurred to me that Swiss Teams would be different. >Are non-playing captains permitted in Swiss Teams in other places? Yes - why ever not? Of course, they don't get any master points or prizes or anything, but if a team wants an NPC it is difficult to see why not. The last time I actually remember one was many years ago where a team had been picked to represent Britain in the European Championship. For practice they entered an EBU Swiss Teams, complete with the NPC that they would have in the European Championship. -- 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 May 14 12:04:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4E23sN04627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 12:03:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4E23nH04623 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 12:03:50 +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 MAA24636 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 12:05:24 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 14 May 2002 11:48:34 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Crockford's final - TDL To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 11:51:06 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 14/05/2002 11:48:26 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >>>I must confess I have read Richard's response already, so indeed : >>>L23 anyone ? >>>L23 assumes that, at the moment of the infraction, the player knows >>>that silencing partner might work to his benefit. >>>Remember that here, the infraction is not the 3Sp bid, but the >>>attempted change of call. David Stevenson replied: >> You are suggesting he knows TDL? You are suggesting at the time he >>wanted to change his call he knew he could silence his partner and leave >>the call unchanged? Really? Michael Schmahl counterpointed: >Not at the time he wanted to change his call, but at the time he >attempted to change his call. Not only could he have known, but he >*does* know, having been told of the possibility. And I question: Question One But is the change of call an infraction, or merely the exercise of a lawful option, provided by the TD? Question Two Should the TD have mentioned L23, making L82C now relevant for the correct ruling? :-) 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 May 14 13:25:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4E3NxE04671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 13:23:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4E3NsH04667 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 13:23:54 +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 NAA09422 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 13:25:28 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 14 May 2002 13:08:39 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 13:10:38 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 14/05/2002 01:08:31 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: [snip] >>My pass of Stayman meant that all three opponents could >>legitimately *guess* that I had psyched. Israel Erdenbaum replied: >You must be kidding , Your pass TOLD all 2 opp. and one >enemy that you psyched. [snip] Not really. There are two explanations for passing a forcing call. 1. A psyche, or 2. A mental aberration caused by "a cow flying by". My regular opponents and partner knew that my mental aberrations tended towards psyches rather than cows, so could guess option 1. (They would not be invariably correct in so guessing; I have passed pard's Precision 1C.) :-) BW Editor Jeff Rubens never psyches, so if he passed his partner's Stayman, his opponents and partner could guess cow trouble, option 2. 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 May 14 22:23:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4ECMFx04949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 2002 22:22:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4ECM7H04945 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 22:22:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47722.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.58.106]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g4EC9oH17610 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 14:09:50 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CE0FEDC.4050208@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 14:11:08 +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] Crockford's final - TDL References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > On 5/13/02, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>Well, he "could have known". >> >> > > This is why I don't like this phrase. Anybody "could have known" just > about anything, anytime. I have the same reaction to this phrase I've > always had to Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice > (applicable to US Forces): freely translated, it says "and anything else > you do that we don't like is also illegal". :-( > Well Ed, your scepticism is not correct. If I open out of turn, silencing my partner, and then bid 3NT, which makes because of 4 well-placed finesses, and I score a top because we are holding just 18 HCP together, I could not have known that the OOT could be benificial. But in this case the player could know that he could not play 3Sp without first silencing partner. > 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/ > > -- 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 May 15 00:58:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4EEvWG05041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 May 2002 00:57:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4EEvQH05037 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 00:57:27 +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 KAA28129 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 10:45:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA15559 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 May 2002 10:45:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 10:45:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205141445.KAA15559@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Crockford's final - TDL X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > If he has no way of knowing that he can bar partner please explain to > me how L23 applies. How could he have "no way of knowing?" It is in TFLB. L23 does not require that he did in fact know. The point is to avoid having two different meanings for the same bid: 3S is strong, but 3S then L25 to bar partner is weak. Classic case. By the way, this case shows the advantage of the ACBL's rule about when a call is made. Isn't it rather silly to consider a call made when nobody can see which call it is? > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > But is the change of call an infraction, or merely the exercise of a > lawful option, provided by the TD? It is not an infraction, but L23 requires only an "irregularity." Calling the TD to ask about options seems sufficient to me. After all, there was no irregularity prior to the TD call and therefore no requirement to call the TD. > Should the TD have mentioned L23, Yes. > making L82C now relevant for the correct ruling? :-) It certainly has to be considered, but it isn't obvious whether it will matter or not. L82C doesn't cancel the irregularity, but the TD has to consider whether the player might have selected a different option had he been properly advised. (I suspect the most likely alternative would have been pass and hope for -3 IMPs.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 15 01:04:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4EF4NT05057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 May 2002 01:04:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4EF4IH05053 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 01:04:18 +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 KAA28566 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 10:52:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA15574 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 May 2002 10:52:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 10:52:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205141452.KAA15574@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Outstanding Trump X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Wayne Burrows" > There were gestures but i was more looking for general advice like: > > If you judge that there is a 10% or 30% or 50% chance that declarer is > unaware of the trump then rule in favour of the opposition. The ACBL LC once said that "at all probable" in L12C2 should be considered one chance in six. I don't know of any such guidance for "at all likely" in L70C2. I agree with David Burn that a simpler rule would be better. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 15 02:39:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4EGcrt05093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 May 2002 02:38:54 +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.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 g4EGcmH05089 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 02:38:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g4EGQVi24421 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 12:26:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 12:07:32 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Crockford's final - TDL To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <200205141445.KAA15559@cfa183.harvard.edu> 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 5/14/02, Steve Willner wrote: >It is not an infraction, but L23 requires only an "irregularity." What's the difference? 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 May 15 02:55:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4EGt4505111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 May 2002 02:55:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4EGsxH05107 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 02:54:59 +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 RAA04550; Tue, 14 May 2002 17:48:08 +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 RAA19345; Tue, 14 May 2002 17:50:41 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020514174847.00a94520@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 17:57:08 +0200 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Outstanding Trump In-Reply-To: <200205141452.KAA15574@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:52 14/05/2002 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > There were gestures but i was more looking for general advice like: > > > > If you judge that there is a 10% or 30% or 50% chance that declarer is > > unaware of the trump then rule in favour of the opposition. > >The ACBL LC once said that "at all probable" in L12C2 should be >considered one chance in six. I don't know of any such guidance for >"at all likely" in L70C2. AG : if it is likely, or at least probable, that the intention is the same, the wording should be the same. However, as the French translation is "fort probable", ie "quite probable" or "quite arguable", the threshold should not be the same. Anyway, one should take into account the hints from declarer's wording when claiming, and from his former play. A declarer whose trump suit is AQxxx / Kxxx, who play one round, nods when both opponents follow, and claims without a word about the outstanding trumps, should be deemed to know about them. Thus, the best exegesis I can find of L70C2 is "if the fact that the declarer forgot about the outstanding trump(s) is at all compatible with the events at the table and the formulation of the claim". Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 15 05:29:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4EJScC05200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 May 2002 05:28:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ptialaska.net (garza.acsalaska.net [209.193.61.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4EJSXH05196 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 05:28:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-151-121-144-dial-en5.fai.acsalaska.net (208-151-121-144-dial-en5.fai.acsalaska.net [208.151.121.144]) by ptialaska.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g4EJGMD26325 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 11:16:22 -0800 (AKDT) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 11:18:00 -0800 (Alaskan Daylight Time) From: Michael Schmahl To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Crockford's final - TDL 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 Tue, 14 May 2002 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>>I must confess I have read Richard's response already, so indeed : > >>>L23 anyone ? > >>>L23 assumes that, at the moment of the infraction, the player knows > >>>that silencing partner might work to his benefit. > >>>Remember that here, the infraction is not the 3Sp bid, but the > >>>attempted change of call. > > David Stevenson replied: > > >> You are suggesting he knows TDL? You are suggesting at the time he > >>wanted to change his call he knew he could silence his partner and leave > >>the call unchanged? Really? > > Michael Schmahl counterpointed: > > >Not at the time he wanted to change his call, but at the time he > >attempted to change his call. Not only could he have known, but he > >*does* know, having been told of the possibility. > > And I question: > > Question One > > But is the change of call an infraction, or merely the exercise of a > lawful option, provided by the TD? > Obviously the lawmakers thought it was an infraction, because L25B2(b)(1) explicitly references L23. Law 25B2(b)(1) Let First Call Stand [if the first call was legal, the offender must either] allow his first call to stand, in which case (penalty) his partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side), or, [...] Law 23. Damaging Enforced Pass Reference will be made to this Law from many other Laws that prescribe penalties for auction-period infractions. When the penalty for an irregularity under any Law would compel the offenders partner to pass at his next turn, if the Director deems that the offender, at the time of his irregularity, could have known that the enforced pass would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue and consider awarding an adjusted score. (See Law 72B1.) I believe it can't be any clearer than this. Changing your call is an infraction. Remember, this is the sequence of events up to this point: 1. Player bids 3S, says "whoops". 2. TD is summoned. 3. TD explains L25, amidst snickering. 4. Player *changes* his bid. 5. LHO does not accept the change. 6. Player lets first call stand, knowing that this will bar partner, and knowing that if partner is not barred, an unmakeable game or slam will probably result. > Question Two > > Should the TD have mentioned L23, making L82C now relevant for the > correct ruling? :-) > Probably yes. -- 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 Wed May 15 09:17:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4ENGZ205283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 May 2002 09:16:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4ENGUH05279 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 09:16:31 +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 177lL8-00084L-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 May 2002 00:04:20 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 16:53:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Crockford's final - TDL References: <200205141445.KAA15559@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200205141445.KAA15559@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 >> If he has no way of knowing that he can bar partner please explain to >> me how L23 applies. > >How could he have "no way of knowing?" It is in TFLB. L23 does not >require that he did in fact know. The point is to avoid having two >different meanings for the same bid: 3S is strong, but 3S then L25 to >bar partner is weak. Classic case. > >By the way, this case shows the advantage of the ACBL's rule about when >a call is made. Isn't it rather silly to consider a call made when >nobody can see which call it is? That's not much of an argument: you can easily argue the opposite point of view: 'By the way, this case shows the disadvantage of the ACBL's rule about when a call is made. Isn't it rather silly to consider a call not made when everyone knows so much about the call, ie that it is not a pass, double or redouble, and that it must be of a reasonable size because he has taken so many cards from the box?' -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 15 23:46:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4FDj6D05679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 May 2002 23:45:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4FDixH05675 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 23:45:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP17.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.17]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA19836 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 09:32:47 -0400 (EDT) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] The DBF's suggestions for the new laws (Law 64) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 09:35:32 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi BLMLrs, I deleted by error the last messages on this topic so this looks like a new thread.....sorry.... Some times ago I sent a message saying: ______________________________________________________________________ IMHO Law 64A is quite simple but written so complicated: Could be something like (but in plain and good English...): 1) When OS won 0 trick from the revoke to the end = 0 trick transfered 2) When OS won 1 trick = 1 trick transfered 3) When OS won 2 or more tricks from the revoke to the end: a)If offender (not OS) won the revoke trick or If the offender won a subsequent trick with a card that could have legaly been played to the revoke trick (it is the same offence winning the trick now or later) = 2 tricks transferred. b)If not, transfer only 1 trick. __________________________________________________________________________ Look at the flow chart on David's WEB. http://blakjak.com/lwx_dub0.htm Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 16 01:12:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4FFBax05739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 2002 01:11:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4FFBUH05735 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 01:11:31 +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 QAA06116; Wed, 15 May 2002 16:56:46 +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 QAA00167; Wed, 15 May 2002 16:59:18 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020515165737.00a8e1b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 17:05:47 +0200 To: "Laval Dubreuil" , "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] The DBF's suggestions for the new laws (Law 64) 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 09:35 15/05/2002 -0400, Laval Dubreuil wrote: >_______________________ >IMHO Law 64A is quite simple but written so complicated: > > Could be something like (but in plain and good English...): > 1) When OS won 0 trick from the revoke to the end = 0 trick transfered > 2) When OS won 1 trick = 1 trick transfered > > 3) When OS won 2 or more tricks from the revoke to the end: > > a)If offender (not OS) won the revoke trick or > > If the offender won a subsequent trick with a card that could have > legaly been played to the revoke trick (it is the same offence > winning the trick now or later) > > = 2 tricks transferred. > b) if not, tranfer 1 trick AG : this is not complete. There are three cases : a) subsequent trick won by the card that *should* have been played : 2 tricks b) present trick won by the card thet *shouldn't* have been played (ie the revoke card) : 2 tricks c) else : 1 trick You see, a) and b) are not the same case (as you seem to imply) but reciprocals. BTW, L72 seems incomplete when considering revokes : not only has the OS the right to play to its own advantage after having paid the penalty for the offence, they also have the right to do so *before* the penalty is assessed, ie they may endeavour not winning a trick with the had-to-be-played card (eg the revoker's partner may crocodilize his partner's high card), so that the penalty will be as small as possible. I can't see an explicit mention of this being allowed Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 16 01:26:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4FFQXo05753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 2002 01:26:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4FFQRH05749 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 01:26:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1894.bb.online.no [80.212.215.102]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA05668 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 17:14:10 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001f01c1fc23$2a78cfa0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020515165737.00a8e1b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] The DBF's suggestions for the new laws (Law 64) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 17:14:10 +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: "Alain Gottcheiner" ...... > > 3) When OS won 2 or more tricks from the revoke to the end: > > > > a)If offender (not OS) won the revoke trick or > > > > If the offender won a subsequent trick with a card that could have > > legaly been played to the revoke trick (it is the same offence > > winning the trick now or later) > > > > = 2 tricks transferred. > > b) if not, tranfer 1 trick > > AG : this is not complete. There are three cases : > a) subsequent trick won by the card that *should* have been played : 2 tricks > b) present trick won by the card thet *shouldn't* have been played (ie the > revoke card) : 2 tricks You are reading too fast my friend. He correctly stated two tricks if the offender either won the revoke trick or won a subsequent trick with a card he could have legally played to the revoke trick. > c) else : 1 trick > You see, a) and b) are not the same case (as you seem to imply) but > reciprocals. > > BTW, L72 seems incomplete when considering revokes : not only has the OS > the right to play to its own advantage after having paid the penalty for > the offence, they also have the right to do so *before* the penalty is > assessed, ie they may endeavour not winning a trick with the > had-to-be-played card (eg the revoker's partner may crocodilize his > partner's high card), so that the penalty will be as small as possible. I > can't see an explicit mention of this being allowed Not only can a defender quite legally (and ethically) avoid a two trick revoke this way, but so can declarer by performing his play so that he makes the Dummy win such tricks. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 16 01:27:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4FFQtS05765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 2002 01:26:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4FFQoH05761 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 01:26:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mel-rta10.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.193) by mel-rto6.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3CE2600E00016DD6 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 May 2002 17:14:33 +0200 Received: from olivier (193.250.30.251) by mel-rta10.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3CD0C9A700769A10 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 May 2002 17:14:33 +0200 Message-ID: <005601c1fc22$adf840a0$fb1efac1@olivier> From: "Olivier Beauvillain" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] The DBF's suggestions for the new laws (Law 64) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 17:10:41 +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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Hi BLMLrs, > > I deleted by error the last messages on this topic so this > looks like a new thread.....sorry.... > > Some times ago I sent a message saying: > ______________________________________________________________________ > IMHO Law 64A is quite simple but written so complicated: > > Could be something like (but in plain and good English...): > 1) When OS won 0 trick from the revoke to the end = 0 trick transfered > 2) When OS won 1 trick = 1 trick transfered > > 3) When OS won 2 or more tricks from the revoke to the end: > > a)If offender (not OS) won the revoke trick or Could OP for Offending Player be clearer, making a better # % OP? Olivier. > > If the offender won a subsequent trick with a card that could have > legaly been played to the revoke trick (it is the same offence > winning the trick now or later) > > = 2 tricks transferred. > > b)If not, transfer only 1 trick. > __________________________________________________________________________ > Look at the flow chart on David's WEB. > > http://blakjak.com/lwx_dub0.htm > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 16 02:48:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4FGmG405800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 2002 02:48:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4FGmAH05796 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 02:48:11 +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 SAA28902; Wed, 15 May 2002 18:33:26 +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 SAA24527; Wed, 15 May 2002 18:35:57 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020515183937.00a92350@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 18:42:26 +0200 To: "Sven Pran" , "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] The DBF's suggestions for the new laws (Law 64) In-Reply-To: <001f01c1fc23$2a78cfa0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020515165737.00a8e1b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:14 15/05/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >...... > > > 3) When OS won 2 or more tricks from the revoke to the end: > > > > > > a)If offender (not OS) won the revoke trick or > > > > > > If the offender won a subsequent trick with a card that could have > > > legaly been played to the revoke trick (it is the same offence > > > winning the trick now or later) > > > > > > = 2 tricks transferred. > > > b) if not, tranfer 1 trick > > > > AG : this is not complete. There are three cases : > > a) subsequent trick won by the card that *should* have been played : 2 >tricks > > b) present trick won by the card thet *shouldn't* have been played (ie the > > revoke card) : 2 tricks > >You are reading too fast my friend. He correctly stated two tricks >if the offender either won the revoke trick or won a subsequent >trick with a card he could have legally played to the revoke trick. AG : OK, after all I'm reading from my office, where several other things are waiting. But ... then, what's the meaning of the sentence "it's the same offence winning the trick now or later". You can't win the revoke trick with the card you should have played in lieu of the revoke, or else there is no revoke 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 Thu May 16 06:48:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4FKlgg05958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 2002 06:47:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4FKlXH05954 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 06:47:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2751.bb.online.no [80.212.218.191]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA08451 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 22:35:16 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000d01c1fc50$0608ae60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020515165737.00a8e1b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020515183937.00a92350@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] The DBF's suggestions for the new laws (Law 64) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 22:35:16 +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 From: "Alain Gottcheiner" ....... > >You are reading too fast my friend. He correctly stated two tricks > >if the offender either won the revoke trick or won a subsequent > >trick with a card he could have legally played to the revoke trick. > > AG : OK, after all I'm reading from my office, where several other things > are waiting. > But ... then, what's the meaning of the sentence "it's the same > offence winning the trick now or later". You can't win the revoke trick > with the card you should have played in lieu of the revoke, or else there > is no revoke at all. I don't *know*, but let me try a guess: One penalty trick is if the offending side wins any trick after (and including) the revoke trick. The second penalty trick is caused by the offender (but not his partner) in addition to the trick mentioned above either winning the revoke trick or a subsequent trick with ...... My guess is that he meant it is the same offence, i.e. resulting in the second penalty trick whichever of these two alternatives caused that. Not my idea of an easily understood phrase, but I wouldn't mind, I know what it should mean. 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 May 16 08:15:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4FMEv805996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 2002 08:14:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4FMEoH05992 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 08:14:52 +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 g4FM3Yx18944 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 23:03:35 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 23:01:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal convention? References: <00c101c1f9df$1656e020$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <00c101c1f9df$1656e020$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 <00c101c1f9df$1656e020$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran writes >We were laughing over a tale the other day: A partnership >had included one special convention in their system >(which contained several other conventional calls) : > >3C: "Partner I do not understand a thing, either you or >I must have forgotten the system. All calls from now on >shall be non-conventional". > >After the laughing had ended the discussion began >whether such a convention would be legal or not. > >Personally I see no rule that can be used to ban this >"convention" or even make it a brown sticker, does >anybody else? > I have played a system with one partner where after a relay requiring step responses, the first step was always "Partner please revert to natural bidding" - it was usually used when i had no idea what was going on. cheers john >regards Sven > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 16 12:39:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4G2cIN06112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 2002 12:38:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4G2cDH06108 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 12:38:13 +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 MAA10896 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 12:39:44 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 16 May 2002 12:22:52 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 12:25:23 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 16/05/2002 12:22:43 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Accelerated Swiss Best wishes Richard Executive Summary The Accelerated Swiss has two advantages: 1. Technical - A seeded Swiss has an accuracy advantage over an unseeded Swiss equivalent to an extra round. An Accelerated Swiss gains a further round of accuracy, reducing the chances of a mediocre team "swissing through the field". 2. Psychological - A seeded Swiss is unpopular among some weaker teams due to the first-round "bloodbath", where their teams get annihilated by Klinger, Marston etc. There is no bloodbath in the first round of an Accelerated Swiss, as the top seeds and bottom seeds are paired within their own group. Procedure Part A - Overview and Round One draw 1. Seeding - Seed the entire field. 2. Temporary carry-forward - Give the top 50% of the seeds a temporary carry-forward of 10 vps. This carry-forward is used in determining the draw for both Round One and Round Two. After finalising the draw for Round Two, remove all of the temporary carry-forwards. The draw for Round Three and subsequent rounds will be a normal Swiss draw based on earned vps. 3. Round One draw - The top quarter of the field is drawn against the second quarter of the field; the third quarter of the field is drawn against the fourth quarter of the field. Example 1: A draw where the field (100 teams) is divisible by 4: 1 vs 26 2 vs 27 ....... 24 vs 49 25 vs 50 51 vs 76 52 vs 77 ....... 74 vs 99 75 vs 100 Example 2: Modified draw where the field (98 teams) is not divisible by 4: 1 vs 25 2 vs 26 ....... 23 vs 47 24 vs 48 49 vs 50 51 vs 75 52 vs 76 ....... 73 vs 97 74 vs 98 Part B - Round Two draw 1. Divide the field into three groups: - Group 1 is initially defined as those teams with 35 vps to 26 vps (top seeded winners) - Group 2 is initially defined as those teams with 25 vps to 15 vps (top seeded losers + bottom seeded winners) - Group 3 is initially defined as those teams with 14 vps to 0 vps (mostly bottom seeded losers + a few top seeded annihilated teams) 2. Modify Group 1: - If there are an even number of teams in Group 1, no modification is necessary - If there are an odd number of teams in Group 1, add the bottom-seeded team with the biggest 25 vp result to Group 1 3. Modify Group 2: - Group 2 should have exactly 50% top seeds and exactly 50% bottom seeds - Transfer surplus teams from the lower end of Group 2 to Group 3 4. Round Two draw for modified Group 1: - Group 1 is paired within itself in normal Swiss fashion 5. Round Two draw for modified Group 2: - Group 2 is paired within itself in normal Swiss fashion, but *constraint*: each pairing must be a top seed versus a bottom seed 6. Round Two draw for modified Group 3: - Group 3 is paired within itself in normal Swiss fashion, but *constraint*: top seeded teams must not be paired against each other -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 16 13:22:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4G3MZS06146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 2002 13:22:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtprelay7.dc2.adelphia.net (smtprelay7.dc2.adelphia.net [64.8.50.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4G3MTH06142 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 13:22:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from pentium4 ([24.55.57.64]) by smtprelay7.dc2.adelphia.net (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 smtprelay7 Dec 7 2001 09:58:59) with SMTP id GW6OSO00.566 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 23:10:00 -0400 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Anything odd here? Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 20:10:00 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk CASE TWENTY-NINE Subject (MI): 20/20 Hindsight And The Self-Alert Event: NABC Life Master Pairs, 18 Nov 01, Second Qualifying Session Bd: 1 Bernie Lambert Dlr: North *S* 104 Vul: None *H* J1043 *D* KQ103 *C* AKQ John Glick Nancy Zakim *S* 9862 *S* AKQJ753 *H* 87 *H* 95 *D* 86 *D* 754 *C* 108654 *C* 9 Helene Bauman *S* --- *H* AKQ62 *D* AJ92 *C* J732 West North East South 1NT 2*C*(1)2*D* Pass Pass 2*S* 3*S* 4*S* 5*H* Pass 7*H* All Pass (1) Alerted; unspecified one-suiter The Facts: 7*H* made seven, +1510 for N/S. The opening lead was the *S*A. After South’s 2*D* bid West asked North what 2*D* meant and was told it showed diamonds. Later, after South bid 3*S*, North sent South away from the table and informed the opponents that South’s 2*D* bid was not natural. The Director was then called. When he arrived he took each of the E/W players away from the table individually. East stated she would have passed 2*D* had she known that it showed hearts. The Director changed the contract to 2*D* made seven, +190 for N/S. The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director’s ruling and were the only players to attend the hearing. N/S did not find it reasonable that East would have passed with a hand containing seven sure tricks. N/S were a new partnership and did not have the “system on over interference” box checked on their CCs. The Committee would have liked very much to address some questions to the E/W pair, but since they chose not to appear (which was their right; the appropriate box on the form was signed) this was not possible. The Committee Decision: The Committee addressed the following issues: (1) Was there a failure to Alert? Since N/S had no clear agreement in place, North’s failure to Alert the 2*D* bid placed an obligation on South to act as if there had been an Alert in selecting her future actions. (2) Did this constitute MI and were E/W damaged? North’s explanation (that 2*D* was natural) to West’s inquiry (why was West asking?) did provide MI by stating an agreement that did not exist, although North thought it did. Law 21B3 (with Law 40C) says the Director may award an adjusted score when MI has been given and it is too late to correct a call. (3) Would East pass as she claimed if given the correct information? The Committee would like to have known E/W’s methods in considering (2) and (3), especially what a double would have meant and other possible options. Since this was not possible, the Committee decided that pass was not a LA for East with the hand in question. (4) North’s pass was self-Alerting to South that a problem had occurred, apart from the failure to Alert. Was South now permitted to recover? The Committee decided that South’s 3*S* bid was allowable. (5) What about North’s sending South away from the table and subsequent explanation to E/W? Once the 3*S* bid had been made, North assumed that a partner who had signed off in 2*D* and was now cue-bidding must have meant 2*D* as a transfer. The Committee saw no reason to disallow the subsequent auction and restored the table result of 7*H* made seven, +1510 for N/S. (6) Was there an infraction by North when South was sent away from the table? While North’s motives (to inform E/W of a failure to Alert) were admirable, this was also a violation. While the Committee believed that a PP was appropriate, they judged the normal 1/4-board (16 matchpoints on a 64 top) to be too severe; they decided to assess a 1/10-board (6.4 matchpoints) PP against N/S instead. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Robert Schwartz (chair), Doug Doub, Michael Huston, Judy Randel, Jon Wittes -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 16 13:51:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4G3osI06163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 2002 13:50:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4G3onH06159 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 13:50:50 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 5879848736; Wed, 15 May 2002 23:38:37 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 20:38:14 -0700 To: From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Anything odd here? Cc: "Bridge Laws" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 8:10 PM -0700 5/15/02, Linda Trent wrote: >East stated she would have passed 2*D* had she known that it showed >hearts. The Director changed the contract to 2*D* made seven, +190 >for N/S. As I would have. We've been through this before on BLML, but without reaching a consensus. In my view EW are entitled to know the NS agreements as well or better than NS know them, as if EW had a complete and detailed copy of the NS system notes. East is thus entitled to know both that 2D shows hearts and that North thinks that 2D is natural. East would know the latter not only because of her partner's seemingly gratuitous question but also because North neither alerted 2D nor announced a transfer. So in my view the directors got this right and the committee got this wrong. It seems, though, that there's a problem with the process, in that the ruling is for the most part a matter of law. If the directors interpreted the laws as I do it is not clear to me why they allowed the committee to interpret them differently. -- 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 Thu May 16 14:45:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4G4ivQ06236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 2002 14:44:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4G4irH06232 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 14:44:53 +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 OAA03079 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 14:46:25 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 16 May 2002 14:29:30 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Anything odd here? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 14:31:25 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 16/05/2002 02:29:21 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >We've been through this before on BLML, but without reaching a >consensus. In my view EW are entitled to know the NS agreements as >well or better than NS know them, as if EW had a complete and >detailed copy of the NS system notes. East is thus entitled to know >both that 2D shows hearts and that North thinks that 2D is natural. >East would know the latter not only because of her partner's >seemingly gratuitous question but also because North neither alerted >2D nor announced a transfer. > >So in my view the directors got this right and the committee got this >wrong. It seems, though, that there's a problem with the process, in >that the ruling is for the most part a matter of law. If the >directors interpreted the laws as I do it is not clear to me why they >allowed the committee to interpret them differently. > >-- >Adam Wildavsky In the mid-70s, the then CTD of Australia wrote to Edgar Kaplan on this particular L75 issue, and Kaplan's interpretation of L75 was identical with Adam's interpretation of L75. However, I am unaware whether Kaplan was merely expressing a personal view, or whether this view has since been officially adopted by the ACBL LC and/or the WBF LC. 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 May 16 16:07:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4G66aw06298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:06:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ptialaska.net (garza.acsalaska.net [209.193.61.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4G66UH06294 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:06:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-151-118-21-dial-en2.fai.acsalaska.net (208-151-118-21-dial-en2.fai.acsalaska.net [208.151.118.21]) by ptialaska.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g4G5r8D20481; Wed, 15 May 2002 21:53:08 -0800 (AKDT) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 21:54:36 -0800 (Alaskan Daylight Time) From: Michael Schmahl To: Linda Trent cc: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Anything odd here? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-X-Sender: mschmahl@ptialaska.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g4G66WH06295 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 15 May 2002, Linda Trent wrote: > CASE TWENTY-NINE > > Subject (MI): 20/20 Hindsight And The Self-Alert > Event: NABC Life Master Pairs, 18 Nov 01, Second Qualifying Session > > Bd: 1 Bernie Lambert > Dlr: North *S* 104 > Vul: None *H* J1043 > *D* KQ103 > *C* AKQ > John Glick Nancy Zakim > *S* 9862 *S* AKQJ753 > *H* 87 *H* 95 > *D* 86 *D* 754 > *C* 108654 *C* 9 > Helene Bauman > *S* --- > *H* AKQ62 > *D* AJ92 > *C* J732 > > West North East South > 1NT 2*C*(1)2*D* > Pass Pass 2*S* 3*S* > 4*S* 5*H* Pass 7*H* > All Pass > (1) Alerted; unspecified one-suiter > > The Facts: 7*H* made seven, +1510 for N/S. The opening lead was the > *S*A. After South’s 2*D* bid West asked North what 2*D* meant and was > told it showed diamonds. Later, after South bid 3*S*, North sent South > away from the table and informed the opponents that South’s 2*D* bid was > not natural. The Director was then called. When he arrived he took > each of the E/W players away from the table individually. East stated > she would have passed 2*D* had she known that it showed hearts. The > Director changed the contract to 2*D* made seven, +190 for N/S. Was this immediately after South bid 3S (i.e. before West bid 4S), or at some uncertain time after South bid 3S? If the latter, why isn't the writeup of the facts clearer? If the former, why wasn't L21B1 cited? Plain reading of this paragraph indicates that the director was called before West's 4S bid. Everything else is irrelevant, as East should have been allowed to change her call to pass, ending the auction. But under "The Committee Decision", infra, L21B3 is cited, which makes it seem that the director call was some time later. If the director was called immediately, then this seems a clear case of director error for allowing the auction to continue without applying L21B1. 2D making 7 to EW, 7H making 7 to NS. If the director was not called immediately called, doesn't L11A say that EW (may) forfeit their right to redress by West passing before the director is summoned? ISTR that this was used by a director at some previous time, and it seemed wise then, as it does now. If these are the facts, result stands. -- 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 May 16 17:36:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4G7aDi06338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 2002 17:36:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4G7a8H06334 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 17:36:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48889.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.249]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g4G7NpT13815 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 09:23:51 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CE35ED7.2000305@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 09:25:11 +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] Anything odd here? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: > At 8:10 PM -0700 5/15/02, Linda Trent wrote: > >> East stated she would have passed 2*D* had she known that it showed >> hearts. The Director changed the contract to 2*D* made seven, +190 for >> N/S. > > > As I would have. > > We've been through this before on BLML, but without reaching a > consensus. In my view EW are entitled to know the NS agreements as well > or better than NS know them, as if EW had a complete and detailed copy > of the NS system notes. East is thus entitled to know both that 2D shows > hearts and that North thinks that 2D is natural. East would know the > latter not only because of her partner's seemingly gratuitous question > but also because North neither alerted 2D nor announced a transfer. > No Adam, right ruling, wrong cause. East is entitled to know that 2D shows hearts, but he is NOT entitled to know that North thinks it is natural. However, in this case, East can infer that North thinks this, not from the non-alert, not from the question, but from North's pass. So in this case I would also rule 2D+5. > So in my view the directors got this right and the committee got this > wrong. It seems, though, that there's a problem with the process, in > that the ruling is for the most part a matter of law. If the directors > interpreted the laws as I do it is not clear to me why they allowed the > committee to interpret them differently. > -- 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 May 16 18:07:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4G87ZG06364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 2002 18:07:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl ([145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4G87TH06360 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 18:07:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g4G7tAr29823 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 09:55:14 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu May 16 09:51:05 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KHSI12Z384002T3X@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 16 May 2002 09:54:23 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 16 May 2002 09:53:59 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 09:54:22 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Anything odd here? To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman: > No Adam, right ruling, wrong cause. > > East is entitled to know that 2D shows hearts, but he is NOT entitled > to know that North thinks it is natural. Is this semantics or am I missing something? East is entitled to interpret the situation as he likes, choosing for the option that north thinks it to be natural. Is that what you mean? The situation being the non-alert on 2D, the (consistent) answer on the question from West and the pass by North. ton > > However, in this case, East can infer that North thinks this, > not from > the non-alert, not from the question, but from North's pass. > > So in this case I would also rule 2D+5. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 16 21:55:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4GBs9J06528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 2002 21:54:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imailg3.svr.pol.co.uk (imailg3.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.181]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4GBs4H06524 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 21:54:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from barton-bramhall.fsnet.co.uk ([62.137.132.131] helo=david) by imailg3.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 178Jdm-0002Yq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 May 2002 12:41:51 +0100 Message-ID: <000401c1fcce$b3ecfd00$0300a8c0@mshome.net> From: "David Barton" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: [BLML] MI or Self Inflicted Damage? Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 12:41:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The following monstrosity occurred at the local club:- Love All; Dealer West; Pairs Scoring; N-S (in theory) good players,E-W moderate 532 75 Q75 Q10853 AKQJ106 9874 64 KQ103 4 A92 A762 KJ - AJ982 KJ10863 94 N E S W 1S P 3S(1) 4D 4S P P 4N(2) 5S 6C 6S all pass (1) Limit bid 10-11 points with 4 spades!!!! (2) West asked and was told it showed CLUBS Declarer won the opening D lead, drew the trumps (???), played a heart to the K and A, ruffed the D return and played a heart to the 10 for one off. Now clearly the declarer play is truly awful. Despite the explanation the clubs cannot possibly be 6-1 or 7-0. Against this with the correct explanation declarer is likely to look for the 12th trick by finessing in Clubs. So, how do you rule? David.Barton@cwcom.net -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 16 22:44:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4GCiV406670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 2002 22:44:31 +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 g4GCiPH06666 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 22:44:26 +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 g4GCXAx20795 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 13:33:10 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 13:23:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >Accelerated Swiss > >Best wishes > the point about Swiss *is* that Mrs Guggenheim does get to play against a team of Internationals. She even wins the matches sometimes. Given that the result of a Swiss is entirely random anyway, why worry? I mean even I've won a fair number of them :) cheers john >Richard > >Executive Summary > >The Accelerated Swiss has two advantages: > >1. Technical - A seeded Swiss has an accuracy advantage >over an unseeded Swiss equivalent to an extra round. An >Accelerated Swiss gains a further round of accuracy, >reducing the chances of a mediocre team "swissing through >the field". > >2. Psychological - A seeded Swiss is unpopular among some >weaker teams due to the first-round "bloodbath", where >their teams get annihilated by Klinger, Marston etc. There >is no bloodbath in the first round of an Accelerated Swiss, >as the top seeds and bottom seeds are paired within their >own group. > >Procedure > >Part A - Overview and Round One draw > >1. Seeding - Seed the entire field. > >2. Temporary carry-forward - Give the top 50% of the seeds >a temporary carry-forward of 10 vps. This carry-forward is >used in determining the draw for both Round One and Round >Two. After finalising the draw for Round Two, remove all of >the temporary carry-forwards. The draw for Round Three and >subsequent rounds will be a normal Swiss draw based on >earned vps. > >3. Round One draw - The top quarter of the field is drawn >against the second quarter of the field; the third quarter >of the field is drawn against the fourth quarter of the >field. > >Example 1: A draw where the field (100 teams) is divisible >by 4: > >1 vs 26 >2 vs 27 >....... >24 vs 49 >25 vs 50 >51 vs 76 >52 vs 77 >....... >74 vs 99 >75 vs 100 > >Example 2: Modified draw where the field (98 teams) is not >divisible by 4: > >1 vs 25 >2 vs 26 >....... >23 vs 47 >24 vs 48 >49 vs 50 >51 vs 75 >52 vs 76 >....... >73 vs 97 >74 vs 98 > >Part B - Round Two draw > >1. Divide the field into three groups: > >- Group 1 is initially defined as those teams with 35 vps to >26 vps (top seeded winners) > >- Group 2 is initially defined as those teams with 25 vps to >15 vps (top seeded losers + bottom seeded winners) > >- Group 3 is initially defined as those teams with 14 vps to >0 vps (mostly bottom seeded losers + a few top seeded >annihilated teams) > >2. Modify Group 1: > >- If there are an even number of teams in Group 1, no >modification is necessary > >- If there are an odd number of teams in Group 1, add the >bottom-seeded team with the biggest 25 vp result to Group 1 > >3. Modify Group 2: > >- Group 2 should have exactly 50% top seeds and exactly 50% >bottom seeds > >- Transfer surplus teams from the lower end of Group 2 to >Group 3 > >4. Round Two draw for modified Group 1: > >- Group 1 is paired within itself in normal Swiss fashion > >5. Round Two draw for modified Group 2: > >- Group 2 is paired within itself in normal Swiss fashion, >but *constraint*: each pairing must be a top seed versus a >bottom seed > >6. Round Two draw for modified Group 3: > >- Group 3 is paired within itself in normal Swiss fashion, >but *constraint*: top seeded teams must not be paired >against each other > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 May 16 22:50:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4GCoXN06682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 2002 22:50:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4GCoSH06678 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 22:50:28 +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 g4GCdDx20800 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 13:39:13 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 13:30:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Anything odd here? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Linda Trent writes > CASE TWENTY-NINE > >Subject (MI): 20/20 Hindsight And The Self-Alert >Event: NABC Life Master Pairs, 18 Nov 01, Second Qualifying Session > >Bd: 1 Bernie Lambert >Dlr: North *S* 104 >Vul: None *H* J1043 > *D* KQ103 > *C* AKQ >John Glick Nancy Zakim >*S* 9862 *S* AKQJ753 >*H* 87 *H* 95 >*D* 86 *D* 754 >*C* 108654 *C* 9 > Helene Bauman > *S* --- > *H* AKQ62 > *D* AJ92 > *C* J732 > >West North East South > 1NT 2*C*(1)2*D* >Pass Pass 2*S* 3*S* >4*S* 5*H* Pass 7*H* >All Pass >(1) Alerted; unspecified one-suiter > It is ludicrous to fine NS at all. NS have an absolute obligation to avoid giving MI, and did their best to achieve this objective. Of course, the AC got it wrong as well. If I know that S's 2D shows H and North passes I can easily guess they've screwed up, and could well pass. >The Facts: 7*H* made seven, +1510 for N/S. The opening lead was the >*S*A. After South’s 2*D* bid West asked North what 2*D* meant and was >told it showed diamonds. Later, after South bid 3*S*, North sent South >away from the table and informed the opponents that South’s 2*D* bid >was not natural. The Director was then called. When he arrived he took >each of the E/W players away from the table individually. East stated >she would have passed 2*D* had she known that it showed hearts. The >Director changed the contract to 2*D* made seven, +190 for N/S. > >The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director’s ruling and were the only >players to attend the hearing. N/S did not find it reasonable that >East would have passed with a hand containing seven sure tricks. N/S >were a new partnership and did not have the “system on over >interference†box checked on their CCs. The Committee would have liked >very much to address some questions to the E/W pair, but since they >chose not to appear (which was their right; the appropriate box on the >form was signed) this was not possible. > >The Committee Decision: The Committee addressed the following issues: >(1) Was there a failure to Alert? Since N/S had no clear agreement in >place, North’s failure to Alert the 2*D* bid placed an obligation on >South to act as if there had been an Alert in selecting her future >actions. (2) Did this constitute MI and were E/W damaged? North’s >explanation (that 2*D* was natural) to West’s inquiry (why was West >asking?) did provide MI by stating an agreement that did not exist, >although North thought it did. Law 21B3 (with Law 40C) says the >Director may award an adjusted score when MI has been given and it is >too late to correct a call. (3) Would East pass as she claimed if >given the correct information? The Committee would like to have known >E/W’s methods in considering (2) and (3), especially what a double >would have meant and other possible options. Since this was not >possible, the Committee decided that pass was not a LA for East with >the hand in question. (4) North’s pass was self-Alerting to South that >a problem had occurred, apart from the failure to Alert. Was South now >permitted to recover? The Committee decided that South’s 3*S* bid was >allowable. (5) What about North’s sending South away from the table >and subsequent explanation to E/W? Once the 3*S* bid had been made, >North assumed that a partner who had signed off in 2*D* and was now >cue-bidding must have meant 2*D* as a transfer. The Committee saw no >reason to disallow the subsequent auction and restored the table >result of 7*H* made seven, +1510 for N/S. (6) Was there an infraction >by North when South was sent away from the table? While North’s >motives (to inform E/W of a failure to Alert) were admirable, this was >also a violation. While the Committee believed that a PP was >appropriate, they judged the normal 1/4-board (16 matchpoints on a 64 >top) to be too severe; they decided to assess a 1/10-board (6.4 >matchpoints) PP against N/S instead. > >DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff >Committee: Robert Schwartz (chair), Doug Doub, Michael Huston, Judy >Randel, Jon Wittes > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 May 17 04:43:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4GIgVJ06895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 2002 04:42:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4GIgPH06891 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 04:42:26 +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 178Q0u-0001tb-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 May 2002 19:30:11 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 19:02:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss 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 > >The Accelerated Swiss has two advantages: > >1. Technical - A seeded Swiss has an accuracy advantage >over an unseeded Swiss equivalent to an extra round. An >Accelerated Swiss gains a further round of accuracy, >reducing the chances of a mediocre team "swissing through >the field". This is not a technical advantage: it is an artificial advantage. It is far better to let bridge players decide events by playing bridge. >2. Psychological - A seeded Swiss is unpopular among some >weaker teams due to the first-round "bloodbath", where >their teams get annihilated by Klinger, Marston etc. There >is no bloodbath in the first round of an Accelerated Swiss, >as the top seeds and bottom seeds are paired within their >own group. Same answer. How about going for a random draw Swiss, which seems to be more enjoyable? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 06:08:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4GK7mI06929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 2002 06:07:48 +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 g4GK7gH06925 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 06:07:43 +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/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g4GJtL801026 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 15:55:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 15:38:23 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Anything odd here? To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.1 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 5/15/02, Linda Trent wrote: >Since N/S had no clear agreement in place, North¹s failure to Alert >the 2*D* bid placed an obligation on South to act as if there had been >an Alert in selecting her future actions. Huh? "In the absence of an agreement, a failure to alert requires South to act as if there was an alertable agreement"? This makes absolutely no sense to me. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp 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 May 17 07:14:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4GLDNn06968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 2002 07:13:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4GLDHH06964 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 07:13:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0488.bb.online.no [80.212.209.232]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA19470 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 23:00:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001f01c1fd1c$c7146a00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 23:00:54 +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: "David Stevenson" > richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > >The Accelerated Swiss has two advantages: > > > >1. Technical - A seeded Swiss has an accuracy advantage > >over an unseeded Swiss equivalent to an extra round. An > >Accelerated Swiss gains a further round of accuracy, > >reducing the chances of a mediocre team "swissing through > >the field". > > This is not a technical advantage: it is an artificial advantage. It > is far better to let bridge players decide events by playing bridge. I seriously doubt if there is any advantage at all. Just imagine a competition where you seed the participants according to their strength: Round 1: The strongest participant meets the weakest, the second strongest meets the second weakest and so on. Round 2: According to the ranking list after round 1 the two strongest participants meet at table 1, the two next strongest meet at table 2 and so on down to the last table where the two weakest participants meet. Round 3: According to the ranking list after round 2 a little more than half of the strongest together with a little less than half of the weakest will form the upper half of the field in more or less random ranking order, the remainders will similarly find themselves in the lower half of the field, also in more or less random order. (The picture will be slightly, but not essentially different if there is a round delay between the ranking and seating) So what are the characteristics of those rounds? Round 3 is as close to random as we can expect to come, with one of the weakest participants possibly even sitting at table 1 and one of the strongest similarly possibly sitting at the last table. This will be even more pronounced if we start the tournament with seeding according to round 2 rather than round 1 in the case study above. (In that case none of the participants will yet have obtained their "carry" score from the first round "bloodbath") So the most "accelerated" Swiss will be obtained by initially seating all participants in completely random order, believe it or not. Seeding is fine in knock out competitions, but not in Swiss. > > >2. Psychological - A seeded Swiss is unpopular among some > >weaker teams due to the first-round "bloodbath", where > >their teams get annihilated by Klinger, Marston etc. There > >is no bloodbath in the first round of an Accelerated Swiss, > >as the top seeds and bottom seeds are paired within their > >own group. > > Same answer. No, the "bloodbath" will instead happen in one of the later rounds. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 08:29:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4GMTDU07019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 2002 08:29:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4GMT9H07015 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 08:29:09 +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 IAA29819 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 08:30:39 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 17 May 2002 08:13:47 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 08:16:25 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 17/05/2002 08:13:37 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >the point about Swiss *is* that Mrs Guggenheim >does get to play against a team of Internationals. >She even wins the matches sometimes. Given >that the result of a Swiss is entirely random >anyway, why worry? I mean even I've won a fair >number of them :) Different strokes for different folks. A one-day Swiss with short matches is entirely random, so I agree for that sort of Swiss you do not need to worry about using a super- scientific draw for the first two rounds. In Australia, however, our most important National Championship has a week-long qualifying Swiss, with the "best" teams proceeding to long knockout matches. For such an event, the ABF Conditions of Contest require seeding to reduce the randomness. 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 May 17 11:08:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4H17V007086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 2002 11:07:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4H17PH07082 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 11:07:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-34-79-252.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.34.79.252] helo=gordonrainsford.co.uk) by rhenium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 178W1X-0001b7-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 May 2002 01:55:11 +0100 Message-ID: <3CE454E3.1030209@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 01:54:59 +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 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Anything odd here? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > On 5/15/02, Linda Trent wrote: > > >>Since N/S had no clear agreement in place, North¹s failure to Alert >>the 2*D* bid placed an obligation on South to act as if there had been >>an Alert in selecting her future actions. >> > > Huh? "In the absence of an agreement, a failure to alert requires South > to act as if there was an alertable agreement"? This makes absolutely no > sense to me. > > Regards, > > Ed > > No, South has already acted as if there were an alertable agreement by bidding 2D to show hearts, and is not allowed to let partner's lack of alert change that course of action. Gordon Rainsford -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 15:09:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4H59B907228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 2002 15:09:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta04ps.bigpond.com (mta04ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.136]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4H597H07224 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 15:09:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from master.bigpond.net.au ([144.135.25.78]) by mta04ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GW8OEG00.719 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 14:56:40 +1000 Received: from CPE-144-137-80-84.nsw.bigpond.net.au ([144.137.80.84]) by PSMAM04.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0m 92/1228365); 17 May 2002 14:56:39 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020517145234.0241fac0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> X-Sender: ardelm@pop-server.bigpond.net.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 14:56:32 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss 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 Nevertheless, these events are usually severely "over-swissed". On the final round the leading teams will rarely be playing a team within 5 ladder places. Thus the need to save a round is somewhat academic. As a mug player I have fond memories of playing against (and being creamed by) the Indonesian team. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) At 08:16 AM 17/05/02 +1000, you wrote: >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > >the point about Swiss *is* that Mrs Guggenheim > >does get to play against a team of Internationals. > >She even wins the matches sometimes. Given > >that the result of a Swiss is entirely random > >anyway, why worry? I mean even I've won a fair > >number of them :) > >Different strokes for different folks. > >A one-day Swiss with short matches is entirely >random, so I agree for that sort of Swiss you >do not need to worry about using a super- >scientific draw for the first two rounds. > >In Australia, however, our most important >National Championship has a week-long >qualifying Swiss, with the "best" teams >proceeding to long knockout matches. For >such an event, the ABF Conditions of >Contest require seeding to reduce the >randomness. > >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 Fri May 17 15:34:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4H5YBY07247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 2002 15:34:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta06bw.bigpond.com (mta06bw.bigpond.com [139.134.6.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4H5Y7H07243 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 15:34:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from master.bigpond.net.au ([144.135.24.84]) by mta06bw.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 mta06bw Feb 26 2002 03:44:21) with SMTP id GW8PKD00.CV7 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 15:21:49 +1000 Received: from CPE-144-137-80-84.nsw.bigpond.net.au ([144.137.80.84]) by bwmam06.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0m 47/3697371); 17 May 2002 15:21:49 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020517150416.00b56f40@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> X-Sender: ardelm@pop-server.bigpond.net.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 15:21:41 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: [BLML] Self-inflicted subsequent damage? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Butler scored pairs, Nil Vul, Dealer South 8 Q 8 8 6 2 A K 8 6 5 2 5 J 9 8 3 2 A J 10 9 7 6 4 3 5 2 A J 10 Q 10 Q J 7 4 3 A K 10 7 6 K K 9 7 5 4 3 9 The bidding: South West North East 1D 4H .....pass pass 5D We do not mess about with stop cards etc. in Australia, but North's hesitation was considerable. I was called immediately South bid 5D. The bidding then proceeded.. X pass 5H all pass. I had previously played the board as South, and had a similar hesitation which I felt prevented me from bidding my spades, or taking further action, so I was expecting on recall to the table to adjust to 4H making for EW. I then discovered that West had removed partner's double which I feel is sufficiently irrational to be termed subsequent damage under the act. I would like to adjust the EW score to +420 less (300+50), the latter amount the self inflicted damage caused by removing partner's double of 5D (+300), to going off themselves in 5H. Any views? Cheers Tony (Sydney) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 15:51:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4H5owT07276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 2002 15:50:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4H5osH07272 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 15:50:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 32665 invoked by uid 504); 17 May 2002 05:38:34 -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 1.673956 secs); 17 May 2002 05:38:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.250) by 0 with SMTP; 17 May 2002 05:38:32 -0000 Message-ID: <000901c1fd65$066b3ce0$fa16b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020517145234.0241fac0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 17:38:05 +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: Tony Musgrove To: Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 4:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss > Nevertheless, these events are usually severely "over-swissed". On the final > round the leading teams will rarely be playing a team within 5 ladder > places. Thus > the need to save a round is somewhat academic. As a mug player I have fond > memories of playing against (and being creamed by) the Indonesian team. > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) Interesting implicit definition of over-swissed. While what you say is true, i think that the event is under-swissed in that all of the best teams can't rise and maintain a top spot in even 14 rounds out of about 120 or so teams over the week of competition. Wayne > > > > > At 08:16 AM 17/05/02 +1000, you wrote: > > >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > > >the point about Swiss *is* that Mrs Guggenheim > > >does get to play against a team of Internationals. > > >She even wins the matches sometimes. Given > > >that the result of a Swiss is entirely random > > >anyway, why worry? I mean even I've won a fair > > >number of them :) > > > >Different strokes for different folks. > > > >A one-day Swiss with short matches is entirely > >random, so I agree for that sort of Swiss you > >do not need to worry about using a super- > >scientific draw for the first two rounds. > > > >In Australia, however, our most important > >National Championship has a week-long > >qualifying Swiss, with the "best" teams > >proceeding to long knockout matches. For > >such an event, the ABF Conditions of > >Contest require seeding to reduce the > >randomness. > > > >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/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 16:38:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4H6cFD07314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 2002 16:38:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4H6cBH07310 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 16:38:11 +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 QAA01183 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 16:39:41 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 17 May 2002 16:22:47 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Self-inflicted subsequent damage? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 16:25:24 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 17/05/2002 04:22:37 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove wrote: [snip] >I then discovered that West had >removed partner's double which I feel >is sufficiently irrational to be >termed subsequent damage under the act. [snip] A penalty double *by a pre-emptor* is not a command to pass, therefore removing the double with a defenceless hand is *not* irrational. 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 May 17 17:44:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4H7i8e07367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 2002 17:44:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4H7i2H07363 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 17:44:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g4H7Vjr13174 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 09:31:47 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri May 17 09:27:40 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KHTVI7JMDE002UV1@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 17 May 2002 09:31:37 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 17 May 2002 09:31:13 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 09:31:36 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Anything odd here? To: "'Gordon Rainsford'" , 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g4H7i4H07364 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > On 5/15/02, Linda Trent wrote: > > > > > >>Since N/S had no clear agreement in place, North¹s failure to Alert > >>the 2*D* bid placed an obligation on South to act as if > there had been > >>an Alert in selecting her future actions. This statement is somewhat misty indeed which regularly is the case when 'law' is translated in 'better' sounding words. South has the UI that north might not realize his 2D to show a transfer. Having available this UI south may not choose from among etc. That is the criterion with which his 3S and following bids have to be looked at. And 'since N/S had no clear agreement in place' is a rather irrelevant and therewith confusing statement in this respect, suggesting the AC didn't know what it was doing, though it also could be a slip of the pen. I am saying here that had there been a clear agreement the UI could have been stronger, restricting the bidding freedom of South even more. ton > > > > Huh? "In the absence of an agreement, a failure to alert > requires South > > to act as if there was an alertable agreement"? This makes > absolutely no > > sense to me. > > > > Regards, > > > > Ed > > > > > > > No, South has already acted as if there were an alertable > agreement by > bidding 2D to show hearts, and is not allowed to let > partner's lack of > alert change that course of action. > > > Gordon Rainsford > > > > > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 18:20:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4H8KTi07392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 2002 18:20:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (sss.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4H8KNH07388 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 18:20:23 +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 KAA19831; Fri, 17 May 2002 10:06:35 +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 KAA15990; Fri, 17 May 2002 10:08:02 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020517100827.00a818f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 10:14:36 +0200 To: Tony Musgrove , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Self-inflicted subsequent damage? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020517150416.00b56f40@pop-server.bigpond.net. au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:21 17/05/2002 +1000, Tony Musgrove wrote: >Butler scored pairs, Nil Vul, Dealer South > > 8 > Q 8 > 8 6 2 > A K 8 6 5 2 > 5 J 9 8 3 2 > A J 10 9 7 6 4 3 5 2 > A J 10 Q > 10 Q J 7 4 3 > A K 10 7 6 > K > K 9 7 5 4 3 > 9 > >The bidding: > South West North East > 1D 4H .....pass pass > 5D > >We do not mess about with stop cards etc. in Australia, but >North's hesitation was considerable. I was called immediately >South bid 5D. The bidding then proceeded.. > X pass 5H >all pass. > >I had previously played the board as South, and had a similar >hesitation which I felt prevented me from bidding my spades, or >taking further action, so I was expecting on recall to the table >to adjust to 4H making for EW. I then discovered that West had >removed partner's double which I feel is sufficiently irrational to >be termed subsequent damage under the act. >I would like to adjust the EW score to +420 less (300+50), the latter >amount the self inflicted damage caused by removing partner's >double of 5D (+300), to going off themselves in 5H. > >Any views? AG : I think pass is not a LA with South's hand. If I do open it with 1D (which I'm not sure I would), I should be ready to bid my spades at any level. Why South bid 5D rather than 4S escapes me ; perhaps South thought 4S was more suggested than 5D by the tempo and tried to be honest ; but anyway the net result of a 4S bid would be a 5D contract. I would have allowed the 4S (or 5D) bid by South. And I would allow myself to do it. BTA I'm more lenient than some other contributors on these matters. But if you consider South had to pass, there is no reason not to correct the score ; Esat's pull might be a bad decision (in fact, I consider it close), but surely it isn't an absurdity or a wild gamble. Thus, *if* one disallows the 5D bid, one has to correct to 5D minus something (minus how much depends on who holds the SQ). 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 May 17 21:10:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4HBA0c07510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 2002 21:10:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (brussels2000.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4HB9sH07506 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 21:09:55 +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 MAA24141; Fri, 17 May 2002 12:56:12 +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 MAA17581; Fri, 17 May 2002 12:57:39 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020517130205.00a93740@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 13:04:12 +0200 To: Tony Musgrove , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] correction In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020517100827.00a818f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020517150416.00b56f40@pop-server.bigpond.net. au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:14 17/05/2002 +0200, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: AG : sorry : correction. >AG : I think pass is not a LA with South's hand. If I do open it with 1D >(which I'm not sure I would), I should be ready to bid my spades at any >level. Why South bid 5D rather than 4S escapes me ; perhaps South thought >4S was more suggested than 5D by the tempo and tried to be honest ; but >anyway the net result of a 4S bid would be a 5D contract. >I would have allowed the 4S (or 5D) bid by South. And I would allow myself >to do it. BTA I'm more lenient than some other contributors on these matters. >But if you consider South had to pass, there is no reason not to correct >the score ; Esat's pull might be a bad decision (in fact, I consider it >close), but surely it isn't an absurdity or a wild gamble. Thus, *if* one >disallows the 5D bid, one has to correct to 5D minus something (minus how >much depends on who holds the SQ). correction : if one disallows the 5D bid, one may not consider EW are entirely responsible of their bad score (the link between infrction and score is not cut), thus the score should be corrected to whatever 4H would have produced. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 22:25:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4HCP9R07617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 2002 22:25:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4HCP3H07613 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 22:25:04 +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 178gbF-0009Z6-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 May 2002 13:12:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 01:33:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss 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 > >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>the point about Swiss *is* that Mrs Guggenheim >>does get to play against a team of Internationals. >>She even wins the matches sometimes. Given >>that the result of a Swiss is entirely random >>anyway, why worry? I mean even I've won a fair >>number of them :) > >Different strokes for different folks. > >A one-day Swiss with short matches is entirely >random, so I agree for that sort of Swiss you >do not need to worry about using a super- >scientific draw for the first two rounds. > >In Australia, however, our most important >National Championship has a week-long >qualifying Swiss, with the "best" teams >proceeding to long knockout matches. For >such an event, the ABF Conditions of >Contest require seeding to reduce the >randomness. We know that they do - we just do not think they should. They reduce randomness in a completely unfair way - far better to have the arbitrariness which is completely fair. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 23:19:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4HDIkm07684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 2002 23:18:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f79.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.79]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4HDIfH07680 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 23:18:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 17 May 2002 06:06:22 -0700 Received: from 172.158.8.203 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 17 May 2002 13:06:22 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.158.8.203] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 06:06:22 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 May 2002 13:06:22.0789 (UTC) FILETIME=[A4B4BF50:01C1FDA3] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss >Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 01:33:47 +0100 > > > Seeding Swisses > > We know that they do - we just do not think they should. They reduce >randomness in a completely unfair way - far better to have the >arbitrariness which is completely fair. I assume the seeding is done by some form of masterpoint holdings? Although it's a knockout event, the Spingold is also seeded, but by some factor other than masterpoint holdings. Can anyone who knows how it is seeded explain? I can't seem to find "appendices B through G" anywhere on the acbl website. Would this be fairer? Though I do have to admit that I find the idea of seeding an event so as to maximize the odds that the final standings will match the seeding is distasteful. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 23:26:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4HDQ0B07697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 2002 23:26:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4HDPtH07693 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 23:25:56 +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 178hY3-000Fwp-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 May 2002 14:13:37 +0100 Message-ID: <4U8w1VAoXP58EwXY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 13:22:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020517145234.0241fac0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <000901c1fd65$066b3ce0$fa16b9d2@laptop> In-Reply-To: <000901c1fd65$066b3ce0$fa16b9d2@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: Tony Musgrove >> Nevertheless, these events are usually severely "over-swissed". On the >final >> round the leading teams will rarely be playing a team within 5 ladder >> places. Thus >> the need to save a round is somewhat academic. As a mug player I have >fond >> memories of playing against (and being creamed by) the Indonesian team. >Interesting implicit definition of over-swissed. While what you say is >true, i think that the event is under-swissed in that all of the best teams >can't rise and maintain a top spot in even 14 rounds out of about 120 or so >teams over the week of competition. In what way does that make it "under-swissed"? Teams should win events through their abilities, not through artificial help from the organisers. If a team plays perfect bridge for the whole even they will win - that's fair enough. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 23:35:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4HDZE707709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 2002 23:35:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4HDZ8H07705 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 23:35:09 +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 g4HDMn223342; Fri, 17 May 2002 15:22:49 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g4HDMnS21207; Fri, 17 May 2002 15:22:49 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 15:22:49 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Todd Zimnoch cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss 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, 17 May 2002, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > Although it's a knockout event, the Spingold is also seeded, but by > some factor other than masterpoint holdings. Can anyone who knows how it is > seeded explain? Each player gets seeding points based on performance in the event in the previous years (IIRC, 10 for winning last year's, 9 for second, .., 9 for winning 2 years ago, 8 for second 2 years ago etc) and his masterpoint holding (1 per 1000 masterpoints). The maximum number of seeding points a player can have is 50 and thus 200 for the team. The number 1 seed is given to last year's winner, if at least 4 of the players are on this year's team. If this team doesn't enter, the #1 seed goes to the team with the highest number of seeding points. The number 2 seed is given to the team with the highest number of seeding points. The number 3 and 4 seeds to the next 2 teams, who gets the #3 and #4 seed is selected at random. The number 5, 6, 7 and 8 seed are given at random to the next 4 teams. This is repeated for 9-12, 13-16, ... 29-32, then 33-40, ... 57-64, then 65-80, 81-96, etc. 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 Sat May 18 00:51:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4HEpNJ07745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 May 2002 00:51:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail7.svr.pol.co.uk (mail7.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4HEpHH07741 for ; Sat, 18 May 2002 00:51:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-47.change-management-shark.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.137.10.47] helo=pc) by mail7.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 178isn-0006PU-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 May 2002 15:39:01 +0100 Message-ID: <001601c1fdb0$8c2e4ac0$2f0a893e@pc> From: "LarryBennett" To: "blml" Subject: [BLML] L30 Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 15:38:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0013_01C1FDB8.D415E8E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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_0013_01C1FDB8.D415E8E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On my local discussion group, a posting reported a ruling from an = ebu/county joint event. The auction had proceded....Pass. no action, no = action, Pass. The (ebu) td was called and after the call was not accepted ruled the = offender silent throughout. The poster thought this to be incorrect, and = without ref to tflb I informed him that the td was correct but that = there was a difference if the poot had been the FIRST call. Another member pointed out to my astonishment that L30 refers to matters = after any player has BID. In this instant it was a pass and therefore = not a bid. I believe that I have been ruling consistently incorrectly in = this situation for 20 yrs., as did the td in question. Others in the = group also report having had this (incorrect) ruling. Has this particular cow flown past anyone else? Larry ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C1FDB8.D415E8E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On my local discussion group, = a posting=20 reported a ruling from an ebu/county joint event. The auction had=20 proceded....Pass. no action, no action, Pass.
The (ebu) td was called and = after the=20 call was not accepted ruled the offender silent throughout. The = poster=20 thought this to be incorrect, and without ref to tflb I informed him = that the td=20 was correct but that there was a difference if the poot had been the = FIRST=20 call.
Another member pointed out to = my=20 astonishment that L30 refers to matters after any player has BID. In = this=20 instant it was a pass and therefore not a bid. I believe that I have = been ruling=20 consistently incorrectly in this situation for 20 yrs., as did the td in = question. Others in the group also report having had this (incorrect)=20 ruling.
Has this particular cow flown = past anyone=20 else?
 
Larry
------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C1FDB8.D415E8E0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 18 00:56:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4HEtvj07759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 May 2002 00:55:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe52.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4HEtpH07755 for ; Sat, 18 May 2002 00:55:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 17 May 2002 07:43:32 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [64.158.34.77] From: "Roger Pewick" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020517150416.00b56f40@pop-server.bigpond.net. au> <5.1.0.14.0.20020517130205.00a93740@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: [BLML] Self-inflicted subsequent damage? Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 09:42:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 May 2002 14:43:32.0506 (UTC) FILETIME=[377CF7A0:01C1FDB1] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Tony Musgrove To: Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 0:21 AM Subject: [BLML] Self-inflicted subsequent damage? | to adjust to 4H making for EW. I then discovered that West had | removed partner's double which I feel is sufficiently irrational to | be termed subsequent damage under the act. For a player that has practically no offense [the stiff diamond is a duplicated value because of the double] and very little defense for a partner who has preempted, the 'reason' for 5H is not that it will make but fear that 5DX will make and 5HX will be cheap. But east should take into account that 5DX assumed he has a worthless hand. So, I would not be sure that 5H was irrational in light of getting the better of 5H and a score adjusted to 4H, but it certainly is a gamble, and a stupid one at that. ----- Original Message ----- From: Alain Gottcheiner To: Tony Musgrove ; Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 6:04 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] correction | At 10:14 17/05/2002 +0200, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: | AG : sorry : correction. | | | >AG : I think pass is not a LA with South's hand. Yesterday I saw a player bid 5H on a much better hand: void-AKxxxx-Axxxxx-x in a somewhat similar auction. Players do such things- that is to bid in excess of the indicated capacity of the cards. Well, it could be right to do so. But in my experience 9 times out of ten when they do so they have UI available that partner has something. And 7 times out of ten they don't have UI when they pass. Yes, 5D was a legitimate call, but if only if there is no UI. btw, declarer went for 2200 yesterday. So, if it was logical to pass that 6-6 hand all this is to say that pass with today's hand not only was a LA but the only call within the indicated capacity of the hand and the 5D was an infraction. What about damage? NS defended a heart contract to 10 tricks [-420 in 4H] while the 5D call would bring -300 so 5D damaged EW. However, from east's point of view he has information that 5DX is going down while 5H is also going down and thus was a contra indicated action. East's total disregard of the indicated capacity of the hand suggests that the infraction had nothing to do with east's action [5H being a bridge blunder] and as such broke the connection between the infraction and the damage. Imo, the table result ought to stand [not withstanding Lillie] and a PP to NS for breach of 16A. | > If I do open it with 1D imo it is not smart to do so and probably foolhardy . | >(which I'm not sure I would), I should be ready to bid my spades at any | >level. Why South bid 5D rather than 4S escapes me ; It does not escape me. In my method opposite a passed partner 4S is very strong and I would be very disappointed if a N hand that was significantly weaker did not drive to slam, if not look for grand slam. And with this south hand i would not want to risk such a horrible result by reversing into 4S. | > perhaps South thought | >4S was more suggested than 5D by the tempo and tried to be honest ; but | >anyway the net result of a 4S bid would be a 5D contract. | >I would have allowed the 4S (or 5D) bid by South. And I would allow myself | >to do it. BTA I'm more lenient than some other contributors on these matters. | >But if you consider South had to pass, there is no reason not to correct | >the score ; Esat's pull might be a bad decision (in fact, I consider it | >close), but surely it isn't an absurdity or a wild gamble. Thus, *if* one | >disallows the 5D bid, one has to correct to 5D minus something (minus how | >much depends on who holds the SQ). | | correction : if one disallows the 5D bid, one may not consider EW are | entirely responsible of their bad score (the link between infrction and | score is not cut), thus the score should be corrected to whatever 4H would | have produced. Addenda I would be easily convinced that the motivation for 5H was anticipation that 5D was an infraction thereby creating a so called 'double shot' situation. I would not be surprised to find this NS with a defective system which prevents N from doubling 4H for business or S from reopening with a double. If NS had selected a satisfactory system it probably would not have taken so long for N to act over 4H. And what is curious is that with his powerhouse N did not double 5H so maybe N was not stewing over doubling 4H after all. I guess my analysis was not too good on that point. If a heart is led at T1 or T2 [which after leading a stiff spade should not be too difficult upon seeing dummy] 4H should go down. at T1 if I were EW I would feel relief that 5D turned a probable minus into a plus. At T13, after seeing NS butcher the defense to 5H I would conveniently forget my earlier feeling at T1. 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 Sat May 18 01:17:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4HFDGP07791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 May 2002 01:13:16 +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 g4HFDAH07787 for ; Sat, 18 May 2002 01:13:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from poseidon.harvard.edu (poseidon [131.142.24.150]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id LAA12478 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 11:00:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by poseidon.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA18064 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 May 2002 11:00:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 11:00:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205171500.LAA18064@poseidon.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > 1. Technical - A seeded Swiss has an accuracy advantage > over an unseeded Swiss equivalent to an extra round. An > Accelerated Swiss gains a further round of accuracy, > reducing the chances of a mediocre team "swissing through > the field". If these are your goals, you can do even better by adding to each team's score a fraction of the VP's scored by all its opponents other than in the head-to-head match. In other words, if two teams have equal "raw" VP totals, the one that has faced stronger opposition will end up with a higher score. The question is what fraction to add. I'm not certain but have a vague recollection that at one time I convinced myself that 50% is best. I no longer remember the reasoning, though, and maybe my memory is simply wrong. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 18 01:30:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4HFTq507814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 May 2002 01:29:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4HFTlH07810 for ; Sat, 18 May 2002 01:29:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2096.bb.online.no [80.212.216.48]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA03171 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 17:17:26 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001201c1fdb5$f3ea21c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" References: <001601c1fdb0$8c2e4ac0$2f0a893e@pc> Subject: Re: [BLML] L30 Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 17:17:26 +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: "LarryBennett" On my local discussion group, a posting reported a ruling from an ebu/county joint event. The auction had proceded....Pass. no action, no action, Pass. The (ebu) td was called and after the call was not accepted ruled the offender silent throughout. The poster thought this to be incorrect, and without ref to tflb I informed him that the td was correct but that there was a difference if the poot had been the FIRST call. Another member pointed out to my astonishment that L30 refers to matters after any player has BID. In this instant it was a pass and therefore not a bid. I believe that I have been ruling consistently incorrectly in this situation for 20 yrs., as did the td in question. Others in the group also report having had this (incorrect) ruling. Has this particular cow flown past anyone else? My response: I see no problem here: Pass is not a bid, so the correct ruling is by Law 30A (or the laws would have been "before any player has called"). Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 18 01:37:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4HFasI07826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 May 2002 01:36:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4HFamH07822 for ; Sat, 18 May 2002 01:36:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2096.bb.online.no [80.212.216.48]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA17298 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 17:24:28 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001d01c1fdb6$ef70b220$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200205171500.LAA18064@poseidon.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 17:24:27 +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: "Steve Willner" ......... > If these are your goals, you can do even better by adding to each > team's score a fraction of the VP's scored by all its opponents other > than in the head-to-head match. In other words, if two teams have > equal "raw" VP totals, the one that has faced stronger opposition will > end up with a higher score. > > The question is what fraction to add. I'm not certain but have a vague > recollection that at one time I convinced myself that 50% is best. I no > longer remember the reasoning, though, and maybe my memory is simply > wrong. We do this in Norway when tie breaks are neccessary. And then we do not need to bother with fractions, we just compare the total points won by the opponents to each team. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 18 04:40:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4HIdkm07943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 May 2002 04:39:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4HIdeH07939 for ; Sat, 18 May 2002 04:39:41 +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 g4HIRXx24234 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 19:27:33 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 19:02:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] L30 References: <001601c1fdb0$8c2e4ac0$2f0a893e@pc> In-Reply-To: <001601c1fdb0$8c2e4ac0$2f0a893e@pc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <001601c1fdb0$8c2e4ac0$2f0a893e@pc>, LarryBennett writes > On my local discussion group, a posting reported a ruling from an > ebu/county joint event. The auction had proceded....Pass. no > action, no action, Pass. > The (ebu) td was called and after the call was not accepted ruled > the offender silent throughout. The poster thought this to be > incorrect, and without ref to tflb I informed him that the td was > correct but that there was a difference if the poot had been the > FIRST call. > Another member pointed out to my astonishment that L30 refers to > matters after any player has BID. In this instant it was a pass and > therefore not a bid. I believe that I have been ruling consistently > incorrectly in this situation for 20 yrs., as did the td in > question. Others in the group also report having had this > (incorrect) ruling. > Has this particular cow flown past anyone else? I think I'd been ruling this one correctly, but can only think of one instance in my career where I ruled it and I did actually read from TFLB so I guess I'd have got it right. Now that it's been pointed out I'll watch out for it more carefully. thanks. john >   > Larry -- 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 May 18 04:53:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4HIqi907960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 May 2002 04:52:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4HIqdH07956 for ; Sat, 18 May 2002 04:52:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g4HIerx00510 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 May 2002 14:40:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200205171840.g4HIerx00510@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 14:40:53 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <200205171500.LAA18064@poseidon.harvard.edu> from "Steve Willner" at May 17, 2002 11:00:53 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL4] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > 1. Technical - A seeded Swiss has an accuracy advantage > > over an unseeded Swiss equivalent to an extra round. An > > Accelerated Swiss gains a further round of accuracy, > > reducing the chances of a mediocre team "swissing through > > the field". > > If these are your goals, you can do even better by adding to each > team's score a fraction of the VP's scored by all its opponents other > than in the head-to-head match. In other words, if two teams have > equal "raw" VP totals, the one that has faced stronger opposition will > end up with a higher score. > > The question is what fraction to add. I'm not certain but have a vague > recollection that at one time I convinced myself that 50% is best. I no > longer remember the reasoning, though, and maybe my memory is simply > wrong. > For what it's worth, the simplest forms of a chess performance rating (and what you're proposing is conceptually similar) uses a 50-50 weight. Some place in my pile of books I've got some stuff on the math behind the how to. Frankly though I doubt most people would find it acceptable to award placings based on strength of schedule considerations (especially since not all teams play 4 players all the way through) I wouldn't mind seeing a listing though. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 18 08:59:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4HMwZm08050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 May 2002 08:58:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4HMwTH08046 for ; Sat, 18 May 2002 08:58:30 +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 178qUG-000879-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 May 2002 23:46:13 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 23:36:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L30 References: <001601c1fdb0$8c2e4ac0$2f0a893e@pc> In-Reply-To: <001601c1fdb0$8c2e4ac0$2f0a893e@pc> 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 g4HMwVH08047 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk LarryBennett writes > On my local discussion group, a posting reported a ruling from an > ebu/county joint event. The auction had proceded....Pass. no > action, no action, Pass. > The (ebu) td was called and after the call was not accepted ruled > the offender silent throughout. The poster thought this to be > incorrect, and without ref to tflb I informed him that the td was > correct but that there was a difference if the poot had been the > FIRST call. > Another member pointed out to my astonishment that L30 refers to > matters after any player has BID. In this instant it was a pass and > therefore not a bid. I believe that I have been ruling consistently > incorrectly in this situation for 20 yrs., as did the td in > question. Others in the group also report having had this > (incorrect) ruling. > Has this particular cow flown past anyone else? Well, it has appeared in the EBU Club TD course! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 18 10:28:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4I0Rvv08089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 May 2002 10:27:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtprelay7.dc2.adelphia.net (smtprelay7.dc2.adelphia.net [64.8.50.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4I0RpH08085 for ; Sat, 18 May 2002 10:27:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from pentium4 ([24.55.57.64]) by smtprelay7.dc2.adelphia.net (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 smtprelay7 Dec 7 2001 09:58:59) with SMTP id GWA61R00.PAP for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 20:15:27 -0400 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Anything odd here? Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 17:15:29 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>Was this immediately after South bid 3S (i.e. before West >>bid 4S), or at >>some uncertain time after South bid 3S? If the latter, why >>isn't the >>writeup of the facts clearer? If the former, why wasn't >>L21B1 cited? >> >>Plain reading of this paragraph indicates that the director >>was called >>before West's 4S bid. Everything else is irrelevant, as >>East should have >>been allowed to change her call to pass, ending the auction. >> Yes - this is the point - its seems as if it has slipped by everyone that perhaps 21B1 should have applied and East should have been allowed to change her bid. It wasn't realized at the time of the hearing by the Committee members that the Director had made this error. Only one casebook commentator mentioned the possibility. (Ralph Cohen). None of the others seemed to notice the procedural error. I think it is pretty clear the Director was at the table when North sent the partner away. Just wanted to make sure that Rich (&I) weren't totally crazy :-) Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 18 11:13:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4I1Cts08119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 May 2002 11:12:55 +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 g4I1CpH08115 for ; Sat, 18 May 2002 11:12:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 10673 invoked by uid 504); 18 May 2002 01:00:32 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.974995 secs); 18 May 2002 01:00:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.251) by 0 with SMTP; 18 May 2002 01:00:29 -0000 Message-ID: <001101c1fe07$57ef20c0$fb16b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020517145234.0241fac0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au><000901c1fd65$066b3ce0$fa16b9d2@laptop> <4U8w1VAoXP58EwXY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 13:00:00 +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: Saturday, May 18, 2002 12:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss > Wayne Burrows writes > >From: Tony Musgrove > > >> Nevertheless, these events are usually severely "over-swissed". On the > >final > >> round the leading teams will rarely be playing a team within 5 ladder > >> places. Thus > >> the need to save a round is somewhat academic. As a mug player I have > >fond > >> memories of playing against (and being creamed by) the Indonesian team. > > >Interesting implicit definition of over-swissed. While what you say is > >true, i think that the event is under-swissed in that all of the best teams > >can't rise and maintain a top spot in even 14 rounds out of about 120 or so > >teams over the week of competition. > > In what way does that make it "under-swissed"? Teams should win > events through their abilities, not through artificial help from the > organisers. If a team plays perfect bridge for the whole even they will > win - that's fair enough. I wish, or maybe I don't that that was the case. Part of the attraction in bridge is that perfect does not always work. I guess it depends on your definition of perfect. Not at IMPs but last week my partner and i 'perfectly' bid to 3 slams, two required odds on trump positions both failed and little else both failed, while the other one was cold but others bid to 6nt requiring a defensive error which they got - How much did we win from our 'perfect' bridge on those three boards? IMO, what is not well understood is how substantial is the part that luck plays in bridge (and in fact in many other sports). By 'underswissed' i mean that there have not been enough rounds to overcome this luck factor. Taking your premise David that the 'teams should win through their abilities' after 14 rounds with 120+ teams there are almost always teams that are scoring much better (or worse) than their abilities. While at times this might just be a perception due to their abilities having been under or over estimated during the seeding process (this does happen) and it can be because they have played exceptionally (for them) well or badly it may also be because they have had unusually good or bad luck. The more bridge played the smaller the affect of this luck factor. I have a hazy memory of someone doing some simulations and suggesting that the number of rounds required for a 'fair' Swiss is something over 1/2 the number of teams (contestents). Certainly my own crude simulations suggest that with over 100 teams and 8 to qualify you will usually qualify a significant number of non-top-ten teams. 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 May 19 07:44:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4ILgLl08861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 May 2002 07:42:21 +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.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 g4ILgFH08857 for ; Sun, 19 May 2002 07:42:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g4ILTv111529 for ; Sat, 18 May 2002 17:29:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 17:21:38 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Anything odd here? To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3CE454E3.1030209@gordonrainsford.co.uk> 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 5/17/02, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >No, South has already acted as if there were an alertable agreement by >bidding 2D to show hearts, and is not allowed to let partner's lack of >alert change that course of action. I must've been asleep - I misread the original post. 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 May 20 07:20:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4JLJAv09703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 May 2002 07:19:10 +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-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 g4JLJ0H09695 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 07:19:01 +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 179Xsz-000C6H-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 May 2002 22:06:39 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 19:37:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Crockford's final - TDL References: <3CE0FEDC.4050208@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3CE0FEDC.4050208@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 >Well Ed, your scepticism is not correct. >If I open out of turn, silencing my partner, and then bid 3NT, which >makes because of 4 well-placed finesses, and I score a top because we >are holding just 18 HCP together, I could not have known that the OOT >could be benificial. > >But in this case the player could know that he could not play 3Sp >without first silencing partner. I believe that this is merely another problem with TDL. It is not worded to allow for someone who has not yet attempted a change. Hopefully it will disappear soon, so there is no point correcting it. Whatever the Laws say, at the time the player attempted to do something, he could not have known that he could silence partner. That's a judgement decision the TD made, and if you don't agree with it, then you can appeal. Now L25B could be written so that his desire to change kicks it off, and probably should be. But it isn't, which is where the problem comes from. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 20 07:20:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4JLJAq09704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 May 2002 07:19:10 +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-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 g4JLJ0H09696 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 07:19:01 +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 179Xsz-000C6J-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 May 2002 22:06:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 19:49:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Netiquette 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 >David sighed: > >> I wonder whether the time might not have arrived for some words of >> advice on Netiquette? > > >May be some help in neducation is necessary David. I agree with you, but not >all of us do realise the problems we create. Try to read the messages for a >week or so and tell us what is wrong in our approach. (I am not joking this >time) Murphy's Law is in full swing! The last few days have had excellent readable posts! Still, let me just mention a few things that have occurred in those few days. As explained before, there was not only an HTML message, which tends to be difficult to read, but also there was a reply to it, and that was much more difficult to read. Your own software, Ton, seems very bad at replying to HTML messages. There have been HTML posts from four different people - please turn the HTML off - plus one gif, a definite no-no. Some of the problems are in the way people reply, often because they have poorer software, so do not see the advantage. Roger Pewick's software, for example, puts a "|" before quoted stuff, which is a lot more difficult to read with good software, because the quoted stuff is the same colour as what Roger writes. Many of you probably do not realise the advantage of having software that changes colour for quoted text, but it is superb. [Of course, this "|" of Roger's is probably not an option with his software, but if it is, Roger, please change it to ">".] One or two people do not have any difference at all for quoted text: that is nearly unreadable, but there has been no example in the last few days! Top posting should be avoided. There have been a few top posts [even in this thread] which makes it more difficult to have an ongoing discussion. It is also useful to delete bits of the quoted material that do not matter, and people who top post tend not to delete anything! Generally, whenever you post, please remember that threads here are ongoing conversations. So leave in enough to understand to what you are replying, delete the rest, and put your replies beneath the bit to which you are replying. Sigs at the start tend to waste a lot of space, especially when they get quoted. Unfortunately if you use Outlook Express you do need a bit of work to avoid the sigs being at the top. A few other things: we have had one hand diagram all over the page: you really do need to make sure that you are using Courier or Courier New or some other Fixed Font for writing text diagrams [and reading them for that matter]: never use tabs! Please put a space between each paragraph: there have been a few tricky ones to read because of that. This can be very annoying with long posts, and there are one or two posters who never put a line in between. If anyone wants to read more about general Netiquette, there is a section on my Generalpage with articles and a few links at http://blakjak.com/gen_men2.htm RGB [rec.games.bridge] has a posting guide, posted to RGB every four months, and on the web: shall I post it here once? Some of it may not apply, but most of it will. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 20 10:03:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4K02OK09777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 May 2002 10:02:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4K02IH09773 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 10:02:19 +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 TAA26711 for ; Sun, 19 May 2002 19:49:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA07377 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 May 2002 19:49:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 19:49:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205192349.TAA07377@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Anything odd here? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Linda Trent" > CASE TWENTY-NINE > The Committee Decision: The Committee addressed the following issues: I don't suppose this is a world record for "number of mistakes in a single AC ruling," but it is a worthy attempt. Don't ACBL AC's get to look at a law book? Let's count the ways: > (1) Was there a failure to Alert? Since N/S had no clear agreement in > place, North's failure to Alert the 2*D* bid placed an obligation on > South to act as if there had been an Alert in selecting her future > actions. Ton pointed this one out: the failure to alert is UI to South. It is at least arguable that North's pass, which is AI, conveys the same information as the lack of alert. I'm not sure what to make of that, but the AC is off on the wrong track altogether. > (2) Did this constitute MI and were E/W damaged? North's > explanation (that 2*D* was natural) to West's inquiry (why was West > asking?) did provide MI by stating an agreement that did not exist, > although North thought it did. Law 21B3 (with Law 40C) says the > Director may award an adjusted score when MI has been given and it is > too late to correct a call. As someone else pointed out, depending on the timing, L21B1 may have been applicable (and L82C if the TD didn't offer the opportunity). However, contrary to the other poster, it is not so clear that the result of L82C will be 7H=/2D+5. There are many issues to sort out. > (3) Would East pass as she claimed if > given the correct information? The Committee would like to have known > E/W's methods in considering (2) and (3), especially what a double > would have meant and other possible options. Since this was not > possible, the Committee decided that pass was not a LA for East with > the hand in question. What does "LA" have to do with anything? The question is whether it is "likely" or "at all probable" that East would have passed if given correct information (L12C2). Apparently the AC's bridge judgment amounted to "no way would East pass," which seems surprising to me but is a legitimate conclusion. > (4) North's pass was self-Alerting to South that > a problem had occurred, apart from the failure to Alert. Was South now > permitted to recover? The Committee decided that South's 3*S* bid was > allowable. We are not told on what basis. My *guess* is that, given North's pass, the AC judges that the UI does not suggest one alternative over another. > (5) What about North's sending South away from the table > and subsequent explanation to E/W? Once the 3*S* bid had been made, > North assumed that a partner who had signed off in 2*D* and was now > cue-bidding must have meant 2*D* as a transfer. The Committee saw no > reason to disallow the subsequent auction and restored the table > result of 7*H* made seven, +1510 for N/S. Calling the TD and correcting the MI is, of course, what L75D1 prescribes. Sending partner away from the table is not the prescribed procedure, but in the end the effect is the same because the TD was in fact called. All this is UI to South, but the AC doesn't seem to consider what, if anything, it might suggest. > (6) Was there an infraction > by North when South was sent away from the table? While North's > motives (to inform E/W of a failure to Alert) were admirable, this was > also a violation. While the Committee believed that a PP was > appropriate, they judged the normal 1/4-board (16 matchpoints on a 64 > top) to be too severe; they decided to assess a 1/10-board (6.4 > matchpoints) PP against N/S instead. And of course the PP is ridiculous, as someone else pointed out. My list may not be complete, but at least it's a start. > From: Adam Wildavsky > In my view EW are entitled to know the NS agreements as > well or better than NS know them, as if EW had a complete and > detailed copy of the NS system notes. I think we would be in near-unanimous agreement with the above. > East is thus entitled to know > both that 2D shows hearts and that North thinks that 2D is natural. The part after "and" is dubious. East is entitled to make what he will of North's pass, but I don't see any reason he is entitled to read North's mind or see North's cards. I think a very important bridge judgment issue is whether either South or East might infer that North is passing because he holds diamonds, either with or without a psych. > So in my view the directors got this right and the committee got this > wrong. It seems, though, that there's a problem with the process, in > that the ruling is for the most part a matter of law. Not at all. One key question is whether East will pass if correctly informed. He can infer that the opponents are in the wrong suit, but he has no reason to believe they are strong. Thus it seems reasonable to bid, although in my personal view it is not "at all likely." Whatever our personal views might be, this is a bridge judgment issue appropriate to an AC. Actually, it occurs to me, East does know South is strong after the 3S bid. So if the TD is able to give East the option to pass *after hearing South's 3S bid*, i.e., if L21B1 applies, does anyone think he will bid? My comments above alluded to many other bridge judgment issues, such as what the various UI suggests and what the LA's are. The AC doesn't seem to have addressed many of these issues, mind you, but they are within an AC's purview. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 20 14:29:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4K4TDi09917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 May 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 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 g4K4T9H09913 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 14:29:09 +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 OAA03359 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 14:30:29 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 20 May 2002 14:13:25 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 14:14:38 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 20/05/2002 02:13:15 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: [snip] >IMO, what is not well understood is how substantial >is the part that luck plays in bridge (and in fact >in many other sports). > >By 'underswissed' i mean that there have not been >enough rounds to overcome this luck factor. Taking >your premise David that the 'teams should win >through their abilities' after 14 rounds with 120+ >teams there are almost always teams that are scoring >much better (or worse) than their abilities. While >at times this might just be a perception due to >their abilities having been under or over estimated >during the seeding process (this does happen) and it >can be because they have played exceptionally (for >them) well or badly it may also be because they have >had unusually good or bad luck. The more bridge >played the smaller the affect of this luck factor. [snip] The fairest form of multiple teams competition is the round-robin. Examples: Bermuda Bowl Qualifying, Australian Interstate Teams Qualifying, and the European Championship. The nature of the round-robin movement means that seeding in the conventional sense is unnecessary. (Unconventional seeding applies in the second round-robin of the Australian Interstate Teams. This adds excitement - and reduces the possibility of "misere" matches - by ensuring that the four contending teams all meet each other in the final three qualifying rounds.) Fifty years ago, most chess tournaments used the round-robin movement. As chess grew in popularity, time available for events made round-robin movements less feasible. Therefore, chess administrators progressively switched to a movement which approximates the round-robin movement, the Swiss movement. At the end of a Swiss, the results of the top few and bottom few contestants are relatively accurate. That is, had the same event been held as a giant round-robin, those top few and bottom few teams would have finished in closely similar places. However, the placings for the middle contestants and the end of a Swiss are highly random compared to what their placings would have been in a hypothetical giant round-robin. A dominant factor is the luck of the draw, and the timing of a contestant's victories. Each additional round of a Swiss expands the size of the top few and bottom few groups, and reduces the size of the random middle group. Other factors which can reduce the randomness of a bridge Swiss teams are: * increasing the number of boards in each match (short matches of 6 to 8 boards are not particularly meaningful as tests of skill) * using VP scoring instead of win-loss scoring * seeding Of course, the SO may deliberately want to have a Swiss which is as random as possible as a marketing ploy. Such an SO should consider saving time by getting all the contestants to toss coins instead of playing bridge. :-) Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 20 17:34:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4K7XwH10031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 May 2002 17:33:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4K7XrH10027 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 17:33:53 +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 RAA05713 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 17:35:23 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 20 May 2002 17:18:20 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 17:21:00 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 20/05/2002 05:18:09 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: >>In a BW editorial, Edgar Kaplan criticised an >>AC for taking away a player's lucky result >>after the player guessed to pass a takeout >>double of a weak 2 with a singleton trump for >>a good score. His view was that it was not >>up to ACs to enforce sensible bidding. Steve Willner replied: >I think the TD (and then perhaps AC) has to >decide, on the preponderance of the evidence, >whether it was truly a lucky guess, or >whether the player who made the takeout double >might have done something to suggest the double >was offshape. If they decide the latter is the >case, there is no suggestion that the >"something" was deliberate, only that the >player inadvertently failed "to maintain steady >tempo and unvarying manner." As we all know, >maintaining unvarying manner is very hard to do >when there is no call that quite describes the >hand one holds. > >In making their decision, the TD/AC should >assess all available evidence. I don't believe >anyone can expect them to be correct 100% of >the time. In that particular case, there was no available evidence of a break in tempo other than the lucky guess itself. Question: Is the mere choice of a non-logical but successful alternative *sufficient* evidence, by itself, that UI must have been transmitted in an otherwise undetected fashion? Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 20 22:41:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4KCeIJ10252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 May 2002 22:40:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4KCe8H10248 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 22:40:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP19.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.19]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA28197; Mon, 20 May 2002 08:27:44 -0400 (EDT) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: , Subject: RE: [BLML] L30 Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 08:30:58 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <001601c1fdb0$8c2e4ac0$2f0a893e@pc>, LarryBennett writes > On my local discussion group, a posting reported a ruling from an > ebu/county joint event. The auction had proceded....Pass. no > action, no action, Pass. > The (ebu) td was called and after the call was not accepted ruled > the offender silent throughout. The poster thought this to be > incorrect, and without ref to tflb I informed him that the td was > correct but that there was a difference if the poot had been the > FIRST call. > Another member pointed out to my astonishment that L30 refers to > matters after any player has BID. In this instant it was a pass and > therefore not a bid. I believe that I have been ruling consistently > incorrectly in this situation for 20 yrs., as did the td in > question. Others in the group also report having had this > (incorrect) ruling. > Has this particular cow flown past anyone else? ______________________________________________________________________ It just shows the importance of Chapter 1.... definitions.... Who reads them .... more than once... ? In any field of knowledge, mistakes often come from bad understanding of words... bid and call... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 20 23:36:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4KDZsW10279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 May 2002 23:35:54 +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.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 g4KDZmH10275 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 23:35:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g4KDNP118445 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 09:23:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 09:22:20 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) 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 5/20/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >n that particular case, there was no available >evidence of a break in tempo other than the >lucky guess itself. Seems to me that if there's no evidence of a break in tempo, then there wasn't a break in tempo. The fact that a player makes a lucky guess is not convincing evidence. Of course, breaks in tempo aren't the only way to transmit UI. >Question: Is the mere choice of a non-logical >but successful alternative *sufficient* evidence, >by itself, that UI must have been transmitted in >an otherwise undetected fashion? Um. Law 73 says "if the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions..." If the action chosen is not logical, then it is not "among logical alternative actions" and choosing it is not an infraction of this law. So the answer to the question is irrelevant. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp 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 May 21 00:00:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4KE09310301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 2002 00:00:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4KE03H10297 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 00:00:04 +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 179nVk-0009yI-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 May 2002 14:47:42 +0100 Message-ID: <8F3hBLAJUO68Ew+Q@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 12:59:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss 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 > >Wayne Burrows wrote: > >[snip] > >>IMO, what is not well understood is how substantial >>is the part that luck plays in bridge (and in fact >>in many other sports). >> >>By 'underswissed' i mean that there have not been >>enough rounds to overcome this luck factor. Taking >>your premise David that the 'teams should win >>through their abilities' after 14 rounds with 120+ >>teams there are almost always teams that are scoring >>much better (or worse) than their abilities. While >>at times this might just be a perception due to >>their abilities having been under or over estimated >>during the seeding process (this does happen) and it >>can be because they have played exceptionally (for >>them) well or badly it may also be because they have >>had unusually good or bad luck. The more bridge >>played the smaller the affect of this luck factor. > >[snip] > >The fairest form of multiple teams competition is >the round-robin. > >Examples: Bermuda Bowl Qualifying, Australian >Interstate Teams Qualifying, and the European >Championship. > >The nature of the round-robin movement means that >seeding in the conventional sense is unnecessary. > >(Unconventional seeding applies in the second >round-robin of the Australian Interstate Teams. This >adds excitement - and reduces the possibility of >"misere" matches - by ensuring that the four >contending teams all meet each other in the final >three qualifying rounds.) > >Fifty years ago, most chess tournaments used the >round-robin movement. As chess grew in popularity, >time available for events made round-robin >movements less feasible. > >Therefore, chess administrators progressively >switched to a movement which approximates the >round-robin movement, the Swiss movement. > >At the end of a Swiss, the results of the top few >and bottom few contestants are relatively >accurate. That is, had the same event been held >as a giant round-robin, those top few and bottom >few teams would have finished in closely similar >places. > >However, the placings for the middle contestants >and the end of a Swiss are highly random compared >to what their placings would have been in a >hypothetical giant round-robin. A dominant factor >is the luck of the draw, and the timing of a >contestant's victories. > >Each additional round of a Swiss expands the size >of the top few and bottom few groups, and reduces >the size of the random middle group. > >Other factors which can reduce the randomness of >a bridge Swiss teams are: >* increasing the number of boards in each match > (short matches of 6 to 8 boards are not > particularly meaningful as tests of skill) >* using VP scoring instead of win-loss scoring >* seeding > >Of course, the SO may deliberately want to have >a Swiss which is as random as possible as a >marketing ploy. Such an SO should consider >saving time by getting all the contestants to >toss coins instead of playing bridge. :-) It is all very well to be sarcastic, but look at the alternative that you are basically suggesting: you want a method by which there is no need even for the coin toss: you want to seed teams in order and then declare the number one seed the winner. If you consider that giving lesser teams a chance is a marketing ploy, I suppose it is: if you give them no chance then only one team will enter - why should anyone else bother? -- 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 May 21 00:33:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4KEXPO10319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 2002 00:33:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4KEXKH10315 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 00:33:20 +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 KAA20156 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 10:20:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA13445 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 May 2002 10:20:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 10:20:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205201420.KAA13445@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Question: Is the mere choice of a non-logical > but successful alternative *sufficient* evidence, > by itself, that UI must have been transmitted in > an otherwise undetected fashion? This is an assessment that the TD has to make on a case by case basis. No doubt any good TD will consult widely on such a decision, and it will be no surprise if the decision gets appealed. However, there is no doubt that in principle the evidence could be sufficient. (Consider a player who, for no obvious reason, passes a forcing bid, and it turns out his partner has deficient values. What an amazing coincidence!) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 21 00:49:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4KEnLa10336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 2002 00:49:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4KEnGH10332 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 00:49:17 +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 KAA21312 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 10:36:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA13459 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 May 2002 10:36:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 10:36:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205201436.KAA13459@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > The fairest form of multiple teams competition is > the round-robin. There can be various definitions of "fair," but certainly the above is correct in the sense of absence of arbitrary draws. > At the end of a Swiss, the results of the top few > and bottom few contestants are relatively > accurate. > However, the placings for the middle contestants > and the end of a Swiss are highly random compared > to what their placings would have been in a > hypothetical giant round-robin. Indeed. > Other factors which can reduce the randomness of > a bridge Swiss teams are: > * increasing the number of boards in each match > (short matches of 6 to 8 boards are not > particularly meaningful as tests of skill) There is nothing special about a Swiss in this respect. Every bridge competition has a degree of randomness, and increasing the number of boards (other things being equal) decreases the randomness. > * using VP scoring instead of win-loss scoring > * seeding > > Of course, the SO may deliberately want to have > a Swiss which is as random as possible as a > marketing ploy. Richard is joking, of course, but it's true that a certain amount of randomness in bridge is one of the game's attractions. Reasonable people can disagree over how much randomness is acceptable or appropriate in any given contest. It should, however, be possible to answer questions along the lines Richard is asking. Given a specified goal (e.g., reduce 100+ teams to 8) and a specified number of boards to be played, what conditions of contest will produce the least random results? As David S. correctly points out, we should not accept answers in which arbitrary factors (e.g., seeding) play a dominant role. Here too, though, reasonable people can disagree over how large a role is acceptable. > From: "Wayne Burrows" > I have a hazy memory of someone doing some simulations and suggesting that > the number of rounds required for a 'fair' Swiss is something over 1/2 the > number of teams (contestents). Certainly my own crude simulations suggest > that with over 100 teams and 8 to qualify you will usually qualify a > significant number of non-top-ten teams. I don't think this can be right. It seems to me that there has to be a log_2 (that is, binary logarithm) in the formula. With 100 teams, I would have expected to need 8 rounds (=log_2(128)+1) to select a winner and 3 more rounds to select the top 8, but it would be interesting to see a simulation or perhaps an analytic derivation. If you use scores that include opponents' records, as I suggested earlier, it seems to me that it should be possible to reduce randomness to nearly the lowest level possible while making seeding irrelevant. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 21 02:56:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4KGtsQ10440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 2002 02:55:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe63.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.198]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4KGtnH10436 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 02:55:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 20 May 2002 09:43:24 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [209.245.192.184] From: "Roger Pewick" To: References: <001601c1fdb0$8c2e4ac0$2f0a893e@pc> Subject: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 11:44:57 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 May 2002 16:43:24.0645 (UTC) FILETIME=[75938950:01C2001D] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Juxtaposed against the language pointed to in the L30 thread was the distinction made between 'a player bidding' and 'a player calling'. In America there is a frequently used expression 'he's got a bid coming' and this to me suggested a discrepancy in the definition. So I looked up the definition for 'bid' (verb) and found only the definition for 'bid' (noun). I then perused TFLB for uses of bid (verb) to see if there was any context to clarify matters. In L22A there is 'if no player has bid, the hands are returned to the board without play.' Which suggests that when a player is bidding he is not passing. And in L31 there is 'When a player has bid out of rotation (and the bid is cancelled, as the option to accept the bid has not been exercised - see Law 29):' where '(and the bid' suggests it does not include pass. But in L31A there is a commingling of bid and pass [a pass that behaves like a bid]. And in L74C7 there is 'varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.' which strongly suggests that that bidding includes passing [it could have been written 'calling', no?]. The meaning appears debatable enough to make it a part of the EBU course for directors [according to DWS]. This seems to be the making of a confrontation in the application of law so I have examined the Anatomy of a COOT to delve into the issues. First of all, what has happened when a player COOT?. Many things in fact. [1] The NOS has lost turns to which they were entitled [2] the OS has taken a turn to which they were not entitled and [3] information has been created that is available to offender's partner before he was entitled to it, if in fact it could have been created legally at all. As such, the remedy [a] needs to restore to the NOS the right to any missed turns without any obstruction that could arise from the UI of the cancelled COOT, [b] must proactively prevent offender's partner from using the information, and [c] should minimize the creation of UI. Consider the auction in the L30 thread where N deals and passes and W passes. Here S was deprived of his chance to call based solely on the calls of N and E. Also, E has gained information that W did not want to open as well as information as to the eagerness of W. Such information can be useful in considering some calls attractive and others less attractive compared to 'normal' system. What this boils down to is that there are several issues in devising a remedy. One issue is that the offender has taken the upper hand in creating information. It must be right to fully negate the value of that untimely information. The best vehicle to preventing the partner from using it is to prevent him from using it- in other words, the enforced pass. Yes the enforced pass is brutal, but the COOT was even more so. Notwithstanding, there are issues with the enforced pass. [a] Are there occasions where the enforced pass on partner would be an inappropriate remedy? Yes, when there appeared to be no gain in information by the offending side. This occurs when the COOT is accepted; and when the COOT is not accepted where every player skipped then passes, plus when the COOT is also repeated [no change of meaning has occurred]. [b] When a COOT out of turn is not condoned there is the issue of how many turns to which the player is entitled. Consider that he has already taken his turn for the current rotation, even though it was canceled. It must be right that he is not entitled to a second turn at his own behest. That leaves as the remedy that he repeat his call. An astute player could recognize the opportunity from the fore knowledge of his LHO's next action and choose an action that would subject the offender to new penalties. Brutal, yes. But did not the player already brutally act out of turn. Besides, he gets what he chose, and, what he chose should count. [c] Is a permanent enforced pass on partner an appropriate remedy for a COOT? An analysis suggests that it depends. The damage caused by a COOT is that it gives the OS information that unchecked could bring about unfair gain, also the NOS has been deprived of the normal bidding order in losing their turns. If after the remedy is applied and the OS has not gained information beyond the legal auction there is no longer any damage to the NOS so thereafter there is no compelling reason to restrict the offenders. But if there is residual information there is a compelling reason to restrict the other side and the most appropriate mechanism is the enforced pass on offender's partner. For instance W opens 1N out of turn not accepted. N then opens 1C, enforced pass, and S responds 1S. W repeats 1N but in the correct auction 1N systemically promises "5-5" in the unbid suits and not the balanced 'strong hand' for an opening 1N. There is residual information here and a permanent enforced pass is justified. At this point the remedy for the COOT is complete [except for possible lead penalties] and it is difficult to imagine how the NOS could be damaged from the COOT. However, the remedy for the COOT might spawn a separate infraction should the call be illegal when repeated. Surely a non-offender should be able to insist that an opponent make legal calls, but that is a matter different from a COOT and such an infraction would necessarily be handled accordingly. To recap, a COOT is a brutal infraction and the remedy must provide for removing the favorable tilt toward the offenders even if to do so would be brutal. A player is entitled to one call at his turn; when he chooses to make it at some other time he has behaved as a fortune teller and thus he should not be excused from keeping his choice. By its nature, a COOT frequently spawns further infractions. It of the COOT is immaterial the nature, the same principles apply irrespective of when the COOT occurred or whether it was a bid, pass, double, or redouble [except in certain situations such as simultaneous calls]. 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 Tue May 21 03:16:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4KHG3u10490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 2002 03:16:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4KHFwH10486 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 03:15:58 +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 179qZK-000B7U-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 May 2002 18:03:37 +0100 Message-ID: <77GAeHBPAQ68Ewch@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 14:54:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (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 Ed Reppert writes >On 5/20/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >>Question: Is the mere choice of a non-logical >>but successful alternative *sufficient* evidence, >>by itself, that UI must have been transmitted in >>an otherwise undetected fashion? >Um. Law 73 says "if the Director determines that a player chose from >among logical alternative actions..." If the action chosen is not >logical, then it is not "among logical alternative actions" and choosing >it is not an infraction of this law. So the answer to the question is >irrelevant. :-) We have discussed this several times, and the general feeling is that we do not allow cheats to escape on a technicality, even if it means looking for a technicality of our own. Remember 1S - slow 2S - 6S ? It made, but 6S was not an LA. The player realised a game try would be ruled back so tried an all-or-nothing 6S. Take your pick from one of these arguments: 1 6S is an LA since the player chose it. 2 A choice amongst LAs [as per L16A] does not mean the actual choice must be an LA. 3 Bidding 6S is a breach of L73C. Thus, if you think L73F does not cover it, then L12A1 does. Mind you, it does *not* follow from this that you can deduce UI from a 6S bid! -- 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 May 21 04:31:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4KIVUO10527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 2002 04:31:30 +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 (adsl-66-126-103-122.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [66.126.103.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4KIVPH10523 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 04:31:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from simba.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@simba.irvine.com [192.160.8.19]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA10188; Mon, 20 May 2002 11:18:56 -0700 Message-Id: <200205201818.LAA10188@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 20 May 2002 14:54:23 BST." <77GAeHBPAQ68Ewch@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 11:21:55 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk My apologies if this is redundant. Our e-mail was nonfunctional for some time, and I did not find out until today that I had been unsubscribed. So I don't really know what has gone on in this thread up until today. David Stevenson wrote: > Ed Reppert writes > >On 5/20/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > >>Question: Is the mere choice of a non-logical > >>but successful alternative *sufficient* evidence, > >>by itself, that UI must have been transmitted in > >>an otherwise undetected fashion? > > >Um. Law 73 says "if the Director determines that a player chose from > >among logical alternative actions..." If the action chosen is not > >logical, then it is not "among logical alternative actions" and choosing > >it is not an infraction of this law. So the answer to the question is > >irrelevant. :-) > > We have discussed this several times, and the general feeling is that > we do not allow cheats to escape on a technicality, even if it means > looking for a technicality of our own. Remember 1S - slow 2S - 6S ? It > made, but 6S was not an LA. The player realised a game try would be > ruled back so tried an all-or-nothing 6S. > > Take your pick from one of these arguments: > > 1 6S is an LA since the player chose it. > 2 A choice amongst LAs [as per L16A] does not mean the actual choice > must be an LA. > 3 Bidding 6S is a breach of L73C. Thus, if you think L73F does not > cover it, then L12A1 does. How about (4): The WBF has implied that the actual choice doesn't need to be "logical". From the Code of Practice for Appeals Committees: When use of unauthorized information made available by partner is alleged there are four key questions for the appeal committee: 1.Does the accused player have unauthorized information in consequence of an action by his partner? 2.Could the unauthorized information be thought to suggest demonstrably the action that was taken by the player who possessed it? 3.Were there logical alternatives (or was there a logical alternative) that the player could have selected in place of the action that is questioned? [A 'logical alternative' is a different action that, amongst the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt it.] 4.Have the opponents been damaged in consequence of the player's action when in possession of the unauthorized information? Damage is assessed in terms of the score obtained. If the answer to each and every one of these four questions is 'yes' it is appropriate to adjust the score but not otherwise. . . . Note that Key Question #3 speaks of logical alternatives but does not use the word "logical" when speaking of "the action that is questioned". -- 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 May 21 05:04:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4KJ39t10553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 2002 05:03:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu ([128.206.7.130]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4KJ33H10549 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 05:03:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] ([128.206.98.1]) by col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Mon, 20 May 2002 13:50:39 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1190200680==_ma============" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200205201420.KAA13445@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 14:10:13 -0500 To: "Steve Willner" , BLML From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 May 2002 18:50:39.0456 (UTC) FILETIME=[3C473E00:01C2002F] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --============_-1190200680==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Steve Willner wrote: >> From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >> Question: Is the mere choice of a non-logical >> but successful alternative *sufficient* evidence, >> by itself, that UI must have been transmitted in >> an otherwise undetected fashion? > This is an assessment that the TD has to make on a case by case basis. No doubt any good TD will consult widely on such a decision, and it will be no surprise if the decision gets appealed. However, there is no doubt that in principle the evidence could be sufficient. (Consider a player who, for no obvious reason, passes a forcing bid, and it turns out his partner has deficient values. What an amazing coincidence!) I've passed dozens of forcing bids, never intentionally, and got good results roughly once in 20 times. (Never because partner did not have his bid, only because the obvious game or slam went down and the stupid contract we were in made.) Does this mean I should be ruled against on the rare good result? REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 --============_-1190200680==_ma============ Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Steve Willner wrote: > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Question: Is the mere choice of a non-logical > but successful alternative *sufficient* evidence, > by itself, that UI must have been transmitted in > an otherwise undetected fashion? This is an assessment that the TD has to make on a case by case basis. No doubt any good TD will consult widely on such a decision, and it will be no surprise if the decision gets appealed. However, there is no doubt that in principle the evidence could be sufficient. (Consider a player who, for no obvious reason, passes a forcing bid, and it turns out his partner has deficient values. What an amazing coincidence!) I've passed dozens of forcing bids, never intentionally, and got good results roughly once in 20 times. (Never because partner did not have his bid, only because the obvious game or slam went down and the stupid contract we were in made.) Does this mean I should be ruled against on the rare good result? REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 --============_-1190200680==_ma============-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 21 05:38:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4KJcZj10572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 2002 05:38:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oxmail.ox.ac.uk (oxmail3.ox.ac.uk [129.67.1.180]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4KJcTH10568 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 05:38:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from heraldgate2.oucs.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.50] helo=frontend2.herald.ox.ac.uk ident=exim) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 179snI-0005Gn-03 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 May 2002 20:26:08 +0100 Received: from whalleyg.balliol.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.158.34]) by frontend2.herald.ox.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 3.32 #1) id 179snI-0004gR-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 May 2002 20:26:08 +0100 Message-ID: <005601c20034$53619a40$229e01a3@balliol.ox.ac.uk> From: "George Whalley" To: References: <001601c1fdb0$8c2e4ac0$2f0a893e@pc> Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 20:26:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The distinction between bid and call is found in the glossary at the front of the law book. A call is any bid, or pass, or double/redouble. In other words, a bid is just one type of call. More specifically a bid specifies a number and denomination -- a pass does not fill this criteria. Thus any bid out of turn comes under the umbrella heading a call out of turn in Law 29 (since a bid is a call). From there you turn to Law 30 (for a pass OOT), 31 (for a bid OOT) or 32 (for a X or XX OOT). ----- Original Message ----- From: Roger Pewick To: Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 5:44 PM Subject: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT > > Juxtaposed against the language pointed to in the L30 thread was the > distinction made between 'a player bidding' and 'a player calling'. In > America there is a frequently used expression 'he's got a bid coming' > and this to me suggested a discrepancy in the definition. So I looked > up the definition for 'bid' (verb) and found only the definition for > 'bid' (noun). I then perused TFLB for uses of bid (verb) to see if > there was any context to clarify matters. > > In L22A there is 'if no player has bid, the hands are returned to the > board without play.' Which suggests that when a player is bidding he > is not passing. And in L31 there is 'When a player has bid out of > rotation (and the bid is cancelled, as the option to accept the bid > has not been exercised - see Law 29):' where '(and the bid' suggests > it does not include pass. > > But in L31A there is a commingling of bid and pass [a pass that > behaves like a bid]. And in L74C7 there is 'varying the normal tempo > of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.' > which strongly suggests that that bidding includes passing [it could > have been written 'calling', no?]. The meaning appears debatable > enough to make it a part of the EBU course for directors [according to > DWS]. > > This seems to be the making of a confrontation in the application of > law so I have examined the Anatomy of a COOT to delve into the issues. > > First of all, what has happened when a player COOT?. Many things in > fact. [1] The NOS has lost turns to which they were entitled [2] the > OS has taken a turn to which they were not entitled and [3] > information has been created that is available to offender's partner > before he was entitled to it, if in fact it could have been created > legally at all. > > As such, the remedy [a] needs to restore to the NOS the right to any > missed turns without any obstruction that could arise from the UI of > the cancelled COOT, [b] must proactively prevent offender's partner > from using the information, and [c] should minimize the creation of > UI. > > Consider the auction in the L30 thread where N deals and passes and W > passes. Here S was deprived of his chance to call based solely on the > calls of N and E. Also, E has gained information that W did not want > to open as well as information as to the eagerness of W. Such > information can be useful in considering some calls attractive and > others less attractive compared to 'normal' system. > > What this boils down to is that there are several issues in devising a > remedy. > > One issue is that the offender has taken the upper hand in creating > information. It must be right to fully negate the value of that > untimely information. The best vehicle to preventing the partner from > using it is to prevent him from using it- in other words, the enforced > pass. Yes the enforced pass is brutal, but the COOT was even more so. > Notwithstanding, there are issues with the enforced pass. > > [a] Are there occasions where the enforced pass on partner would be an > inappropriate remedy? Yes, when there appeared to be no gain in > information by the offending side. This occurs when the COOT is > accepted; and when the COOT is not accepted where every player skipped > then passes, plus when the COOT is also repeated [no change of meaning > has occurred]. > > [b] When a COOT out of turn is not condoned there is the issue of how > many turns to which the player is entitled. Consider that he has > already taken his turn for the current rotation, even though it was > canceled. It must be right that he is not entitled to a second turn > at his own behest. That leaves as the remedy that he repeat his call. > An astute player could recognize the opportunity from the fore > knowledge of his LHO's next action and choose an action that would > subject the offender to new penalties. Brutal, yes. But did not the > player already brutally act out of turn. Besides, he gets what he > chose, and, what he chose should count. > > [c] Is a permanent enforced pass on partner an appropriate remedy for > a COOT? An analysis suggests that it depends. The damage caused by a > COOT is that it gives the OS information that unchecked could bring > about unfair gain, also the NOS has been deprived of the normal > bidding order in losing their turns. If after the remedy is applied > and the OS has not gained information beyond the legal auction there > is no longer any damage to the NOS so thereafter there is no > compelling reason to restrict the offenders. > > But if there is residual information there is a compelling reason to > restrict the other side and the most appropriate mechanism is the > enforced pass on offender's partner. For instance W opens 1N out of > turn not accepted. N then opens 1C, enforced pass, and S responds > 1S. W repeats 1N but in the correct auction 1N systemically promises > "5-5" in the unbid suits and not the balanced 'strong hand' for an > opening 1N. There is residual information here and a permanent > enforced pass is justified. At this point the remedy for the COOT is > complete [except for possible lead penalties] and it is difficult to > imagine how the NOS could be damaged from the COOT. > > However, the remedy for the COOT might spawn a separate infraction > should the call be illegal when repeated. Surely a non-offender > should be able to insist that an opponent make legal calls, but that > is a matter different from a COOT and such an infraction would > necessarily be handled accordingly. > > To recap, a COOT is a brutal infraction and the remedy must provide > for removing the favorable tilt toward the offenders even if to do so > would be brutal. A player is entitled to one call at his turn; when he > chooses to make it at some other time he has behaved as a fortune > teller and thus he should not be excused from keeping his choice. By > its nature, a COOT frequently spawns further infractions. It of the > COOT is immaterial the nature, the same principles apply irrespective > of when the COOT occurred or whether it was a bid, pass, double, or > redouble [except in certain situations such as simultaneous calls]. > > 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 May 21 06:28:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4KKS7r10602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 2002 06:28:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4KKS2H10598 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 06:28:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 18763 invoked by uid 504); 20 May 2002 20:15:38 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.756218 secs); 20 May 2002 20:15:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.162) by 0 with SMTP; 20 May 2002 20:15:36 -0000 Message-ID: <006801c2003a$f6a1d7a0$e416b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <200205201436.KAA13459@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 08:14:34 +1200 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: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 2:36 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > I have a hazy memory of someone doing some simulations and suggesting that > > the number of rounds required for a 'fair' Swiss is something over 1/2 the > > number of teams (contestents). Certainly my own crude simulations suggest > > that with over 100 teams and 8 to qualify you will usually qualify a > > significant number of non-top-ten teams. Whoops I didn't mention how many rounds here but in the case Richard was discussing in his original post there are 14 Rounds. > > I don't think this can be right. It seems to me that there has to be a > log_2 (that is, binary logarithm) in the formula. With 100 teams, I > would have expected to need 8 rounds (=log_2(128)+1) to select a winner > and 3 more rounds to select the top 8, but it would be interesting to > see a simulation or perhaps an analytic derivation. The difference between your analysis and mine is that you talk of a winner and I talk of the best team. I recall reading the results of a simulation in which actual round-robin results were used (perhaps from an Olympiad or European Championships). The conclusion was that the best teams (winners and top placings in the round-robin) took somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3 of the rounds to rise to the top and consistently stay there from round to round. Certainly in practice, in fields of around 100+ teams after 10-14 rounds the teams in the top eight or sixteen are far from stable from round to round. I have describe this type of qualifying as a close relative of musical chairs - the teams that happen to be in the top tables when the music stops are the qualifiers. This is especially the case when a wide range VP scale is used and therefore a team can fly through the field in the last round(s) to qualify. A 25-0 Win or loss can easily be worth 10-15 places up the field and even more down the field. The same win or loss in an early round is not nearly so important in determining a teams chances. > > If you use scores that include opponents' records, as I suggested > earlier, it seems to me that it should be possible to reduce randomness > to nearly the lowest level possible while making seeding irrelevant. I think with an initial random draw seeding will be irrelevant at any rate. I must do some more work on a simulation. 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 May 21 06:57:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4KKumo10621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 2002 06:56:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4KKugH10617 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 06:56:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-75.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.75] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 179u0z-0000hf-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 May 2002 16:44:21 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020520163725.00a94500@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 16:45:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) In-Reply-To: <200205201420.KAA13445@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:20 AM 5/20/02, Steve wrote: > > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > Question: Is the mere choice of a non-logical > > but successful alternative *sufficient* evidence, > > by itself, that UI must have been transmitted in > > an otherwise undetected fashion? > >This is an assessment that the TD has to make on a case by case basis. >No doubt any good TD will consult widely on such a decision, and it >will be no surprise if the decision gets appealed. However, there is >no doubt that in principle the evidence could be sufficient. (Consider >a player who, for no obvious reason, passes a forcing bid, and it turns >out his partner has deficient values. What an amazing coincidence!) This troubles me. Players do sometimes pass forcing bids for no obvious reason (usually because they forgot it was forcing), and even do occasionally get a very good score for doing so. It feels very wrong to punish someone for an infraction when there is no suggestion that an infraction has been committed other than "we don't see how he could have gotten that result without having done *something* wrong, so we'll assume he did something wrong". There's a slippery slope here -- a player takes an action of which a committee disapproves, and gets a top; do we really want the committee to be able to say, "We don't think he would have done that normally, so he must have had UI or a wire or something, so we're taking his good score away." I trust TDs and committees to weigh evidence and make appropriate consequent determinations, but not to weigh no evidence and make any consequent determinations at all. 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 May 21 07:46:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4KLjWr10649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 2002 07:45:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4KLjQH10645 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 07:45:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0284.bb.online.no [80.212.209.28]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA03327 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 23:32:57 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <008501c20045$e8ed3b80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200205201436.KAA13459@cfa183.harvard.edu> <006801c2003a$f6a1d7a0$e416b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 23:32:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Wayne Burrows" ......... > I recall reading the results of a simulation in which actual round-robin > results were used (perhaps from an Olympiad or European Championships). The > conclusion was that the best teams (winners and top placings in the > round-robin) took somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3 of the rounds to rise to the > top and consistently stay there from round to round. There is a big fallacy in any analysis like this: In a swiss movement you meet in each round (after the initials) seeded opposition of presumed approximately the same quality as your own. In a round-robin movement the opposition in each round all the way through is randomly drawn from the entire set of possible opponents that you have not yet met. The experience in Norway tend towards a rule that the number of rounds in swiss should certainly be less than half the number of participants and greater than something around 20 to 25% of the number of participants. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 21 07:46:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4KLkdx10661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 2002 07:46:39 +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 g4KLkYH10657 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 07:46:34 +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 RAA28707 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 17:34:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA13888 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 May 2002 17:34:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 17:34:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205202134.RAA13888@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > Players do sometimes pass forcing bids for no > obvious reason (usually because they forgot it was forcing), and even > do occasionally get a very good score for doing so. Yep. > There's a slippery slope here -- > a player takes an action of which a committee disapproves, and gets a > top; do we really want the committee to be able to say, "We don't think > he would have done that normally, so he must have had UI or a wire or > something, so we're taking his good score away." I agree with Eric's point. In the normal course of events, most "strange results" should stand. > I trust TDs and committees to weigh evidence and make appropriate > consequent determinations, but not to weigh no evidence and make any > consequent determinations at all. There is always evidence: the auction, the hands, the degree of familiarity of the partnership, a guess at the skill levels. Certainly the question of whether the auction is a familiar one or not will be a key consideration. The _absence_ of direct observation of tempo variation or special mannerism is also evidence. > From: "Robert E. Harris" > I've passed dozens of forcing bids, never intentionally, and got good > results roughly once in 20 times. (Never because partner did not have his > bid, only because the obvious game or slam went down and the stupid > contract we were in made.) I think that last is a key point. If you could not reasonably predict the good result, there is no problem. However, if some day you pass partner's forcing bid, and that is just the day partner happens to lack the values he is promising, you shouldn't be surprised if the opponents ask the TD to take a closer look. Here's an example: 1NT(15-17)-P-2C(Stayman)-P-P!-P. Opener has a 3325 16-count, responder has five clubs and a zero-count. I think even Eric might want to investigate further. :-) As I say, these sorts of rulings will be rare, and I agree with Eric that there is danger of their being abused, but _in principle_ they are surely possible. Even in the above, intentionally extreme, case, if we find that 2C was agreed as natural and non-forcing and the pair had the wrong convention card out, we won't adjust for UI. (MI may be a consideration, of course.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 21 09:44:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4KNiOm10716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 2002 09:44:24 +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 g4KNiGH10712 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 09:44:16 +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 JAA12210 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 09:45:44 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 21 May 2002 09:28:39 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 09:31:03 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 21/05/2002 09:28:29 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >In a swiss movement you meet in each round (after >the initials) seeded opposition of presumed >approximately the same quality as your own. > >In a round-robin movement the opposition in each >round all the way through is randomly drawn from >the entire set of possible opponents that you have >not yet met. > >The experience in Norway tend towards a rule that >the number of rounds in swiss should certainly be >less than half the number of participants and >greater than something around 20 to 25% of the >number of participants. > >Sven Sven is correct. On a conceptual scale, a Swiss is halfway between a knockout and a round-robin. In a round-robin, your next round opponent and your current score are totally uncorrelated. In a knockout, your next round opponent and your current score (all wins) are totally correlated. In a normal Swiss, where teams may not meet more than once, your next round opponent and your current score are partially correlated. In a round-robin, final placings are non- random. In an unseeded knockout, final placings (other than first place) are highly random. In a seeded knockout, final placings are less random. In an unseeded Swiss, final placings are semi-random. In a seeded Swiss, final placings are demi- random. 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 May 21 09:52:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4KNqGU10729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 2002 09:52:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4KNqAH10724 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 09:52:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-35-0-2.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.0.2] helo=gordonrainsford.co.uk) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 179wkn-0005gJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 May 2002 00:39:49 +0100 Message-ID: <3CE98935.2010300@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 00:39:33 +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 To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT References: <001601c1fdb0$8c2e4ac0$2f0a893e@pc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > The meaning appears debatable > enough to make it a part of the EBU course for directors [according to > DWS]. > I don't think it's in the EBU course because the meaning is debatable, but because it's a situation that novice directors might otherwise easily get wrong. The definitions of "call" and "pass" in the Laws are clear and unambiguous. Gordon Rainsford -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 21 11:26:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4L1Oxi10778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 2002 11:24:59 +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 g4L1OrH10774 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 11:24:54 +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 179yCU-0009yH-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 May 2002 02:12:32 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 00:34:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] ACBL alerting from March 2002 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A new version of the simplified document of ACBL alerts, compiled by Marv, is now on my Lawspage at http://blakjak.com/acbl_alt.htm It can be read there, or WordPerfect, RTF or text versions may be downloaded. -- 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 May 21 11:26:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4L1OoC10772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 2002 11:24:50 +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 g4L1OiH10768 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 11:24:45 +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 179yCH-0009yH-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 May 2002 02:12:21 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 20:24:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT References: <001601c1fdb0$8c2e4ac0$2f0a893e@pc> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick writes > >Juxtaposed against the language pointed to in the L30 thread was the >distinction made between 'a player bidding' and 'a player calling'. In >America there is a frequently used expression 'he's got a bid coming' >and this to me suggested a discrepancy in the definition. So I looked >up the definition for 'bid' (verb) and found only the definition for >'bid' (noun). I then perused TFLB for uses of bid (verb) to see if >there was any context to clarify matters. I thought we were at least agreed on the meaning of the language, and the examples that you give agree with popular usage. A bid and a call are defined in the definitions, a call being a bid or pass or double or redouble. To bid is to make a bid, and to call is to make a call. Regrettably a usage has grown up whereby 'The bidding' means the auction. [s] >But in L31A there is a commingling of bid and pass [a pass that >behaves like a bid]. And in L74C7 there is 'varying the normal tempo >of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.' >which strongly suggests that that bidding includes passing [it could >have been written 'calling', no?]. The meaning appears debatable >enough to make it a part of the EBU course for directors [according to >DWS]. There is no doubt at all what it means, which is why it is in the EBU Club TD course. It would be put into the top level course, the EBU Panel TD course, if we were not sure what it meant. -- 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 May 21 13:27:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4L3RHQ10834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 2002 13:27:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4L3RCH10830 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 13:27:12 +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 17A06p-000Etl-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 May 2002 04:14:50 +0100 Message-ID: <3lisYLA8Kb68EwtX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 03:36:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) References: <77GAeHBPAQ68Ewch@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <200205201818.LAA10188@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200205201818.LAA10188@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan writes > >My apologies if this is redundant. Our e-mail was nonfunctional for >some time, and I did not find out until today that I had been >unsubscribed. So I don't really know what has gone on in this thread >up until today. > > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Ed Reppert writes >> >On 5/20/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >> >> >>Question: Is the mere choice of a non-logical >> >>but successful alternative *sufficient* evidence, >> >>by itself, that UI must have been transmitted in >> >>an otherwise undetected fashion? >> >> >Um. Law 73 says "if the Director determines that a player chose from >> >among logical alternative actions..." If the action chosen is not >> >logical, then it is not "among logical alternative actions" and choosing >> >it is not an infraction of this law. So the answer to the question is >> >irrelevant. :-) >> >> We have discussed this several times, and the general feeling is that >> we do not allow cheats to escape on a technicality, even if it means >> looking for a technicality of our own. Remember 1S - slow 2S - 6S ? It >> made, but 6S was not an LA. The player realised a game try would be >> ruled back so tried an all-or-nothing 6S. >> >> Take your pick from one of these arguments: >> >> 1 6S is an LA since the player chose it. >> 2 A choice amongst LAs [as per L16A] does not mean the actual choice >> must be an LA. >> 3 Bidding 6S is a breach of L73C. Thus, if you think L73F does not >> cover it, then L12A1 does. > >How about (4): The WBF has implied that the actual choice doesn't need >to be "logical". From the Code of Practice for Appeals Committees: > > When use of unauthorized information made available by partner is > alleged there are four key questions for the appeal committee: > 1.Does the accused player have unauthorized information in > consequence of an action by his partner? > 2.Could the unauthorized information be thought to suggest > demonstrably the action that was taken by the player who > possessed it? > 3.Were there logical alternatives (or was there a logical > alternative) that the player could have selected in place of > the action that is questioned? > > [A 'logical alternative' is a different action that, amongst > the class of players in question and using the methods of > the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a > significant proportion of such players, of whom it is > reasonable to think some might adopt it.] > 4.Have the opponents been damaged in consequence of the > player's action when in possession of the unauthorized > information? Damage is assessed in terms of the score > obtained. > If the answer to each and every one of these four questions is > 'yes' it is appropriate to adjust the score but not > otherwise. . . . > >Note that Key Question #3 speaks of logical alternatives but does not >use the word "logical" when speaking of "the action that is >questioned". Exactly: my number 2. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 21 17:21:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4L7Kpn10925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 2002 17:20:51 +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 [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4L7KjH10921 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 17:20:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47074.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.55.226]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g4L78IU13053 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 09:08:18 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CE9F2B6.5030105@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 09:09:42 +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: [BLML] Abbreviations and Acronyms References: <77GAeHBPAQ68Ewch@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 The english language is wonderful. You can often see when an abbreviation has become an acronym : David Stevenson wrote: > > 1 6S is an LA since the player chose it. notice the N to an to indicate David pronounces el-ay. I really doubt if in the eyes of the rest of the world LA has become so much more than Logical Alternative to warrant such a distinction. I don't mind the use of abbreviations in blml-messages but would not care to see the list of actual words expanded. Why don't you post your list of abbreviations once more, David. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 21 17:30:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4L7Tqs10938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 2002 17:29:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4L7TkH10934 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 17:29:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0284.bb.online.no [80.212.209.28]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA15094 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 09:17:18 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004b01c20097$8ac4a500$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <77GAeHBPAQ68Ewch@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3CE9F2B6.5030105@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Abbreviations and Acronyms Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 09:17:18 +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 From: "Herman De Wael" > The english language is wonderful. > > You can often see when an abbreviation has become an acronym : > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > 1 6S is an LA since the player chose it. > > > notice the N to an to indicate David pronounces el-ay. > > I really doubt if in the eyes of the rest of the world LA has become > so much more than Logical Alternative to warrant such a distinction. I seriously guess that for the rest of the world LA is still short for Los Angeles? Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 21 23:39:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4LDcef11232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 2002 23:38:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe30.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4LDcYH11228 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 23:38:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 21 May 2002 06:26:08 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [209.245.205.61] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "BLML" References: <001601c1fdb0$8c2e4ac0$2f0a893e@pc> <3CE98935.2010300@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 07:46:28 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 May 2002 13:26:08.0085 (UTC) FILETIME=[10D99050:01C200CB] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Gordon Rainsford To: BLML Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 18:39 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT > Roger Pewick wrote: > > > The meaning appears debatable > > enough to make it a part of the EBU course for directors [according to > > DWS]. > > > > > I don't think it's in the EBU course because the meaning is debatable, > but because it's a situation that novice directors might otherwise > easily get wrong. > > The definitions of "call" and "pass" in the Laws are clear and unambiguous. > > Gordon Rainsford As the language is self evident I find it curious that special training in how to read is provided; I also find it curious that rulings are gotten wrong without the special training. regards roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 00:01:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4LE18n11254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 2002 00:01:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4LE12H11250 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 00:01:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP19.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.19]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA01232 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 09:48:38 -0400 (EDT) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: "BLML" Subject: TR: [BLML] L30 Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 09:51:29 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Message d'origine----- De : Laval Dubreuil [mailto:Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca] Envoyé : 20 mai, 2002 08:31 À : john@asimere.com; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Objet : RE: [BLML] L30 In article <001601c1fdb0$8c2e4ac0$2f0a893e@pc>, LarryBennett writes > On my local discussion group, a posting reported a ruling from an > ebu/county joint event. The auction had proceded....Pass. no > action, no action, Pass. > The (ebu) td was called and after the call was not accepted ruled > the offender silent throughout. The poster thought this to be > incorrect, and without ref to tflb I informed him that the td was > correct but that there was a difference if the poot had been the > FIRST call. > Another member pointed out to my astonishment that L30 refers to > matters after any player has BID. In this instant it was a pass and > therefore not a bid. I believe that I have been ruling consistently > incorrectly in this situation for 20 yrs., as did the td in > question. Others in the group also report having had this > (incorrect) ruling. > Has this particular cow flown past anyone else? ______________________________________________________________________ It just shows the importance of Chapter 1.... definitions.... Who reads them .... more than once... ? In any field of knowledge, mistakes often come from bad understanding of words... bid and call... 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 Wed May 22 01:07:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4LF7S411297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 2002 01:07:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4LF7NH11293 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 01:07:23 +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 17AB2C-000Jyi-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 May 2002 15:54:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 13:02:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Abbreviations and Acronyms References: <77GAeHBPAQ68Ewch@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3CE9F2B6.5030105@village.uunet.be> <004b01c20097$8ac4a500$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <004b01c20097$8ac4a500$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: "Herman De Wael" > >> The english language is wonderful. >> >> You can often see when an abbreviation has become an acronym : >> >> David Stevenson wrote: >> >> > >> > 1 6S is an LA since the player chose it. >> >> >> notice the N to an to indicate David pronounces el-ay. >> >> I really doubt if in the eyes of the rest of the world LA has become >> so much more than Logical Alternative to warrant such a distinction. > >I seriously guess that for the rest of the world LA is still >short for Los Angeles? When I stayed with Linda + Brian Trent in LA it was quite clear to her the distinction between my talking about LA and an LA. The distinction was, of course, the use of the word 'an'. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 01:55:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4LFtFm11322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 2002 01:55:15 +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 (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4LFtAH11318 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 01:55:10 +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 LAA22085 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 11:42:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA19664 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 May 2002 11:42:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 11:42:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205211542.LAA19664@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Roger Pewick" > As the language is self evident I find it curious that special > training in how to read is provided; I also find it curious that > rulings are gotten wrong without the special training. Gordon's words were "clear and unambiguous." That is not the same as "self-evident." Every field of human endeavor develops its own jargon, and it shouldn't be surprising that the bridge laws have terms with special meaning. Without such terms, the laws would be even more cumbersome and ambiguous than they are. We could probably put together a list of "things to watch out for when reading the Laws." These aren't great mysteries, and indeed are pretty obvious once they have been pointed out, but they are easily missed on first reading. Examples might include: 1. "Bid" and "call" are different. 2. "Side," "contestant," and "opponent" have specific meanings. 3. The "auction period" isn't what you might guess (L17A, 17E). 4. Watch out for L64C and when it applies. ("Dummy can't revoke," is a myth!) 5. Most trivial irregularities aren't penalized, but if a trivial irregularity happens to damage the NOS, they get redress. etc. Add a few more, and you have the "Laws interpretation" section of the "club TD" course. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 02:04:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4LG4TF11339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 2002 02:04:29 +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 (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4LG4OH11335 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 02:04:24 +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/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g4LFpt802764; Tue, 21 May 2002 11:51:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 11:40:02 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) To: David Stevenson , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <77GAeHBPAQ68Ewch@blakjak.demon.co.uk> 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 5/20/02, David Stevenson wrote: > We have discussed this several times, and the general feeling is that >we do not allow cheats to escape on a technicality, even if it means >looking for a technicality of our own. Remember 1S - slow 2S - 6S ? >It made, but 6S was not an LA. The player realised a game try would >be ruled back so tried an all-or-nothing 6S. Huh. Reinterpreting the words of Law 73 to mean something other than what they say ("from among logical alternatives") is more than looking for a technicality - it's ignoring the law to rule how we want to rule. Even if the body doing the reinterpreting is the WBFLC. Besides, I thought we were supposed to presume "error" rather than "cheating", save perhaps in the face of *substantial* evidence of the latter. I don't remember the discussion of this particular sequence, but it seems to me that if the choice is between game and part score (6S is not an LA), and slam just happens to be there, that may be a little different. Then I can see wanting to adjust to 4S making 6, but not under Law 73F. Nor, for that matter, under 73C. What "advantage" did opener take? > Take your pick from one of these arguments: > >1 6S is an LA since the player chose it. Conclusion does not follow from premise. People do illogical things all the time. Especially in the games in which I play. :-) >2 A choice amongst LAs [as per L16A] does not mean the actual choice >must be an LA. That's in direct opposition to what the law says. I reject it. > 3 Bidding 6S is a breach of L73C. Thus, if you think L73F does not cover it, then L12A1 does. Well, I suppose if you want to play the "look for a technicality" game, here you've found it. But what I was addressing was the position you propose in your item 2 - and that, as Bill and Ted would say, is bogus. > Mind you, it does *not* follow from this that you can deduce UI from a >6S bid! In which case you must deduce what? "Communication" I guess. But communication of what? If what is communicated is not UI, and apparently not AI, then what is it? If it's AI, but he can't use it, do we now have a principle that AI can be used some of the time, but not all of the time? Or does this law say that if "communication" exists, that in itself is an infraction, even if we have no clue what was communicated? We should rule in accordance with what the law *says*. If the laws don't allow us to rule as we would like, too bad. Change the law. But until it *is* changed, rule according to what it says. (If you (general "you", not specific) can convince me that it says what you would like it to say, fine, but so far I'm not convinced.) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp 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 May 22 02:57:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4LGuhD11368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 2002 02:56:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.67]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4LGudH11364 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 02:56:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A960C5FD0068; Tue, 21 May 2002 09:44:16 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: RE: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) Message-Id: <210502141.35056@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 09:44:19 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Coming somewhat late to this: DWS: >We have discussed this several times, and the general feeling is that we do not allow cheats to escape on a technicality, even if it means looking for a technicality of our own. Remember 1S - slow 2S - 6S ? It made, but 6S was not an LA. The player realised a game try would be ruled back so tried an all-or-nothing 6S. The assumptions here are: the player's hand was not such as to warrant a move over 2S, let alone a jump to 6S; his jump to 6S was therefore not a logical action in terms of maximising his aggregate score on the deal; but it was based on some knowledge of the Laws and the belief that a more restrained move over 2S would be disallowed if successful in reaching a making game contract. In such a hypothetical situation, it is likely that the player's reasoning would be as follows: "My alternatives are to pass - but I know that this will result in a poor score; to [make a try or] bid a game - but I know that this will lead to a score adjustment and hence to the same poor score as a pass; to bid a slam - which will in most cases lead to the same poor score as a pass [say, a bottom at pairs scoring] but may in this particular case lead to a better score than a pass if it is held to be a legal action under Law 16." Once the player has reached this point, to bid 6S is a consequence of correctly applied reasoning, and therefore a logical alternative action suggested over another by possession of unauthorised information. It may therefore be disallowed, just as any other such action would be. [DWS] 1 6S is an LA since the player chose it. [ER] >Conclusion does not follow from premise. Not per se, but in this case one assumes that the player has applied a process of reasoning illogical within the scope of the game of bridge itself, but logical within the wider scope of the game of "bridge laws". Those laws do not prescribe a scope within which actions are to be considered "logical"; one therefore assumes the widest possible scope. I see nothing particularly "technical" about this. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 03:16:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4LHGBo11418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 2002 03:16:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4LHG5H11414 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 03:16:06 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g4LH3et08451 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 May 2002 18:03:41 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 18:03 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] Guessing (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: <210502141.35056@webbox.com> David Burn wrote: > The assumptions here are: the player's hand was not such as to > warrant a move over 2S, let alone a jump to 6S; his jump to 6S > was therefore not a logical action in terms of maximising his > aggregate score on the deal; but it was based on some knowledge > of the Laws and the belief that a more restrained move over 2S > would be disallowed if successful in reaching a making game contract. And much logical stuff that followed, allowing us to conclude that 6S is indeed an LA. I don't disagree with what he said but LA is defined by the SO (or ZO?) not the Laws. My recollection of the exact wording used in the various parts of the world is shaky but I believe there are several where 6S would not, by those definitions, be an LA. (The ACBL has, IIRC, something about "..absent the UI some would consider and a few actually choose.." which would clearly exclude 6S. 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 May 22 03:32:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4LHWMl11435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 2002 03:32:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f221.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.221]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4LHWHH11431 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 03:32:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 21 May 2002 10:19:50 -0700 Received: from 204.52.135.62 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 21 May 2002 17:19:50 GMT X-Originating-IP: [204.52.135.62] From: "Roger Pewick" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 12:19:50 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 May 2002 17:19:50.0623 (UTC) FILETIME=[B6EF0EF0:01C200EB] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Steve Willner >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT >Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 11:42:46 -0400 (EDT) > > > From: "Roger Pewick" > > As the language is self evident I find it curious that special > > training in how to read is provided; I also find it curious that > > rulings are gotten wrong without the special training. > >Gordon's words were "clear and unambiguous." That is not the same as >"self-evident." The dictionary definition of CLEAR: so obvious as to need no further explanation or guidance The definition of SELF EVIDENT: obvious without explanation or proof In one place the law says that bidding means to make a bid but not inclusive of pass, double, or redouble. In another place it says that bidding means passing, as well as making a bid, double, or redouble. It has been asserted that it is self evident in the law that bidding means to make a bid, to the exclusion of everything else. Substitute clear and unambiguous if you must. THe evidence I see contradicts that assertion. regards roger pewick >Every field of human endeavor develops its own jargon, and it shouldn't >be surprising that the bridge laws have terms with special meaning. >Without such terms, the laws would be even more cumbersome and >ambiguous than they are. > >We could probably put together a list of "things to watch out for when >reading the Laws." These aren't great mysteries, and indeed are pretty >obvious once they have been pointed out, but they are easily missed on >first reading. Examples might include: > >1. "Bid" and "call" are different. >2. "Side," "contestant," and "opponent" have specific meanings. >3. The "auction period" isn't what you might guess (L17A, 17E). >4. Watch out for L64C and when it applies. ("Dummy can't revoke," is a > myth!) >5. Most trivial irregularities aren't penalized, but if a trivial > irregularity happens to damage the NOS, they get redress. >etc. > >Add a few more, and you have the "Laws interpretation" section of the >"club TD" course. _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 04:03:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4LI2td11457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 2002 04:02:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (adsl-66-126-103-122.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [66.126.103.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4LI2oH11453 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 04:02:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from simba.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@simba.irvine.com [192.160.8.19]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18928; Tue, 21 May 2002 10:50:20 -0700 Message-Id: <200205211750.KAA18928@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 21 May 2002 09:44:19 PDT." <210502141.35056@webbox.com> Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 10:53:27 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Coming somewhat late to this: > > DWS: > > >We have discussed this several times, and the general feeling > is that we do not allow cheats to escape on a technicality, even > if it means looking for a technicality of our own. Remember > 1S - slow 2S - 6S ? It made, but 6S was not an LA. The player > realised a game try would be ruled back so tried an all-or-nothing > 6S. > > The assumptions here are: the player's hand was not such as to > warrant a move over 2S, let alone a jump to 6S; his jump to 6S > was therefore not a logical action in terms of maximising his > aggregate score on the deal; but it was based on some knowledge > of the Laws and the belief that a more restrained move over 2S > would be disallowed if successful in reaching a making game contract. > > In such a hypothetical situation, it is likely that the player's > reasoning would be as follows: > > "My alternatives are to pass - but I know that this will result > in a poor score; to [make a try or] bid a game - but I know that > this will lead to a score adjustment and hence to the same poor > score as a pass; to bid a slam - which will in most cases lead > to the same poor score as a pass [say, a bottom at pairs scoring] > but may in this particular case lead to a better score than a > pass if it is held to be a legal action under Law 16." > > Once the player has reached this point, to bid 6S is a consequence > of correctly applied reasoning, and therefore a logical alternative > action suggested over another by possession of unauthorised information. > It may therefore be disallowed, just as any other such action > would be. > > [DWS] > 1 6S is an LA since the player chose it. > > [ER] > >Conclusion does not follow from premise. > > Not per se, but in this case one assumes that the player has > applied a process of reasoning illogical within the scope of > the game of bridge itself, but logical within the wider scope > of the game of "bridge laws". Those laws do not prescribe a scope > within which actions are to be considered "logical"; one therefore > assumes the widest possible scope. I see nothing particularly > "technical" about this. The flaw I see in this argument is: Suppose, on another day, a player with a big hand opens 1S, partner bids a slow 2S, opener rebids 4S, the opponents find something to complain about, and now we have to determine whether 4S broke the law. To do so, we have to determine whether there were any logical alternatives, and whether 4S was suggested over any of those LA's by the UI. Should we consider 6S a logical alternative for this purpose? I don't think so. In fact, there are already definitions for what "logical" means in this context, often having to do with what percentage of one's peers would seriously consider an action or would take an action or would vomit at the mere thought of taking an action, depending on the particular SO. So what you're doing is to adopt different definitions for "logical" depending on whether it pertains to the actual action taken or to alternative actions that were not taken. I sympathize, but I don't think this will fly. I still think the best approach is to reason that (1) WBFLC members are human, and therefore (2) make mistakes, including writing language in the Laws that does not reflect their actual intent, and that (3) they ought to be allowed to clarify their intent and correct their errors, because (4) it doesn't serve any purpose to prohibit them from doing so, despite the opinions of some that once the WBFLC pens a word, that word should become their Master rather than their servant, which everyone including the WBFLC must now treat as the infallible word of some Being higher than the WBFLC. Or something like that. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 05:05:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4LJ57l11815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 2002 05:05:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4LJ51H11811 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 05:05:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-1-174-253.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.1.174.253] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17AEkP-0000t1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 May 2002 19:52:38 +0100 Message-ID: <004b01c200f8$9dc02560$fdae01d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200205211750.KAA18928@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 19:52:09 +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 Adam wrote: > In fact, > there are already definitions for what "logical" means in this > context, often having to do with what percentage of one's peers would > seriously consider an action or would take an action or would vomit at > the mere thought of taking an action, depending on the particular SO. > > So what you're doing is to adopt different definitions for "logical" > depending on whether it pertains to the actual action taken or to > alternative actions that were not taken. I sympathize, but I don't > think this will fly. I still think the best approach is to reason > that (1) WBFLC members are human, and therefore (2) make mistakes, > including writing language in the Laws that does not reflect their > actual intent, and that (3) they ought to be allowed to clarify their > intent and correct their errors, because (4) it doesn't serve any > purpose to prohibit them from doing so, despite the opinions of some > that once the WBFLC pens a word, that word should become their Master > rather than their servant, which everyone including the WBFLC must now > treat as the infallible word of some Being higher than the WBFLC. Or > something like that. It is true that many SOs are to an extent "fixed" because they have, with the best will in the world and for the edification of all concerned, created guidance as to what constitutes a "logical alternative", and this guidance implies that the phrase relates exclusively to actions that have "bridge merit", that aim to maximise the player's expectation in terms of his *aggregate* score on a deal. In almost all cases, this guidance works well enough. But when a player's action does not attempt to maximise his aggregate score (after 1S-2S-6S, the player's expectation is, say, 1% of +1430 and 99% of anywhere from -200 to -1100), but does attempt to maximise his expected match point score (1% of a top plus 99% of a bottom, instead of 100% of a bottom), it is - I contend - a "logical" action in the context of Law 16, whatever it may be in the context of the ACBL's or the EBU's guidance. One could, I suppose, suggest that some percentage of *this player's* peers would consider 6S, since this player's peers are (ex def) as capable of spotting a possible legal loophole as this player himself. Indeed, that would be very close to DWS's notion that 6S is logical because this player had logical reasons for choosing it. Or, one could suggest that SOs amend their guidance so that a "logical alternative" may be an action that is absurd in the context of bridge, but not in the context of "bridge laws". I do not think, though, that the WBF needs to do or to recognise anything. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 05:17:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4LJHHd11832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 2002 05:17:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oxmail.ox.ac.uk (oxmail2.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4LJHCH11828 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 05:17:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from heraldgate2.oucs.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.50] helo=frontend2.herald.ox.ac.uk ident=exim) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 17AEwD-00066S-02 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 May 2002 20:04:49 +0100 Received: from whalleyg.balliol.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.158.34]) by frontend2.herald.ox.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 3.32 #1) id 17AEwC-0003M5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 May 2002 20:04:48 +0100 Message-ID: <005601c200fa$7d75eea0$229e01a3@balliol.ox.ac.uk> From: "George Whalley" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 20:05:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > The dictionary definition of CLEAR: > so obvious as to need no further explanation or guidance > > The definition of SELF EVIDENT: > obvious without explanation or proof > Yes, and the glossary at the front of the law book is clear, unambiguous, and self-evident. But most players have never read the glossary. Therefore trainee TD's are made aware that players incorrectly talk about "bids" on their EBU training courses. Not because there is any scope for interpretation in the actual language -- just to take note of the fact that several terms exist and they do not mean the same thing. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 05:20:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4LJK6e11844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 2002 05:20:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4LJK0H11840 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 05:20:01 +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 g4LJ7NH18236; Tue, 21 May 2002 14:07:23 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020521135311.00a60ae0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 14:07:45 -0500 To: Ed Reppert From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) Cc: Bridge Laws In-Reply-To: References: <77GAeHBPAQ68Ewch@blakjak.demon.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 11:40 AM 5/21/02 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 5/20/02, David Stevenson wrote: > >Huh. Reinterpreting the words of Law 73 to mean something other than >what they say ("from among logical alternatives") is more than looking >for a technicality - it's ignoring the law to rule how we want to rule. > > Take your pick from one of these arguments: > > > >1 6S is an LA since the player chose it. > >Conclusion does not follow from premise. People do illogical things all >the time. Especially in the games in which I play. :-) I agree, FWIW. > >2 A choice amongst LAs [as per L16A] does not mean the actual choice > >must be an LA. > >That's in direct opposition to what the law says. I reject it. I disagree. The law says: "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play...the partner may not chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." What is the antecedent of 'one'? Must it grammatically be the same as 'another'? If the antecedent of 'one' is 'call or play', then the sentence says only that when in the presence of LAs the partner may not chose a suggested call or play over a LA. It doesn't require that the call or play be a LA. OTOH, if 'one' must refer to 'logical alternative action' {as 'another' seems to, and as would be the ordinary reading of the sentence}, then indeed the law applies only in cases where the action chosen is a LA. In any case, I have some sympathy for David Burn's argument that _IF_ the player choses the 'illogical' action based on some line of reasoning which shows that it might, indeed, be the best-scoring alternative given the situation, then the action is not illogical after all. If 4S will surely be ruled back, and 2S is a sure bottom, and 6S might make for a top, then 6S looks like the logical action to me. >We should rule in accordance with what the law *says*. If the laws don't >allow us to rule as we would like, too bad. Change the law. But until it >*is* changed, rule according to what it says. (If you (general "you", I disagree. If the intention of the law seems clear and the player is taking advantage of an ambiguity or imperfection in the wording of the law, then I see no reason to rule in accordance with what the law says in contravention of what it is supposed to mean. >Regards, > >Ed Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 07:25:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4LLOSm11896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 2002 07:24:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4LLONH11892 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 07:24:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g4LLBv109069 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 17:11:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 16:46:47 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20020521135311.00a60ae0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> 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 5/21/02, Grant Sterling wrote: > If the antecedent of 'one' is 'call or play', then the sentence >says only that when in the presence of LAs the partner may not chose >a suggested call or play over a LA. It doesn't require that the call >or play be a LA. > OTOH, if 'one' must refer to 'logical alternative action' {as >'another' seems to, and as would be the ordinary reading of the >sentence}, then indeed the law applies only in cases where the >action chosen is a LA. The antecedent of 'one' in that sentence is 'logical alternative actions'. >In any case, I have some sympathy for David Burn's argument that _IF_ >the player choses the 'illogical' action based on some line of >reasoning which shows that it might, indeed, be the best-scoring >alternative given the situation, then the action is not illogical >after all. If 4S will surely be ruled back, and 2S is a sure bottom, >and 6S might make for a top, then 6S looks like the logical action to >me. I have to think about David's argument some more - I'll try to answer it later, if I can. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp 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 May 22 08:27:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4LM6rR11918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 2002 08:06:53 +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 g4LM6mH11914 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 08:06:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-75.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.75] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 17AHaL-0006cx-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 May 2002 17:54:25 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020521175027.00a90470@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 17:56:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) In-Reply-To: <200205211750.KAA18928@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 01:53 PM 5/21/02, Adam wrote: >(4) it doesn't serve any >purpose to prohibit them from doing so, despite the opinions of some >that once the WBFLC pens a word, that word should become their Master >rather than their servant, which everyone including the WBFLC must now >treat as the infallible word of some Being higher than the WBFLC. Or >something like that. I think that's put a bit unfairly. I would express the "opinions of some" as that once the WBFLC pens a word, that word should become the master rather than the servant of those who read that word, which everyone but the WBFLC, which is privy to its own reinterpretations of that word, must now treat as the infallible word of the WBFLC until such time as they are informed of the WBFLC's reinterpretation of that word, which is highly unlikely to be until the next edition of TFLB is published. Or something like 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 Wed May 22 10:59:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4M0xHo12006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 2002 10:59:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4M0xCH12002 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 10:59:12 +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 LAA21854 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 11:00:40 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 22 May 2002 10:43:33 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 10:46:04 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 22/05/2002 10:43:23 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: [big snip] >I see no reason to rule in accordance with >what the law says in contravention of what >it is supposed to mean. If the laws are ambiguous, then it is a standard rule of jurisprudence that judges can seek guidance from the stated intention of the legislators. If, however, the laws unambiguously require an unintended consequence, then it is a standard rule of jurisprudence that judges enforce the laws as written, until the legislators amend the laws. What Grant is proposing is allowing "the camel's nose inside the tent". But an inevitable consequence of Grant's proposal becoming policy would be "the entire camel inside the tent", since TDs and ACs could arbitrarily ignore what the laws say, in favour of what they think the laws should mean. 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 May 22 11:26:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4M1PtE12028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 2002 11:25:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4M1PpH12024 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 11:25:51 +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 LAA26098 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 11:27:19 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 22 May 2002 11:10:11 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Cc: cyaxares@lineone.net Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 11:12:55 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 22/05/2002 11:10:01 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: [snip] >We could probably put together a list of "things >to watch out for when reading the Laws." These >aren't great mysteries, and indeed are pretty >obvious once they have been pointed out, but they >are easily missed on first reading. Examples >might include: > >1. "Bid" and "call" are different. [snip] Normal term = "bid" is identical to Laws definition = "call" Laws definition = "bid" is a subset of Normal term = "bid" When preparing the 2005 Laws, there is no reason why the words in the definitions could not be changed to correspond to the normal terms. For example: 1998 Laws word "call" = 2005 Laws word "bid" 1998 Laws word "bid" = 2005 Laws words "denomination bid" Having common parlance words being identical to Laws words would simplify the work of grass-roots TDs and ACs. 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 May 22 16:14:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4M6D4f12199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 2002 16:13:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4M6CwH12195 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 16:12:58 +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 QAA07883 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 16:14:26 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 22 May 2002 15:57:18 +0000 (EST) Subject: RE: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 15:59:57 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 22/05/2002 03:57:08 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>>>[DWS] >>>>1 6S is an LA since the player chose it. >>>[ER] >>>Conclusion does not follow from premise. >>Not per se, but in this case one assumes that >>the player has applied a process of reasoning >>illogical within the scope of the game of >>bridge itself, but logical within the wider >>scope of the game of "bridge laws". Those >>laws do not prescribe a scope within which >>actions are to be considered "logical"; one >>therefore assumes the widest possible scope. >>I see nothing particularly "technical" about >>this. >> >>David Burn >>London, England In the thread "Two Aces", 26 October 2000, David Burn's current position was contradicted by ... David Burn!: [snip] >The difficulty people have is that when a player >does something ludicrous, he sometimes gets >luckier than people who would have done >something sensible would have gotten. (My >English professor will forgive me that last >sentence, for he was prepared to concede that >the important thing was to get the sense across, >however vilely you had to express yourself in >order to do it.) If his ludicrous action was (a) >favoured by the Gods and (b) subsequent upon a >mannerism by his partner, then the opponents >will complain about it as night follows day. > >From what I have read in this thread, their >complaint would be upheld by a large number of >people who would immediately look for "logical >alternatives" and "suggestions", as if those >made any difference. This obsession with the >details of the actual hand and the actual >auction has come to the point where serious >bridge players, for whose judgement I would >normally have the highest regard, have wondered >whether the pass of six hearts might have been >forcing! > >The Laws speak of information that may not be >passed. The first question that needs to be >answered, therefore, is whether the potential >infractor has demonstrably acted on the basis >of any information he has that should not have >been passed. If he has done what he would >demonstrably not have done in the presence of >any information about his partner's hand, then >he is (ipso facto) guiltless of any violation of >Law, however fortunately his action might have >turned out. > >The "principle" of which Marvin has spoken that >a man should be ruled against who does what was >not in the least suggested either by his own >hand or by partner's mannerism, yet obtains a >better result than he would have done by being >sensible, is abject nonsense. [snip] Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 19:28:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4M9RXL12266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 2002 19:27:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (iupware.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4M9RRH12262 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 19:27:27 +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 LAA09940; Wed, 22 May 2002 11:13:32 +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 LAA22797; Wed, 22 May 2002 11:15:02 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020522111955.00a84400@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 11:21:45 +0200 To: "Roger Pewick" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT In-Reply-To: References: <001601c1fdb0$8c2e4ac0$2f0a893e@pc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:44 20/05/2002 -0500, Roger Pewick wrote: >But in L31A there is a commingling of bid and pass [a pass that >behaves like a bid]. And in L74C7 there is 'varying the normal tempo >of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.' >which strongly suggests that that bidding includes passing [it could >have been written 'calling', no?]. AG : it should. This does not change the fact that all other occurrences clearly consider a bid as something else than a pass. If one more argument was needed, please consider what 'no bid' would mean if a pass was a bid. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 22:19:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4MCIKe12397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 2002 22:18:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4MCI7H12382 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 22:18:10 +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 17AUrJ-00046w-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 May 2002 13:04:52 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 03:03:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) References: <77GAeHBPAQ68Ewch@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 Ed Reppert writes >On 5/20/02, David Stevenson wrote: > >> We have discussed this several times, and the general feeling is that >>we do not allow cheats to escape on a technicality, even if it means >>looking for a technicality of our own. Remember 1S - slow 2S - 6S ? >>It made, but 6S was not an LA. The player realised a game try would >>be ruled back so tried an all-or-nothing 6S. > >Huh. Reinterpreting the words of Law 73 to mean something other than >what they say ("from among logical alternatives") is more than looking >for a technicality - it's ignoring the law to rule how we want to rule. >Even if the body doing the reinterpreting is the WBFLC. Besides, I >thought we were supposed to presume "error" rather than "cheating", save >perhaps in the face of *substantial* evidence of the latter. Which is why we are talking of a case with substantial evidence. >I don't remember the discussion of this particular sequence, but it >seems to me that if the choice is between game and part score (6S is not >an LA), and slam just happens to be there, that may be a little >different. Then I can see wanting to adjust to 4S making 6, but not >under Law 73F. Nor, for that matter, under 73C. What "advantage" did >opener take? He knew he would get a bad board from passing because the UI told him so, and from bidding 4S because he knew it would be ruled back, so he tried to gain from his knowledge of the UI and bid 6S. That is certainly taking an advantage. >> Take your pick from one of these arguments: >> >>1 6S is an LA since the player chose it. > >Conclusion does not follow from premise. People do illogical things all >the time. Especially in the games in which I play. :-) > >>2 A choice amongst LAs [as per L16A] does not mean the actual choice >>must be an LA. > >That's in direct opposition to what the law says. I reject it. > >> 3 Bidding 6S is a breach of L73C. Thus, if you think L73F does not >cover it, then L12A1 does. > >Well, I suppose if you want to play the "look for a technicality" game, >here you've found it. But what I was addressing was the position you >propose in your item 2 - and that, as Bill and Ted would say, is bogus. What on earth do you mean, look for a technicality? The next time someone tries to deliberately gain from UI do you expect me to say "That's ok, I am not going to look for a technicality just because you deliberately took advantage." >> Mind you, it does *not* follow from this that you can deduce UI from a >>6S bid! > >In which case you must deduce what? "Communication" I guess. But >communication of what? If what is communicated is not UI, and apparently >not AI, then what is it? If it's AI, but he can't use it, do we now have >a principle that AI can be used some of the time, but not all of the >time? Or does this law say that if "communication" exists, that in >itself is an infraction, even if we have no clue what was communicated? I have no idea what this paragraph means, and it certainly does not seem to follow mine. Ok, subsequent, but not consequent. >We should rule in accordance with what the law *says*. If the laws don't >allow us to rule as we would like, too bad. Change the law. But until it >*is* changed, rule according to what it says. (If you (general "you", >not specific) can convince me that it says what you would like it to >say, fine, but so far I'm not convinced.) So, a person deliberately flouts L73C, and you want to let him off? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 22:19:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4MCIJZ12396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 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 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 g4MCI9H12384 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 22:18:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-75.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.75] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 17AUsC-00004P-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 May 2002 08:05:44 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020522080141.00acba70@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 08:07:22 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020522111955.00a84400@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <001601c1fdb0$8c2e4ac0$2f0a893e@pc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:21 AM 5/22/02, Alain wrote: >At 11:44 20/05/2002 -0500, Roger Pewick wrote: > >>But in L31A there is a commingling of bid and pass [a pass that >>behaves like a bid]. And in L74C7 there is 'varying the normal tempo >>of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.' >>which strongly suggests that that bidding includes passing [it could >>have been written 'calling', no?]. > >AG : it should. This does not change the fact that all other >occurrences clearly consider a bid as something else than a pass. If >one more argument was needed, please consider what 'no bid' would mean >if a pass was a bid. In lawbook terminology, "[the] bidding" is made up of a sequence of "calls", some of which are "bids". That's really not all that confusing, is it? Indeed, the wording of L17 suggests the usefulness of different terms for "the bidding" (which starts with the first call and ends with the last call) and "the auction" (which starts when a player looks at his cards and ends with the opening lead). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 22:19:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4MCILH12398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 2002 22:18:22 +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-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 g4MCICH12390 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 22:18:12 +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 17AUrK-00046x-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 May 2002 13:04:56 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 03:12:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick writes >>From: Steve Willner >>To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >>Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT >>Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 11:42:46 -0400 (EDT) >> >> > From: "Roger Pewick" >> > As the language is self evident I find it curious that special >> > training in how to read is provided; I also find it curious that >> > rulings are gotten wrong without the special training. >> >>Gordon's words were "clear and unambiguous." That is not the same as >>"self-evident." > >The dictionary definition of CLEAR: > >so obvious as to need no further explanation or guidance > >The definition of SELF EVIDENT: > >obvious without explanation or proof > > >In one place the law says that bidding means to make a bid but not inclusive >of pass, double, or redouble. In another place it says that bidding means >passing, as well as making a bid, double, or redouble. I think, if you really want a purely pedantic argument, that you should write in a pedantically correct way. The Law *never* says that bidding includes passing. What it does do is to follow the English language, and use the term *the* bidding as an alternative to the auction. But bidding as a verb never means passing. However, since we all know what these words mean, what is the point? Or is this just meant to be another example of lawmaker-bashing, which certain people are beginning to do with great regularity here. The Laws are not perfect. Do we need to say it again? Anyway, are you suggesting that the lawmakers should *not* use the existing meanings of these words, but invent new ones? That seems even worse to me. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 23:19:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4MDIgS12478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 2002 23:18:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4MDIaH12474 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 23:18:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-35-43-142.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.43.142] helo=gordonrainsford.co.uk) by carbon with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17AVoh-0001AY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 May 2002 14:06:11 +0100 Message-ID: <3CEB97B4.9010809@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 14:05:56 +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 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT References: 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 think, if you really want a purely pedantic argument, that you > should write in a pedantically correct way. > > The Law *never* says that bidding includes passing. What it does do > is to follow the English language, and use the term *the* bidding as an > alternative to the auction. But bidding as a verb never means passing. > > However, since we all know what these words mean, what is the point? > Or is this just meant to be another example of lawmaker-bashing, which > certain people are beginning to do with great regularity here. The Laws > are not perfect. Do we need to say it again? If we are to be discouraged from drawing attention to this as it arises, the likelihood of improving the wording will be reduced. > > Anyway, are you suggesting that the lawmakers should *not* use the > existing meanings of these words, but invent new ones? That seems even > worse to me. I agree with this, but I'm sure the existing words could be used with more rigour. Gordon Rainsford -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 23:57:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4MDvRr12500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 2002 23:57:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4MDvMH12496 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 23:57:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0499.bb.online.no [80.212.209.243]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA00683 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 15:44:51 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001101c20196$d92380e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <001601c1fdb0$8c2e4ac0$2f0a893e@pc> <4.3.2.7.0.20020522080141.00acba70@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 15:44:51 +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 > >At 11:44 20/05/2002 -0500, Roger Pewick wrote: > > > >>But in L31A there is a commingling of bid and pass [a pass that > >>behaves like a bid]. Law 30C: When a pass out of rotation is a convention, Law 31, not this Law, will apply. A pass is a convention if ....... So what is the problem with a pass (out of rotation) that behaves like a bid. At least there is no "commingling". (Note that the word "it" in law 31A, according to clarification in the commentary issued 1992, refers to the pass out of rotation and not to partner's 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 Thu May 23 00:08:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4ME8L812517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 2002 00:08:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail6.nc.rr.com (fe6.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4ME8GH12513 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 00:08:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from hare ([66.26.18.82]) by mail6.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Wed, 22 May 2002 09:55:51 -0400 Message-ID: <00d601c20198$60056be0$6401a8c0@hare> From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: Subject: [BLML] Scoring Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 09:55:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D3_01C20176.D8CD7F30" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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_00D3_01C20176.D8CD7F30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I was called to the table tonight and asked the score for 2D doubled = nonvul making 5. The back of the bid box card says 480 but according to = the law book L77-- 2DX =3D 80 + (3 overtricks at 100 ea =3D) 300 + 50 = for making a doubled contract =3D 430! Is this a printing error and is = the proper score making a doubled contract 100 and redoubled 200???? =20 Thanks, Nancy ------=_NextPart_000_00D3_01C20176.D8CD7F30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I was called to=20 the table tonight and asked the score for 2D doubled nonvul making = 5.  The=20 back of the bid box card says 480 but according to the law book = L77--  2DX=20 =3D 80 + (3 overtricks at 100 ea =3D) 300 + 50 for making a doubled = contract =3D=20 430!  Is this a printing error  and is the proper score making = a=20 doubled contract 100 and redoubled 200???? 
Thanks,=20 Nancy
------=_NextPart_000_00D3_01C20176.D8CD7F30-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 00:20:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4MEJgN12533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 2002 00:19:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4MEJbH12529 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 00:19:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0499.bb.online.no [80.212.209.243]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA04143 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 16:07:08 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002001c20199$f5a74780$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <00d601c20198$60056be0$6401a8c0@hare> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 16:07:07 +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: "Nancy T Dressing" I was called to the table tonight and asked the score for 2D doubled nonvul making 5. The back of the bid box card says 480 but according to the law book L77-- 2DX = 80 + (3 overtricks at 100 ea =) 300 + 50 for making a doubled contract = 430! Is this a printing error and is the proper score making a doubled contract 100 and redoubled 200???? Thanks, Nancy The score is 480. When you read Law 77 you apparently overlooked that the premium for making a doubled (or redoubled) contract is in addition to the 50 points premium for making any partscore contract? 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 May 23 00:33:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4MEXZf12546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 2002 00:33:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4MEXUH12542 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 00:33:30 +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 g4MEL1V06625 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 10:21:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA12018; Wed, 22 May 2002 10:21:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 10:21:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200205221421.KAA12018@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Abbreviations and Acronyms Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >From: "Herman De Wael" > >> The english language is wonderful. >> >> You can often see when an abbreviation has become an acronym : >> >> David Stevenson wrote: >> >> > >> > 1 6S is an LA since the player chose it. >> >> >> notice the N to an to indicate David pronounces el-ay. >> >> I really doubt if in the eyes of the rest of the world LA has become >> so much more than Logical Alternative to warrant such a distinction. > >I seriously guess that for the rest of the world LA is still >short for Los Angeles? > >Sven > Sorry, but for me, LA is still the "word that follows sew". Tony (aka ac342) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 00:42:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4MEffV12563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 2002 00:41:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe65.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4MEfaH12559 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 00:41:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 22 May 2002 07:29:07 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [64.152.242.141] From: "Roger Pewick" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 09:16:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 May 2002 14:29:07.0939 (UTC) FILETIME=[083B4330:01C2019D] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 21:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT > Roger Pewick writes > >>From: Steve Willner > >>To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > >>Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT > >>Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 11:42:46 -0400 (EDT) > >> > >> > From: "Roger Pewick" > >> > As the language is self evident I find it curious that special > >> > training in how to read is provided; I also find it curious that > >> > rulings are gotten wrong without the special training. > >> > >>Gordon's words were "clear and unambiguous." That is not the same as > >>"self-evident." > > > >The dictionary definition of CLEAR: > > > >so obvious as to need no further explanation or guidance > > > >The definition of SELF EVIDENT: > > > >obvious without explanation or proof > > > > > >In one place the law says that bidding means to make a bid but not inclusive > >of pass, double, or redouble. In another place it says that bidding means > >passing, as well as making a bid, double, or redouble. > > I think, if you really want a purely pedantic argument, that you > should write in a pedantically correct way. > > The Law *never* says that bidding includes passing. What it does do > is to follow the English language, and use the term *the* bidding as an > alternative to the auction. But bidding as a verb never means passing. Bid has two facets. One facet is that it specifies a level and denomination of a contract. That is the facet to which you and others refer. The other facet is that a bid can be used to communicate, not ignoring that all calls communicate. There are two problems in remedying a COOT. One is that the other side has been deprived of bidding room/opportunity to call. This can be remedied by canceling the call. The other is that information has been created that unchecked can disadvantage the score. This is not so easily remedied. Every call imparts information, not just bids; and an examination of the COOT suggests that it is sensible to remedy all COOT by the same algorithm. regards roger pewick > However, since we all know what these words mean, what is the point? > Or is this just meant to be another example of lawmaker-bashing, which > certain people are beginning to do with great regularity here. The Laws > are not perfect. Do we need to say it again? > > Anyway, are you suggesting that the lawmakers should *not* use the > existing meanings of these words, but invent new ones? That seems even > worse to me. If I were saying something on that matter it would be that if the reader must be careful in not assigning meaning to words that might have meanings at cross purposes, then it behooves the writer to be careful where he puts such words. It was others who disputed my premise while ignoring the substance of my message. You have proved that it was an error to respond to those disputes. > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 01:04:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4MF4Je12580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 2002 01:04:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4MF4EH12576 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 01:04:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-75.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.75] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 17AXSv-0006H7-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 May 2002 10:51:50 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020522105051.00a9d910@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 10:53:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring In-Reply-To: <00d601c20198$60056be0$6401a8c0@hare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_2370952==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --=====================_2370952==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 09:55 AM 5/22/02, Nancy wrote: >I was called to the table tonight and asked the score for 2D doubled >nonvul making 5. The back of the bid box card says 480 but according >to the law book L77-- 2DX = 80 + (3 overtricks at 100 ea =) 300 + 50 >for making a doubled contract = 430! +50 for making a partscore = 480. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_2370952==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 09:55 AM 5/22/02, Nancy wrote:

I was called to the table tonight and asked the score for 2D doubled nonvul making 5.  The back of the bid box card says 480 but according to the law book L77--  2DX = 80 + (3 overtricks at 100 ea =) 300 + 50 for making a doubled contract = 430!

+50 for making a partscore = 480.


Eric Landau                     ehaa@starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607     Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_2370952==_.ALT-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 02:00:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4MFxg312604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 2002 01:59:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oxmail.ox.ac.uk (oxmail2.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4MFxaH12600 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 01:59:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from heraldgate2.oucs.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.50] helo=frontend2.herald.ox.ac.uk ident=exim) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 17AYKW-00072W-02 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 May 2002 16:47:12 +0100 Received: from whalleyg.balliol.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.158.34]) by frontend2.herald.ox.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 3.32 #1) id 17AYKW-0003VD-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 May 2002 16:47:12 +0100 Message-ID: <008101c201a8$09ad96e0$229e01a3@balliol.ox.ac.uk> From: "George Whalley" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 16:47:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick writes: > There are two problems in remedying a COOT. > One is that the other side has been deprived > of bidding room/opportunity to call. This can > be remedied by canceling the call. The other > is that information has been created that > unchecked can disadvantage the score. This > is not so easily remedied. Surely the remedy is provided within the laws? Laws 30, 31 and 32 prescribe a penalty (ie. silencing the offender or his partner, if appropriate, for either one round or the rest of the auction). Also, the non-offenders have the oppurtunity of using the call out of turn to their advantage if they so wish (by accepting it under Law 29). In addition, there is the possibility of law penalties under Law 26 if they have created information which has thus far been unchecked. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 03:23:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4MHMZ112683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 2002 03:22:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4MHMTH12679 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 03:22:29 +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 17AZcg-000CsL-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 May 2002 18:10:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 14:12:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >Steve Willner wrote: > >[snip] > >>We could probably put together a list of "things >>to watch out for when reading the Laws." These >>aren't great mysteries, and indeed are pretty >>obvious once they have been pointed out, but they >>are easily missed on first reading. Examples >>might include: >> >>1. "Bid" and "call" are different. > >[snip] > >Normal term = "bid" >is identical to >Laws definition = "call" Please! My experience of bridge players is that for most of them the normal meaning of bid = Laws definition of bid, and normal meaning of call = Laws definition of call. Sure, there is a minority who get it wrong. >Laws definition = "bid" >is a subset of >Normal term = "bid" > >When preparing the 2005 Laws, there is no reason >why the words in the definitions could not be >changed to correspond to the normal terms. There are two reasons. One, because your definition of normal may nbe true where you are, but is not generally. Reading RGB suggests that generally, a majority get it right everywhere. Two, changing to the wrong definition will really confuse people. > >For example: > >1998 Laws word "call" = 2005 Laws word "bid" > >1998 Laws word "bid" = 2005 Laws words "denomination bid" > >Having common parlance words being identical to >Laws words would simplify the work of grass-roots >TDs and ACs. We do now. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 04:07:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4MI7Ua12706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 2002 04:07:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4MI7OH12702 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 04:07:25 +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 g4MHstH28848 for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 12:54:55 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020522125509.00a61970@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 12:55:19 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:46 AM 5/22/02 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Grant Sterling wrote: > >[big snip] > > >I see no reason to rule in accordance with > >what the law says in contravention of what > >it is supposed to mean. > >If the laws are ambiguous, then it is a >standard rule of jurisprudence that judges >can seek guidance from the stated intention >of the legislators. > >If, however, the laws unambiguously require >an unintended consequence, then it is a >standard rule of jurisprudence that judges >enforce the laws as written, until the >legislators amend the laws. Perhaps we have a different interpretation of 'unambiguous', then. I would not say that L16 'unambiguously' permits a player to make a call suggested by UI if that call is not a(n) LA, especially if that law is read in the context of the other laws. I would agree, perhaps, that if the law really did say "partner may not choose a logical action over other suggested logical alternative actions, although he is free to choose an illogical suggested action if he prefers" I would hold that TDs are constrained to allow such conduct. :) Or, to put it another way--when it seems clear that the intent of the lawmakers and the logic and good of the game point to meaning 'x', then it is virtually never the case that any non-x meaning is unambiguous. >What Grant is proposing is allowing "the >camel's nose inside the tent". But an >inevitable consequence of Grant's >proposal becoming policy would be "the >entire camel inside the tent", since TDs >and ACs could arbitrarily ignore what the >laws say, in favour of what they think the >laws should mean. It need not require that, any more than taking a single step on a slippery slope necessitates that one must fall all the way to the very bottom. I am quite sure that if TDs and ACs are allowed to use common sense in their rulings, there will be some bad rulings in some cases where the TD/AC temporarily lost such sense (or perhaps were deficient in it to being with). OTOH, to uphold the letter of the law without regard to the spirit results, I think, in even greater and more regular injustices. But that's an issue that has been hashed out here before--I have different priorities for what I call "justice" than others do. Sometimes it's better to allow the camel's nose into the tent to keep him from being buried in a sandstorm, even if you have to be vigilant to prevent waking up in the morning with your arms around the camel. >Best wishes > >Richard Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 05:57:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4MJujC12748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 2002 05:56:45 +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 g4MJudH12744 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 05:56:39 +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 17Ac1g-0002rM-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 May 2002 20:44:12 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 18:29:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT References: <3CEB97B4.9010809@gordonrainsford.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <3CEB97B4.9010809@gordonrainsford.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Rainsford writes >David Stevenson wrote: > > >> >> I think, if you really want a purely pedantic argument, that you >> should write in a pedantically correct way. >> >> The Law *never* says that bidding includes passing. What it does do >> is to follow the English language, and use the term *the* bidding as an >> alternative to the auction. But bidding as a verb never means passing. >> >> However, since we all know what these words mean, what is the point? >> Or is this just meant to be another example of lawmaker-bashing, which >> certain people are beginning to do with great regularity here. The Laws >> are not perfect. Do we need to say it again? > > >If we are to be discouraged from drawing attention to this as it arises, > the likelihood of improving the wording will be reduced. > > >> >> Anyway, are you suggesting that the lawmakers should *not* use the >> existing meanings of these words, but invent new ones? That seems even >> worse to me. > > >I agree with this, but I'm sure the existing words could be used with >more rigour. Are you? I'll bet you a tenner that the Law book never uses call to mean bid and never means bid to mean call. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 10:39:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4N0bOi12855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 2002 10:37:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4N0bIH12850 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 10:37:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-122-141-59.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.141.59] helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17AgPU-0007NQ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 May 2002 01:24:52 +0100 Message-ID: <004401c201f0$2bc36640$3b8d7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <3CEB97B4.9010809@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 01:24:13 +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 DWS wrote: > I'll bet you a tenner that the Law book never uses call to mean bid > and never means bid to mean call. Definitions: Call Any bid, double, redouble, or pass. Candy from babies. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 12:24:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4N2N4Y12898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 2002 12:23:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4N2MxH12894 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 12:22:59 +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 MAA22547 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 12:24:27 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 23 May 2002 12:07:16 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 12:04:56 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 23/05/2002 12:07:05 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Please! My experience of bridge players is that for most >of them the normal meaning of bid = Laws definition of bid, >and normal meaning of call = Laws definition of call. Sure, >there is a minority who get it wrong. > >>Laws definition = "bid" >>is a subset of >>Normal term = "bid" >> >>When preparing the 2005 Laws, there is no reason >>why the words in the definitions could not be >>changed to correspond to the normal terms. > > There are two reasons. One, because your definition of >normal may be true where you are, but is not generally. >Reading RGB suggests that generally, a majority get it >right everywhere. [snip] I suggest that using RGB as your sample universe is as ineffective as the famous 1936 telephone opinion poll which predicted Landon would beat Roosevelt. (Since the majority of voters could not afford a telephone during the Great Depression, Roosevelt won in a landslide.) Words many non-users of RGB find too arcane to use in casual conversation are: Call Contestant Equity Irregularity Odd Trick Premium Points Rectification (except when talking about squeezes) 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 May 23 12:37:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4N2apT12910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 2002 12:36:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail4.nc.rr.com (fe4.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4N2akH12906 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 12:36:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from hare ([66.26.18.82]) by mail4.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Wed, 22 May 2002 22:23:20 -0400 Message-ID: <011601c20200$cba774c0$6401a8c0@hare> From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: "Sven Pran" , References: <00d601c20198$60056be0$6401a8c0@hare> <002001c20199$f5a74780$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 22:23:15 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Yep, even the players at the table. Dum de dum dumb.... Thanks. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring > From: "Nancy T Dressing" > > I was called to the table tonight and asked > the score for 2D doubled nonvul making 5. > > The back of the bid box card says 480 but > according to the law book L77-- 2DX = 80 > + (3 overtricks at 100 ea =) 300 + 50 for > making a doubled contract = 430! > > Is this a printing error and is the proper > score making a doubled contract 100 > and redoubled 200???? > Thanks, Nancy > > The score is 480. > > When you read Law 77 you apparently > overlooked that the premium for making > a doubled (or redoubled) contract is in > addition to the 50 points premium for > making any partscore contract? > > 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 May 23 14:42:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4N4g1d12964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 2002 14:42:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4N4fuH12960 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 14:41:56 +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 OAA17386 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 14:43:24 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 23 May 2002 14:26:13 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Queensland TD course notes To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Cc: rplush@mac.com, Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 14:27:07 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 23/05/2002 02:26:04 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk These course notes can be found at: http://www.qldbridge.com/director/index.htm I was particular pleased to see that the following statement was placed upfront at the very beginning of the course notes: >The Tournament Director (henceforth >abbreviated to TD) is the servant of the >players. He has considerable powers, but >it behooves him to use these with >discretion. A good TD should be seen, but >rarely heard. Don't indulge in an ego >trip. Use your powers to ensure a >smoothly running event, and to ensure that >all players receive equity. 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 May 23 23:43:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4NDgjp13280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 2002 23:42:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f262.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4NDgZH13276 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 23:42:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 23 May 2002 06:30:05 -0700 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 23 May 2002 13:30:04 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 13:30:04 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 May 2002 13:30:05.0178 (UTC) FILETIME=[F2FE95A0:01C2025D] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >DWS wrote: > > > I'll bet you a tenner that the Law book never uses call to mean bid > > and never means bid to mean call. DB: >Definitions: > >Call Any bid, double, redouble, or pass. > >Candy from babies. > >David Burn >London, England Spend it quickly, Commander Bond... _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 00:23:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4NEMx113513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 00:22:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (listserv.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4NEMoH13509 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 00:22:51 +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 QAA19677; Thu, 23 May 2002 16:08:51 +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 QAA29271; Thu, 23 May 2002 16:10:22 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020523160949.00a8d2d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 16:17:07 +0200 To: "Norman Scorbie" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT 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 13:30 23/05/2002 +0000, Norman Scorbie wrote: >>DWS wrote: >> >> > I'll bet you a tenner that the Law book never uses call to mean bid >> > and never means bid to mean call. >DB: >>Definitions: >> >>Call Any bid, double, redouble, or pass. >> >>Candy from babies. >> >>David Burn >>London, England AG : IMNSHO, David hasn't won his tenner (whatever it is) yet. A call is 'any bid, double, redouble or pass' . Right. From this you can't deduce it means 'bid'. A vertebrate is any fish, reptilian, bird, mammal, or amphibian. From this you can't deduce it means 'fish'. Fishy, ain't it ? The challenge still holds. 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 May 24 00:46:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4NEkZa13530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 00:46:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4NEkOH13526 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 00:46:30 +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 17AtfA-000I47-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 May 2002 15:33:57 +0100 Message-ID: <031DtLHGsN78EwEN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 13:05:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT References: <3CEB97B4.9010809@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <004401c201f0$2bc36640$3b8d7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <004401c201f0$2bc36640$3b8d7ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> I'll bet you a tenner that the Law book never uses call to mean bid >> and never means bid to mean call. > >Definitions: > >Call Any bid, double, redouble, or pass. > >Candy from babies. So? It does not use call to mean bid, or bid to mean call. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 00:51:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4NEpmw13542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 00:51:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4NEpgH13538 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 00:51:43 +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 17AtkE-000AVH-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 May 2002 15:39:12 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 13:07:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT 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 >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Please! My experience of bridge players is that for most >>of them the normal meaning of bid = Laws definition of bid, >>and normal meaning of call = Laws definition of call. Sure, >>there is a minority who get it wrong. >> >>>Laws definition = "bid" >>>is a subset of >>>Normal term = "bid" >>> >>>When preparing the 2005 Laws, there is no reason >>>why the words in the definitions could not be >>>changed to correspond to the normal terms. >> >> There are two reasons. One, because your definition of >>normal may be true where you are, but is not generally. >>Reading RGB suggests that generally, a majority get it >>right everywhere. > >[snip] > >I suggest that using RGB as your sample universe is as >ineffective as the famous 1936 telephone opinion poll >which predicted Landon would beat Roosevelt. (Since >the majority of voters could not afford a telephone >during the Great Depression, Roosevelt won in a >landslide.) So what? You have no better sample, have you? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 00:54:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4NEsUK13555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 00:54:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.67]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4NEsPH13551 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 00:54:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id AFB65CB200AC; Thu, 23 May 2002 07:41:58 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT Message-Id: <230502143.27719@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 07:42:01 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >A call is 'any bid, double, redouble or pass' . Right. > From this you can't deduce it means 'bid'. > >A vertebrate is any fish, reptilian, bird, mammal, or amphibian. >From this you can't deduce it means 'fish'. "To mean" is not the same as "to be synonymous with". If X is defined as "Y among other things", then it means Y. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 01:31:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4NFVj913578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 01:31:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4NFVdH13574 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 01:31:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-36-18-85.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.36.18.85] helo=gordonrainsford.co.uk) by protactinium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17AuMx-0005h3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 May 2002 16:19:11 +0100 Message-ID: <3CED085F.3060204@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 16:18:55 +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 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020523160949.00a8d2d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 13:30 23/05/2002 +0000, Norman Scorbie wrote: > >>> DWS wrote: >>> >>> > I'll bet you a tenner that the Law book never uses call to mean bid >>> > and never means bid to mean call. >> >> DB: >> >>> Definitions: >>> >>> Call Any bid, double, redouble, or pass. >>> >>> Candy from babies. >>> >>> David Burn >>> London, England >> > > AG : IMNSHO, David hasn't won his tenner (whatever it is) yet. > > A call is 'any bid, double, redouble or pass' . Right. > From this you can't deduce it means 'bid'. > > A vertebrate is any fish, reptilian, bird, mammal, or amphibian. > From this you can't deduce it means 'fish'. > Fishy, ain't it ? > > The challenge still holds. > > Best regards , > > Alain. > The challenge may still hold, but is irrelevant to the point for which it was posed as an answer, namely that the existing words could be used with more rigor. Law 31A has already been cited as evidence of this. Gordon Rainsford -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 02:03:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4NG2nG13601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 02:02:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oxmail.ox.ac.uk (oxmail4.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4NG2hH13597 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 02:02:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from heraldgate2.oucs.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.50] helo=frontend2.herald.ox.ac.uk ident=exim) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17Aur3-0006pp-04; Thu, 23 May 2002 16:50:17 +0100 Received: from whalleyg.balliol.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.158.34]) by frontend2.herald.ox.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 3.32 #1) id 17Aur2-00000Q-00; Thu, 23 May 2002 16:50:16 +0100 Message-ID: <010f01c20271$9983b1e0$229e01a3@balliol.ox.ac.uk> From: "George Whalley" To: , "David Burn" References: <230502143.27719@webbox.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 16:50:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> A call is 'any bid, double, redouble or pass' . Right. >> From this you can't deduce it means 'bid'. >> >> A vertebrate is any fish, reptilian, bird, mammal, or amphibian. >> From this you can't deduce it means 'fish'. > "To mean" is not the same as "to be synonymous with". If X is > defined as "Y among other things", then it means Y. > > David Burn > London, England > By identifying an animal as a fish (Y), you are classifying it as a vertebrate (X). One type of vertebrate. It simply does not follow that you can use this fish (Y) to classify any vertebrate (X) as a fish (Y). Besides, this is all getting too philosophical. The bet was that the Laws do not use 'bid' to mean 'call'. The fact that it says in the glossary that a bid is one type of call is irrelevant. The fact is that there is no instance in the Laws of the word "bid" being used to mean "any bid, double, redouble, or pass". Likewise there is no instance of the word "call" being used to mean "bid". When the term 'call' is used it is there to mean "any bid, double, redouble, or pass", and NOT solely to mean "undertaking to win specified number of odd tricks....." -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 02:17:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4NGGst13618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 02:16:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (zomeruniversiteit.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4NGGnH13614 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 02:16:49 +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 SAA20994; Thu, 23 May 2002 18:02:51 +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 SAA17528; Thu, 23 May 2002 18:04:21 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020523180256.00a8e5b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 18:11:06 +0200 To: "David Burn" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT In-Reply-To: <230502143.27719@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:42 23/05/2002 -0700, David Burn wrote: > >A call is 'any bid, double, redouble or pass' . Right. > > From this you can't deduce it means 'bid'. > > > >A vertebrate is any fish, reptilian, bird, mammal, or amphibian. > >From this you can't deduce it means 'fish'. > >"To mean" is not the same as "to be synonymous with". If X is >defined as "Y among other things", then it means Y. AG : nope. It could represent Y in some cases, but not *mean* it. You may call a fish a vertebrate, that's fine, but to assert that "vertebrate" means "fish" or could mean "fish" is sure to create instant reject in the mind of the most flexible of taxonomists. As a mathematician, and a non-rigid one, I can ensure you, I would gratify with a 0 any student who would pretend that "in this case, rectangle means square". The correct formulation would be "in this particular case, the rectangle is a square". Or, "in this particular case, the call is a bid". If you prefer, if A is a subset of B, the name for the elements of B can be used for the elements of A, with some loss of descriptiveness, but it doesn't *mean* "element of A", it still means "element of B", unless you practise a humpty-Dumpty-type politics : "the words mean what I want them to mean at the present time". Best regards from a logician, 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 May 24 02:21:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4NGLUX13630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 02:21:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe60.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.195]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4NGLPH13626 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 02:21:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 23 May 2002 09:08:54 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [67.192.148.120] From: "Roger Pewick" To: References: <008101c201a8$09ad96e0$229e01a3@balliol.ox.ac.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 11:06:40 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 May 2002 16:08:54.0404 (UTC) FILETIME=[22DB1440:01C20274] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: George Whalley To: Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT > Roger Pewick writes: > > There are two problems in remedying a COOT. > > One is that the other side has been deprived > > of bidding room/opportunity to call. This can > > be remedied by canceling the call. The other > > is that information has been created that > > unchecked can disadvantage the score. This > > is not so easily remedied. > > > Surely the remedy is provided within the laws? Laws 30, 31 and 32 > prescribe a penalty (ie. silencing the offender or his partner, if > appropriate, for either one round or the rest of the auction). Also, > the non-offenders have the oppurtunity of using the call out of turn > to their advantage if they so wish (by accepting it under Law 29). > > In addition, there is the possibility of law penalties under Law 26 if > they have created information which has thus far been unchecked. What I said was that when constructing a remedy for a COOT there were problems to consider and I named two. I was not speaking to the contents of TFLB. However, A contestant who plays in accordance with TFLB is entitled to one call per rotation in the auction. A contestant that calls OOT is entitled to at least two calls that rotation of the auction if the offense is not condoned, as he gets to reconsider his offending call. Such may be an answer to the offense and you may consider it a remedy. But I consider it something less than a satisfactory remedy when the offender is entitled to more turns than the non offender. regards roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 07:26:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4NLPj113764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 07:25:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4NLPdH13760 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 07:25:40 +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 g4NLEOx08848 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 22:14:24 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 22:11:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020523160949.00a8d2d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3CED085F.3060204@gordonrainsford.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <3CED085F.3060204@gordonrainsford.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 <3CED085F.3060204@gordonrainsford.co.uk>, Gordon Rainsford writes >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> At 13:30 23/05/2002 +0000, Norman Scorbie wrote: >> >>>> DWS wrote: >>>> >>>> > I'll bet you a tenner that the Law book never uses call to mean bid >>>> > and never means bid to mean call. >>> >>> DB: >>> >>>> Definitions: >>>> >>>> Call Any bid, double, redouble, or pass. >>>> >>>> Candy from babies. >>>> >>>> David Burn >>>> London, England >>> >> >> AG : IMNSHO, David hasn't won his tenner (whatever it is) yet. >> >> A call is 'any bid, double, redouble or pass' . Right. >> From this you can't deduce it means 'bid'. >> >> A vertebrate is any fish, reptilian, bird, mammal, or amphibian. >> From this you can't deduce it means 'fish'. >> Fishy, ain't it ? >> >> The challenge still holds. >> >> Best regards , >> >> Alain. >> > > > >The challenge may still hold, but is irrelevant to the point for which >it was posed as an answer, namely that the existing words could be used >with more rigor. Law 31A has already been cited as evidence of this. > >Gordon Rainsford > > "All griffins have wings" Discuss. > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 May 24 07:52:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4NLqWf13782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 07:52:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailing.poczta.interia.pl (dragonball.interia.pl [217.74.65.28]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4NLqQH13778 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 07:52:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (naos.interia.pl [217.74.65.50]) by mailing.poczta.interia.pl (mailing) with ESMTP id B85945F4D for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 23:39:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (naos.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by rav.antivirus (Mailserver) with SMTP id 89B137ED0 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 23:39:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 4DA2F7ECC; Thu, 23 May 2002 23:39:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from miauczur-gbq01f (pi161.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl [217.99.209.161]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id BB8CF7EC5 for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 23:39:56 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 23:39:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Konrad Ciborowski Subject: [BLML] Bum claim, bum objection X-Mailer: Opera 5.01 build 840 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <20020523213956.BB8CF7EC5@poczta.interia.pl> X-EMID: bab40acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear BLMLers, This is a case that I just made up to provoke some discussion about a certain principle of ruling under §70. It was long ago when I sent my last e-mail to BLML so please accept my apologies if the case was indeed discussed at some point. Suppose you are called to the table where a claim is contested. According to the §70B you require the claimer to repeat his statement and hear - I have the rest - I know that trumps are 2-2 Then you require all hands to be faced and this is what you see Q102 J1092 --- J9 A52 K4 --- AKD2 732 964 AK2 --- J98 --- AKQ8 Q4 You are told that West is in a club contract. The defenders raise an objection that it is possible that West might play the trumps in the A, 2, K order rather than A K 2. This objection is clearly not enough to disallow the claim - I guess many people on this list would call North-South bridge lawyers. Playing the c2 at the second round is clearly irrational for someone who has just said that he knows that trumps are 2-2. So if it all came down to whether declarer is going to play trumps in the top-down manner or not you would certainly give West his 9 tricks. However West seems to be convinced that hearts break decently. The defenders, on the other hand, cannot see that the claim is faulty because of the heart 4-0 break. My question is: should you point it out to them? After all if North - South weren't bridge lawyers they wouldn't call the TD. Instead, they would simply agree for nine tricks, wouldn't they? To make matters worse still we cannot apply §71A for NS because there are legal lines of play that lead to 9 tricks: e.g. cashing 3 clubs executes the non-simultaneous double squeeze. West failed to say anything about that squeeze but that's not why North - South contest the claim. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERIA.PL: Portal pelen informacji >>> http://link.interia.pl/f15b7 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 08:26:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4NMPnm13804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 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 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 g4NMPiH13800 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 08:25:45 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g4NMDod18821 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 May 2002 18:13:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200205232213.g4NMDod18821@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bum claim, bum objection To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 18:13:50 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20020523213956.BB8CF7EC5@poczta.interia.pl> from "Konrad Ciborowski" at May 23, 2002 11:39:26 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL4] 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 > > > Dear BLMLers, > > This is a case that I just made up to provoke > some discussion about a certain principle of > ruling under §70. It was long ago when > I sent my last e-mail to BLML so > please accept my apologies if the > case was indeed discussed at some point. > Suppose you are called to the table where > a claim is contested. According to the §70B > you require the claimer to repeat > his statement and hear > > - I have the rest - I know that trumps are 2-2 > > > Then you require all hands to be faced and > this is what you see > > Q102 > J1092 > --- > J9 > A52 K4 > --- AKD2 > 732 964 > AK2 --- > J98 > --- > AKQ8 > Q4 > > > > You are told that West is in a club > contract. The defenders raise an objection that > it is possible that West might play the > trumps in the A, 2, K order rather than > A K 2. > > This objection is clearly not enough to > disallow the claim Agreed. > - I guess many > people on this list would > call North-South bridge lawyers. Or perhaps they just think the rules are different. I know I was "taught" that the opponents get to direct everything that wasn't specified in the claim statement. > Playing the c2 at the second round > is clearly irrational for someone who > has just said that he knows that trumps > are 2-2. > > So if it all came down to whether declarer > is going to play trumps in the top-down > manner or not you would certainly give > West his 9 tricks. However West seems to > be convinced that hearts break decently. > The defenders, on the other hand, > cannot see that the claim > is faulty because of the heart 4-0 break. They don't need to. This situation is conceptually simple. Try looking at it this way. Assume you were called after West pulled two rounds of clubs and said "I have the rest" and N/S dispute the claim (perhaps novices) without giving a reason. I know I'd give a trick to NS. Wouldn't matter to me how good declarer is, There's a perfectly logical line of play that results in NS getting a trick. I don't see this as close. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 08:50:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4NMoAp13824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 08:50:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4NMo5H13820 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 08:50:05 +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 IAA15520 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 08:51:33 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 24 May 2002 08:34:20 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 08:37:07 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 24/05/2002 08:34:09 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] >>>>When preparing the 2005 Laws, there is no reason >>>>why the words in the definitions could not be >>>>changed to correspond to the normal terms. >>> >>> There are two reasons. One, because your definition of >>>normal may be true where you are, but is not generally. >>>Reading RGB suggests that generally, a majority get it >>>right everywhere. >> >>[snip] >> >>I suggest that using RGB as your sample universe is as >>ineffective as the famous 1936 telephone opinion poll >>which predicted Landon would beat Roosevelt. (Since >>the majority of voters could not afford a telephone >>during the Great Depression, Roosevelt won in a >>landslide.) > > > So what? You have no better sample, have you? > >-- >David Stevenson Definition of Odd Tricks is known by a large number of RGB (or blml) users, due to the sample's higher than *normal* proportion of pernickety pedants, compared to the proportion of pernickety pedants in the population. Definition of Odd Tricks is known by a tiny number of French bridge players, as Odd Tricks was deleted from the French translation of the Laws. A representative sample would be the English-speaking population of Canberra - but they also never use the now obsolete words Odd Tricks. (My limited research of old bridge books suggests that Odd Tricks was last commonly used in bridge conversations circa the 1950s.) 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 May 24 09:05:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4NN4qp13843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 09:04:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (adsl-66-126-103-122.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [66.126.103.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4NN4lH13839 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 09:04:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from simba.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@simba.irvine.com [192.160.8.19]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA06382; Thu, 23 May 2002 15:52:11 -0700 Message-Id: <200205232252.PAA06382@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Bum claim, bum objection In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 23 May 2002 23:39:26 BST." <20020523213956.BB8CF7EC5@poczta.interia.pl> Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 15:55:39 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: [Note: I replaced the section symbol with L since my mail reader doesn't handle characters 128-255 well] > Dear BLMLers, > > This is a case that I just made up to provoke > some discussion about a certain principle of > ruling under L70. It was long ago when > I sent my last e-mail to BLML so > please accept my apologies if the > case was indeed discussed at some point. > Suppose you are called to the table where > a claim is contested. According to the L70B > you require the claimer to repeat > his statement and hear > > - I have the rest - I know that trumps are 2-2 > > > Then you require all hands to be faced and > this is what you see > > Q102 > J1092 > --- > J9 > A52 K4 > --- AKD2 > 732 964 > AK2 --- > J98 > --- > AKQ8 > Q4 > > > > You are told that West is in a club > contract. The defenders raise an objection that > it is possible that West might play the > trumps in the A, 2, K order rather than > A K 2. > > This objection is clearly not enough to > disallow the claim - I guess many > people on this list would > call North-South bridge lawyers. If I felt like being polite, that's what I would call them. > Playing the c2 at the second round > is clearly irrational for someone who > has just said that he knows that trumps > are 2-2. Right. > So if it all came down to whether declarer > is going to play trumps in the top-down > manner or not you would certainly give > West his 9 tricks. However West seems to > be convinced that hearts break decently. > The defenders, on the other hand, > cannot see that the claim > is faulty because of the heart 4-0 break. > > > My question is: should you point it > out to them? After all if North - South > weren't bridge lawyers they wouldn't > call the TD. Instead, they would simply > agree for nine tricks, wouldn't they? No, because if they weren't bridge lawyers, they would have spent their time looking at the hand instead of looking for stupid technicalities, and they would have noticed the little problem in hearts. :) :) :) Even if they would, I don't think that's relevant. If you're called to rule on a claim, the basic principle is that you award declarer the number of tricks that he would have gotten had the hand been played out, with "doubtful points ... resolved against the claimer". Based on this, you must award the defense a trick because you can see that they'd probably get one if the hand were played out---whether or not the defense notices this. > To make matters worse still we cannot apply > L71A for NS because there are legal lines of play > that lead to 9 tricks: e.g. cashing 3 clubs > executes the non-simultaneous double > squeeze. West failed to say anything about > that squeeze but that's not > why North - South contest the claim. That's not relevant unless the squeeze would materialize on any "normal" line of play---and cashing two clubs and then entering dummy is certainly normal. -- 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 May 24 10:09:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4O08TC13883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 10:08:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f69.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.69]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4O08OH13879 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 10:08:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 23 May 2002 16:55:53 -0700 Received: from 172.151.122.158 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 23 May 2002 23:55:53 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.151.122.158] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: dalburn@btopenworld.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 16:55:53 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 May 2002 23:55:53.0453 (UTC) FILETIME=[5F82A9D0:01C202B5] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT >Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 07:42:01 -0700 > > >A call is 'any bid, double, redouble or pass' . Right. > > From this you can't deduce it means 'bid'. > > > >A vertebrate is any fish, reptilian, bird, mammal, or amphibian. > >From this you can't deduce it means 'fish'. > >"To mean" is not the same as "to be synonymous with". If X is >defined as "Y among other things", then it means Y. Language and logic work differently. Shy can mean bashful or short money. It depends on context. But in this example, Y is an X, but X does not mean Y. If I made a call, you cannot say it means I made a bid. I could have made a pass. There's this cute thing I've been flirting with. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 11:26:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4O1PZc13916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 11:25:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4O1PUH13912 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 11:25:31 +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 LAA15674 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 11:26:57 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 24 May 2002 11:09:45 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 11:12:30 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 24/05/2002 11:09:34 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: [snip] >> Other factors which can reduce the randomness of >> a bridge Swiss teams are: >> * increasing the number of boards in each match >> (short matches of 6 to 8 boards are not >> particularly meaningful as tests of skill) Steve Willner replied: >There is nothing special about a Swiss in this >respect. Every bridge competition has a degree of >randomness, and increasing the number of boards >(other things being equal) decreases the randomness. [snip] To clarify my intended point, a 14-round Swiss of 20-board matches is less random than a 28-round Swiss of 10-board matches. 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 May 24 12:03:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4O23Jv13941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 12:03:19 +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 g4O23EH13937 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 12:03:14 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 17110 invoked by uid 504); 24 May 2002 01:50:41 -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 0.838658 secs); 24 May 2002 01:50:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.56.36.182) by 0 with SMTP; 24 May 2002 01:50:40 -0000 Message-ID: <042f01c202c5$39fba080$b416b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 13:49:20 +1200 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 1:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss > > To clarify my intended point, a 14-round Swiss of > 20-board matches is less random than a 28-round > Swiss of 10-board matches. > I am curious... Is this an opinion or is it based on some data? Is a 10-board Round Robin more random than a 20-Swiss playing 1/2 of the other teams? While I am here does anyone have any data regarding how much randomness there is in an individual board? I once did some calculations that suggested a standard deviation of about 6 Imps for Team play and about 30% at MPs. From memory the Imp calculation was based on a World Championship final and the Matchpoint calculation based on a local Open tournament. 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 May 24 17:31:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4O7Tdp14079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 17:29:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4O7TWH14075 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 17:29:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48744.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.104]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g4O7Gjk29978 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 09:16:45 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CEDE932.1060705@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 09:18:10 +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] Accelerated Swiss References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I happen to believe this is totally wrong. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > I wrote: > > [snip] > > >>>Other factors which can reduce the randomness of >>>a bridge Swiss teams are: >>>* increasing the number of boards in each match >>> (short matches of 6 to 8 boards are not >>> particularly meaningful as tests of skill) >>> > > Steve Willner replied: > > >>There is nothing special about a Swiss in this >>respect. Every bridge competition has a degree of >>randomness, and increasing the number of boards >>(other things being equal) decreases the randomness. >> > > [snip] > > To clarify my intended point, a 14-round Swiss of > 20-board matches is less random than a 28-round > Swiss of 10-board matches. > This is totally wrong. There are two reasons for randomness. The first is in the bridge itself. One does ones best to avoid contracts that are too risky, but good bridge includes bidding contracts that fail. One down is good bridge. Luck of the cards is one reason for randomness, and we play as many boards as we can to reduce this. But playing 280 boards is always 280 boards, whether in 20x14, 14x20 or 28x10. The second reason for randomness lies in the choice of opponents (in teams) and in opponents and comparers (in pairs). Surely this randomness is made less when playing more rounds. Thus at whatever formula, it is clear that playing more rounds of less boards reduces randomness. > 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 Fri May 24 17:52:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4O7q4714096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 17:52:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4O7pwH14092 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 17:51:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3651.bb.online.no [80.212.222.67]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA14312 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 09:39:21 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <005b01c202f6$21392a00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3CEDE932.1060705@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 09:39:20 +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: "Herman De Wael" ......... > This is totally wrong. > > There are two reasons for randomness. > > The first is in the bridge itself. One does ones best to avoid > contracts that are too risky, but good bridge includes bidding > contracts that fail. One down is good bridge. Luck of the cards is one > reason for randomness, and we play as many boards as we can to reduce > this. But playing 280 boards is always 280 boards, whether in 20x14, > 14x20 or 28x10. > > The second reason for randomness lies in the choice of opponents (in > teams) and in opponents and comparers (in pairs). Surely this > randomness is made less when playing more rounds. > > Thus at whatever formula, it is clear that playing more rounds of less > boards reduces randomness. Your logic is correct for (complete) round-robin events, but there is a fallacy with swiss: As each round after the first (or first two) is seeded according to the results so far in the tournament there is serious problem if the number of rounds increases beyond a certain point. One indication of this problem is that with more rounds than half the number of participants one must pick opponents for the leading pair(s) among the lower half ranked participants towards the end of the tournament. This is certainly not how swiss is supposed to work, and it may lead to some very arbitrary results. At present I believe we assume(!) in Norway that the number of swiss rounds should be between 10 to 20 and 40 to 45 percent of a complete round-robin schedule. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 19:25:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4O9PRu14146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 19:25:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4O9PLH14142 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 19:25:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48744.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.104]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g4O9CZH03673 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 11:12:36 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CEE0458.8070004@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 11:14:00 +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] Accelerated Swiss References: <3CEDE932.1060705@village.uunet.be> <005b01c202f6$21392a00$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 Yes and No, Sven. Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > ......... > >>This is totally wrong. >> >> >>Thus at whatever formula, it is clear that playing more rounds of less >>boards reduces randomness. >> > > Your logic is correct for (complete) round-robin events, but > there is a fallacy with swiss: > > As each round after the first (or first two) is seeded according > to the results so far in the tournament there is serious problem > if the number of rounds increases beyond a certain point. > Yes, that is a serious problem, but no, that does not influence what we were talking of before. The original post said nothing about the size of the event, so I am assuming both the 14 rounds (of 20) and 28 rounds (of 10) to be from a huge tournament of say 100 tables. > One indication of this problem is that with more rounds than > half the number of participants one must pick opponents > for the leading pair(s) among the lower half ranked participants > towards the end of the tournament. This is certainly not how > swiss is supposed to work, and it may lead to some very > arbitrary results. > Yes, but they are arbitrary for all teams alike. Your argument is that a 60% Swiss (I presume you understand what this means) will be more arbitrary than a 30% swiss, and you might be correct. I was talking about a 12 round swiss, and in general, I believe this will be less arbitrary than a 6 round one. > At present I believe we assume(!) in Norway that the number of > swiss rounds should be between 10 to 20 and 40 to 45 percent > of a complete round-robin schedule. > I can relate to that. > Sven > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 May 24 19:39:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4O9ctU14159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 19:38:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (ph.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4O9coH14155 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 19:38:50 +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 LAA09562; Fri, 24 May 2002 11:24:49 +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 LAA29342; Fri, 24 May 2002 11:26:20 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020524113140.00a8e1e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 11:33:07 +0200 To: "John (MadDog) Probst" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Anatomy of a COOT In-Reply-To: References: <3CED085F.3060204@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <5.1.0.14.0.20020523160949.00a8d2d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3CED085F.3060204@gordonrainsford.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 22:11 23/05/2002 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >"All griffins have wings" Discuss. AG : true. Every griffin that has been studied up to now had wings. And all Martians are green. Oops, wrong : neither the Hog nor the Rabbit have wings :-) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 20:08:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4OA8NL14181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 20:08:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4OA8HH14177 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 20:08:17 +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 LAA17555; Fri, 24 May 2002 11:53:14 +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 LAA00294; Fri, 24 May 2002 11:55:44 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020524115410.00a86ca0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 12:02:32 +0200 To: Konrad Ciborowski , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Bum claim, bum objection In-Reply-To: <20020523213956.BB8CF7EC5@poczta.interia.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g4OA8JH14178 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 23:39 23/05/2002 +0100, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >Dear BLMLers, > > This is a case that I just made up to provoke >some discussion about a certain principle of >ruling under §70. It was long ago when >I sent my last e-mail to BLML so >please accept my apologies if the >case was indeed discussed at some point. >Suppose you are called to the table where >a claim is contested. According to the §70B >you require the claimer to repeat >his statement and hear > >- I have the rest - I know that trumps are 2-2 > > >Then you require all hands to be faced and >this is what you see > > Q102 > J1092 > --- > J9 >A52 K4 >--- AKD2 >732 964 >AK2 --- > J98 > --- > AKQ8 > Q4 > > > > You are told that West is in a club >contract. The defenders raise an objection that >it is possible that West might play the >trumps in the A, 2, K order rather than >A K 2. > > This objection is clearly not enough to >disallow the claim - I guess many >people on this list would >call North-South bridge lawyers. >Playing the c2 at the second round >is clearly irrational for someone who >has just said that he knows that trumps >are 2-2. > > So if it all came down to whether declarer >is going to play trumps in the top-down >manner or not you would certainly give >West his 9 tricks. However West seems to >be convinced that hearts break decently. >The defenders, on the other hand, >cannot see that the claim >is faulty because of the heart 4-0 break. > > > My question is: should you point it >out to them? After all if North - South >weren't bridge lawyers they wouldn't >call the TD. Instead, they would simply >agree for nine tricks, wouldn't they? AG : no, they wouldn't. If they were good analysts, they would point out that the line to 9 tricks is by no way automatic. My ruling would be : 1) the claim has been contested, thus I ask the player to repeat the statement. He did *not* specify the 3rd round of trumps. 2) playing for the squeeze, although clearly best and without risk, is not obvious enough to be admitted without due statement according to L70D (as opposed to playing trumps from the top). 3) L70E's application field is not restricted to problems mentioned in the defenders' objections. If needed, show the players L81C6. The last trick goes to NS, according to the following, inferior, but not downright irrational, line of play : two rounds of trumps, Spade to the dummy, HA, oops. Best regards, Alain. >To make matters worse still we cannot apply >§71A for NS because there are legal lines of play >that lead to 9 tricks: e.g. cashing 3 clubs >executes the non-simultaneous double >squeeze. West failed to say anything about >that squeeze but that's not >why North - South contest the claim. > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >INTERIA.PL: Portal pelen informacji >>> http://link.interia.pl/f15b7 > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 20:28:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4OAS7V14200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 20:28:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4OAS2H14196 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 20:28:02 +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 MAA24038; Fri, 24 May 2002 12:12:59 +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 MAA22197; Fri, 24 May 2002 12:15:30 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020524120513.00a8d080@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 12:22:17 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Cc: pitchoubis@hotmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear blmlists, Here is a problem that was given to me by the Belgian international Alain Labaere. It is just a classical case of placing the limits for applying the 'protect himself' and 'cutting the link' principles. North's hand is : x / J9xxx / x / AKJxxx. S W N 1D 3C* 3H p p** * Ghestem (H/S), but not alerted. ** It seems that the 3H bid was forcing in NS's system (over a natural 3C). The result was of course very bad for NS. The facts are agreed and EW admit there was MI. Now : 1) Should North have protcted himself by asking about the 3C bid, perhaps risking giving UI if told 3C is natural ? Note that EW had no CC available. 2) North's 3H could be bad, but surely not irrational. Would you call South's pass irrational enough as to cut the link ? 3) Assume one answers 'yes' to #2. Say 5C was NS's normal contract. Now the damage is already done, and nothing South can make would help him. Is there any provision for a reasoning like "South did something irrational, but he could do nothing to get back to the tracks, so his irrational decision is not responsible for his bad score, so we don't take it into account, and we adjust the score" ? Some Belgian TDs are now believing the Dutch were right banishing Ghestem 2-suiters. We all know MI cases after 2-suited bids is among the most difficult to solve. I'd like to suggest the following rule : whenever MI is created by an artificial 2-suited bid (or a bid explained as artificial 2-suited), and an adjusted score is awarded, the OS's score on the deal will be 0% or -15 IMPs, the NOS's score still being assessed according to equity. Surely this would be a legal decision by any organizer. Thank you for your help. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 20:42:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4OAfl214241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 20:41:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4OAffH14237 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 20:41:42 +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 g4OAT3208633; Fri, 24 May 2002 12:29:03 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g4OAT3d20247; Fri, 24 May 2002 12:29:03 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 12:29:03 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Alain Gottcheiner cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020524120513.00a8d080@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Some Belgian TDs are now believing the Dutch were right banishing Ghestem > 2-suiters. When did we do 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 Fri May 24 21:24:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4OBObK14266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 21:24:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.67]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4OBOWH14262 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 21:24:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A0023ACC00B8; Fri, 24 May 2002 04:12:02 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: pitchoubis@hotmail.com From: "David Burn" Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Message-Id: <240502144.15123@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 04:12:07 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain wrote: >North's hand is : x / J9xxx / x / AKJxxx. > >S W N > >1D 3C* 3H p >p** > >* Ghestem (H/S), but not alerted. >** It seems that the 3H bid was forcing in NS's system (over a natural 3C). > >The result was of course very bad for NS. > >The facts are agreed and EW admit there was MI. Now : > >1) Should North have protcted himself by asking about the 3C bid, perhaps risking giving UI if told 3C is natural ? I don't know. I think the current WBF view is that international players are supposed to protect themselves to a greater extent than average players. If North knows that Ghestem is a popular convention in his part of the world, so that his opponents are quite likely to be playing it, then (in view of his club holding) one might say that he had some duty of care. >2) North's 3H could be bad, but surely not irrational. If North thinks that 3C is natural, then his 3H is beyond my understanding. He would have to be a genius indeed (or a poor player indeed) to convince me that he could have any reason at all for bidding 3H. Now, if North thought that 3C was *Ghestem*, then 3H to show clubs is a very sensible way to play... >Would you call South's pass irrational enough as to cut the link ? I don't know. If he had an opening bid, and he passed what he knew to be a forcing bid by his partner, then he has probably acted in irrational, wild, or gambling fashion. But one would need to see his hand and hear his reasons for his action. >3) Assume one answers 'yes' to #2. We will go along with that for the moment. >Say 5C was NS's normal contract. Now the damage is already done, and nothing South can make would help him. Is there any provision for a reasoning like "South did something irrational, but he could do nothing to get back to the tracks, so his irrational decision is not responsible for his bad score, so we don't take it into account, and we adjust the score" ? No (at least, not as far as NS are concerned). One would be inclined to give EW -400 (or -600) for 5C making by NS (it helps if, when we are given hands, we are also given the form of scoring and the vulnerability). But if it is considered that NS have acted in "irrational, wild, or gambling" fashion, either by bidding 3H, or by passing it, or both, then they keep the score for 3H. >Some Belgian TDs are now believing the Dutch were right banishing Ghestem 2-suiters. We all know MI cases after 2-suited bids is among the most difficult to solve. >I'd like to suggest the following rule : whenever MI is created by an artificial 2-suited bid (or a bid explained as artificial 2-suited), and an adjusted score is awarded, the OS's score on the deal will be 0% or -15 IMPs, the NOS's score still being assessed according to equity. Surely this would be a legal decision by any organizer. Let's just make a rule that when a pair messes things up by forgetting its system, we automatically adjust the score in favour of their opponents and fine them into the bargain. After all, they will have caused disruption by the misuse of their convention. We could even give this rule a name... Either you admit that there is an offence called Convention Disruption, or you don't. There is no reason at all to single out two-suited overcalls just because they happen with more frequency or cause more disruption. The rule you propose would indeed be a legal decision, for the Laws give permission to regulate the use of conventions. But it would, in my view, be a singularly poor decision. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 22:18:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4OCHce14355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 22:17:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4OCHXH14351 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 22:17:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-75.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.75] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 17BDof-0004Gj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 May 2002 08:05:05 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020524075748.00ad2d20@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 08:06:44 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Bum claim, bum objection In-Reply-To: <20020523213956.BB8CF7EC5@poczta.interia.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g4OCHZH14352 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:39 PM 5/23/02, Konrad wrote: > This is a case that I just made up to provoke >some discussion about a certain principle of >ruling under §70. It was long ago when >I sent my last e-mail to BLML so >please accept my apologies if the >case was indeed discussed at some point. >Suppose you are called to the table where >a claim is contested. According to the §70B >you require the claimer to repeat >his statement and hear > >- I have the rest - I know that trumps are 2-2 > > >Then you require all hands to be faced and >this is what you see > > Q102 > J1092 > --- > J9 >A52 K4 >--- AKD2 >732 964 >AK2 --- > J98 > --- > AKQ8 > Q4 > > You are told that West is in a club >contract. The defenders raise an objection that >it is possible that West might play the >trumps in the A, 2, K order rather than >A K 2. > > This objection is clearly not enough to >disallow the claim - I guess many >people on this list would >call North-South bridge lawyers. >Playing the c2 at the second round >is clearly irrational for someone who >has just said that he knows that trumps >are 2-2. > > So if it all came down to whether declarer >is going to play trumps in the top-down >manner or not you would certainly give >West his 9 tricks. However West seems to >be convinced that hearts break decently. >The defenders, on the other hand, >cannot see that the claim >is faulty because of the heart 4-0 break. > > My question is: should you point it >out to them? After all if North - South >weren't bridge lawyers they wouldn't >call the TD. Instead, they would simply >agree for nine tricks, wouldn't they? > >To make matters worse still we cannot apply >§71A for NS because there are legal lines of play >that lead to 9 tricks: e.g. cashing 3 clubs >executes the non-simultaneous double >squeeze. West failed to say anything about >that squeeze but that's not >why North - South contest the claim. Award one trick to the defense. Declarer claimed, play stopped, and the TD must determine the result. Although the law tells the TD to "hear[] the opponents' objections", the adjudication is made entirely by the TD; nothing in the law suggests that he must be bound or guided by the opponents' objections (or lack thereof). To allow declarer all the tricks on the non-simultaneous double squeeze would be appropriate only if the TD determined that to be declarer's intended line of play at the time of the claim, and there's nothing in Konrad's scenario to suggest 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 Fri May 24 23:15:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4ODEmv14438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 2002 23:14:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4ODEgH14434 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 23:14:42 +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 OAA16775; Fri, 24 May 2002 14:59:39 +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 PAA08368; Fri, 24 May 2002 15:02:09 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020524145149.00a87730@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 15:08:56 +0200 To: "David Burn" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Cc: pitchoubis@hotmail.com In-Reply-To: <240502144.15123@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:12 24/05/2002 -0700, David Burn wrote: >Either you admit that there is an offence called Convention Disruption, >or you don't. There is no reason at all to single out two-suited >overcalls just because they happen with more frequency or cause >more disruption. The rule you propose would indeed be a legal >decision, for the Laws give permission to regulate the use of >conventions. But it would, in my view, be a singularly poor decision. AG : admit for a moment that this offence exists (I would be inclined to say it does). There is a huge difference between a) a playerr who forgets to tell the 3S bid in an uncontested auction showed 4H, not 4S (eg in Puppet Styaman), inducing the defence to give an overtrick, something which, if the TD or AC sees it fit, may be corrected in one second ("change that 460 to 430, please, and appeal if you feel like it"). This is MI with its consequences. b) a player which, in a competitive auction, tells the opponents that the bid meant something absolutely different (7C in lieu of 5H/5S), making the board nearly unassessable ; this is Convention disruption. Yes, one good idea would be a severe score correction ("the worst plausible result") plus a PP for disrupting the smoothness of proceedings. What made errors in the use os 2-suited conventions a pain in the ass is : 1) the bidding is competitive, or will become competitive (thus, any correction at the time of the lead comes too late ; contrast with a) 2) wild patterns mean the probable issues are difficult to assess ; 3) 55 conventions are very popular with moderate players (errors in relay bidding do happen, but only a few players use intricate relays, and they are usually good players, and they usually know their duties) 4) for some reason, among conventions often played by moderate players, three are frequently forgotten by one player or the other : 55 conventions (Ghestem, Michaels etc.) ; Landy and similar conventions ; and artificial competitive raises (Bergen and the like). I don't want to be merciless towards 55 convention MI, I merely want to be merciless towards convention disruption. For the reasons above, those sets intersect in a big chunk. 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 May 25 01:32:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4OFVL414486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 2002 01:31:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4OFVEH14482 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 01:31:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-70234.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.146.90]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g4OFIdk04658 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 17:18:39 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CEE5A24.2020407@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 17:20:04 +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] Ghestem, 826894th rerun References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020524145149.00a87730@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 Not exactly true, Alain. Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 04:12 24/05/2002 -0700, David Burn wrote: > > >> Either you admit that there is an offence called Convention Disruption, >> or you don't. There is no reason at all to single out two-suited >> overcalls just because they happen with more frequency or cause >> more disruption. The rule you propose would indeed be a legal >> decision, for the Laws give permission to regulate the use of >> conventions. But it would, in my view, be a singularly poor decision. > > > AG : admit for a moment that this offence exists (I would be inclined to > say it does). You have not grasped the meaning of "convention disruption", I fear. > There is a huge difference between > a) a playerr who forgets to tell the 3S bid in an uncontested auction > showed 4H, not 4S (eg in Puppet Styaman), inducing the defence to give > an overtrick, something which, if the TD or AC sees it fit, may be > corrected in one second ("change that 460 to 430, please, and appeal if > you feel like it"). This is MI with its consequences. exactly - a simple case. > b) a player which, in a competitive auction, tells the opponents that > the bid meant something absolutely different (7C in lieu of 5H/5S), > making the board nearly unassessable ; this is Convention disruption. No it is not - it is exactly the same as a) - but more difficult to assess. I don't see any qualitative difference between the two, only a quantitative one. > Yes, one good idea would be a severe score correction ("the worst > plausible result") plus a PP for disrupting the smoothness of proceedings. > But that is the same in both cases. +430 was also the worst plausible result. Only it does not sound so bad. But what if almost the whole field makes the second overtrick ? And your MI influencing the defence is only very minor. +430 can be a top! perhaps even an undeserved one. > What made errors in the use os 2-suited conventions a pain in the ass is : Now you are on the right track again. > 1) the bidding is competitive, or will become competitive (thus, any > correction at the time of the lead comes too late ; contrast with a) I don't see that a very good contrast. You have made a) a very minor case. There are many simple MI cases where the correction can only come too late. > 2) wild patterns mean the probable issues are difficult to assess ; Quantitative problem - not qualitative. > 3) 55 conventions are very popular with moderate players (errors in > relay bidding do happen, but only a few players use intricate relays, > and they are usually good players, and they usually know their duties) That's just explaining why the problem is common, not why it is grave. > 4) for some reason, among conventions often played by moderate players, > three are frequently forgotten by one player or the other : 55 > conventions (Ghestem, Michaels etc.) ; Landy and similar conventions ; > and artificial competitive raises (Bergen and the like). > Idem. > I don't want to be merciless towards 55 convention MI, I merely want to > be merciless towards convention disruption. For the reasons above, those > sets intersect in a big chunk. > You have only described CD as a subset of "grave" MI. What CD usually means is misbidding, judged not to be MI. Some people want to ban players from misusing conventions. If yoou play Ghestem, you are not allowed to get it wrong. I have great sympathy for people who feel that way, even if I don't. I feel CD is often enough punished through bridge, no TD necessary when my partner puts me into 7Di with two aces out. > Best regards, > > Alain. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- 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 May 25 01:43:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4OFhDJ14503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 2002 01:43:13 +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 g4OFh8H14499 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 01:43:08 +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 LAA06777 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 11:30:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA21610 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 May 2002 11:30:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 11:30:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205241530.LAA21610@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > To clarify my intended point, a 14-round Swiss of > 20-board matches is less random than a 28-round > Swiss of 10-board matches. I agree with this, at least in the cited case of 100+ teams and a need to determine the 8 top places. Actually, for that case I would expect the optimum number of rounds to be 11, but that may not be a convenient number to schedule. My expectation is based on some guesswork. It would be interesting to see a simulation. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 25 02:54:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4OGqWP14539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 2002 02:52:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (eurasianchemtech.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4OGqQH14535 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 02:52:26 +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 SAA10049; Fri, 24 May 2002 18:38:25 +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 SAA27341; Fri, 24 May 2002 18:39:56 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020524182757.00a8c5f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 18:46:43 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun In-Reply-To: <3CEE5A24.2020407@village.uunet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020524145149.00a87730@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:20 24/05/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: But that is the same in both cases. +430 was also the worst plausible result. Only it does not sound so bad. But what if almost the whole field makes the second overtrick ? And your MI influencing the defence is only very minor. +430 can be a top! perhaps even an undeserved one AG : indeed. I did not say the correction should be more ample in case b), only that the case should be treated with more severity *apart* of the score adjustment. >>2) wild patterns mean the probable issues are difficult to assess ; > > >Quantitative problem - not qualitative. AG : right. >>3) 55 conventions are very popular with moderate players (errors in relay >>bidding do happen, but only a few players use intricate relays, and they >>are usually good players, and they usually know their duties) > > >That's just explaining why the problem is common, not why it is grave. > > >>4) for some reason, among conventions often played by moderate players, >>three are frequently forgotten by one player or the other : 55 >>conventions (Ghestem, Michaels etc.) ; Landy and similar conventions ; >>and artificial competitive raises (Bergen and the like). > > >Idem. AG : but the combination of 2., 3. and 4. means that the integrated amount of time, brains and energy spent by TDs and ACs (TDs have brains. Good news :-P) on those cases is high, and that I would welcome any efforts made to cut it. People who intend to use subtle conventions have an absolute duty to avoid creating trouble through incorrections related to their use. If you can't remember it, don't use it, and I fine you, just to remember you you'll have to choose between explaining right and abandoning the convention. As for the qualitative distinction : the second case forced the TD to abandon his routine duty so settle the case (determining the possible results is an important factor). Isn't there a law that makes liable to a penalty any player who disrupted the smooth progress of the competition ? 55-conventions in general, Ghestem in particular, are responsible for about 20% of the cases of convention disruption (in the correct sense, now) at intermediate level and about 5% of the cases of MI, but those cases are the most headachogenic and havocogenic of all. To find a way to suppress this class would help the cause of quiet bridge. I'm open to less radical suggstions. 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 May 25 03:01:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4OH0S414565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 2002 03:00:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f50.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4OH0NH14561 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 03:00:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 24 May 2002 09:47:50 -0700 Received: from 172.146.80.125 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 24 May 2002 16:47:49 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.146.80.125] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: willner@cfa.harvard.edu, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 09:47:49 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 May 2002 16:47:50.0171 (UTC) FILETIME=[BD7E96B0:01C20342] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Steve Willner >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss >Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 11:30:39 -0400 (EDT) > > > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > To clarify my intended point, a 14-round Swiss of > > 20-board matches is less random than a 28-round > > Swiss of 10-board matches. > >I agree with this, at least in the cited case of 100+ teams and a need to >determine the 8 top places. Actually, for that case I would expect the >optimum number of rounds to be 11, but that may not be a convenient >number to schedule. > >My expectation is based on some guesswork. It would be interesting to >see a simulation. How are you defining optimum? I assume it's something like "the least number of rounds such that..." but I don't know what follows. As far as running a simulation, how? I've had some problems with the claim that's been made that you can determine the 1st place team in log(2)n rounds by a knockout. If you geometrically ordered bridge teams based on who can beat another, you will find cycles. A>B>C>A. You haven't necessarily found the best team by running a knockout. (I would even wager that the expectation is quite low.) A good starting point for a simulation might be a contest where N teams all meet each other over N-1 rounds. Should the ordering of winners be determined by total imps, VPs, number of matches won, or some other factor? -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 25 03:44:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4OHgd214620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 2002 03:42:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4OHgXH14616 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 03:42:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2140.bb.online.no [80.212.216.92]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA17947 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 19:30:00 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000d01c20348$a183e720$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 19:29:59 +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: "Todd Zimnoch" ..... > A good starting point for a simulation might be a contest where N teams > all meet each other over N-1 rounds. Should the ordering of winners be > determined by total imps, VPs, number of matches won, or some other factor? The answer is an obvious YES! Whichever way you decide to rank the participants the only important point is that the decision is announced in advance. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 25 03:56:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4OHscT14633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 2002 03:54:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (adsl-66-126-103-122.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [66.126.103.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4OHsXH14629 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 03:54:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from simba.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@simba.irvine.com [192.160.8.19]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA12739; Fri, 24 May 2002 10:41:57 -0700 Message-Id: <200205241741.KAA12739@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 24 May 2002 12:22:17 +0200." <5.1.0.14.0.20020524120513.00a8d080@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 10:45:32 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Dear blmlists, > > Here is a problem that was given to me by the Belgian international Alain > Labaere. It is just a classical case of placing the limits for applying the > 'protect himself' and 'cutting the link' principles. > > North's hand is : x / J9xxx / x / AKJxxx. > > S W N > > 1D 3C* 3H p > p** > > * Ghestem (H/S), but not alerted. > ** It seems that the 3H bid was forcing in NS's system (over a natural 3C). > > The result was of course very bad for NS. > > The facts are agreed and EW admit there was MI. Now : > > 1) Should North have protcted himself by asking about the 3C bid, perhaps > risking giving UI if told 3C is natural ? Note that EW had no CC available. In general, I think it's a bad policy to base a decision on whether or not to ask a question on the contents of your hand. I know that this puts me at odds with some SO's, who believe you should not ask questions if you're not considering some action other than pass. However, in a case like this, where the opponents' bid is supposed to be natural and you doubt this because you have that suit, I really don't think you should ask a question just because you have the suit. This has too much potential for transmitting information both to partner and to the opponents. David Burn's comments about asking a question if Ghestem is popular enough so that 3C is likely to be a two-suiter make sense, but I still think that if that's the reason you should ask about 3C, you should do it regardless of what's in your hand. > 2) North's 3H could be bad, but surely not irrational. Would you call > South's pass irrational enough as to cut the link ? > 3) Assume one answers 'yes' to #2. Say 5C was NS's normal contract. Now the > damage is already done, and nothing South can make would help him. Is there > any provision for a reasoning like "South did something irrational, but he > could do nothing to get back to the tracks, so his irrational decision is > not responsible for his bad score, so we don't take it into account, and we > adjust the score" ? The WBF Code of Practices for Appeals Committees says: The award of an assigned adjusted score (see Law 12C2) is appropriate when a violation of law causes damage to an innocent side that has not damaged itself by irrational, wild or gambling action subsequent to the infraction. Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction. If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by irrational, wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side, however, should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the normal consequence of its infraction. A revoke by the innocent side subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score but again the infractor's score is to be adjusted as before without regard to the revoke. What this seems to mean is that if the expected score for the non-offenders is, for example, 400, and the offenders commit an infraction so that the NOs are now able to get no more than 100, but the the NOs then do something stupid and end up with, say, -500: The offenders should still be awarded -400; the offenders should not get relief for the self-inflicted part of the damage, which is the 600 points they threw away, but you could say they still ought to get relief for the 300 points the offense took away from them. I don't know exactly what this means; changing the NO's score to -200 (the 400 they deserved, minus the 600 points they threw away on their own) seems fair to me. Not sure what others' opinions on this are. In the actual case: We're assuming that the normal contract is 5C making, and that nothing South could have done, rational or irrational, would have gotten them to this contract. Well, what should they have gotten to? If South should have bid on, and they should have gotten to 3NT or 4H making, then there's probably no damage since those contracts score at least as well as 5C making. If no game makes, then South probably got himself a better result by passing 3H, since he stayed lower. If they should have gotten to 3NT down 1, though, and 3H went down 4 or something like that, then you could argue that 150 or 300 points of the NO's damage was self-inflicted, and rule accordingly. It would help to know the full deal, vulnerability, and the table result. > Some Belgian TDs are now believing the Dutch were right banishing Ghestem > 2-suiters. We all know MI cases after 2-suited bids is among the most > difficult to solve. This one doesn't seem all that difficult, although it's really hard to tell without more information. > I'd like to suggest the following rule : whenever MI is created by an > artificial 2-suited bid (or a bid explained as artificial 2-suited), and an > adjusted score is awarded, the OS's score on the deal will be 0% or -15 > IMPs, the NOS's score still being assessed according to equity. Surely this > would be a legal decision by any organizer. Legally, I don't think you could adjust this way under L12, so the only way you could do this would be to assess a procedural penalty. -- 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 May 25 04:48:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4OIkZC14660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 2002 04:46:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4OIkUH14656 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 04:46:30 +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 17BJt0-0006Gs-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 May 2002 19:33:59 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 14:11:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun References: <240502144.15123@webbox.com> In-Reply-To: <240502144.15123@webbox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >Either you admit that there is an offence called Convention Disruption, >or you don't. There is no reason at all to single out two-suited >overcalls just because they happen with more frequency or cause >more disruption. The rule you propose would indeed be a legal >decision, for the Laws give permission to regulate the use of >conventions. But it would, in my view, be a singularly poor decision. I do not think it is that bad an idea to have an offence called Convention Disruption whose use is solely concerned in particular conventions that have been adjudged to cause a lot of trouble. I do not think it necessary to either have CD, or not. If it is felt that there are too many problems with Ghestem then a reg that says Ghestem may only be played subject to certain further rules, that do not apply to other conventions, seems sensible to me. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 25 08:13:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4OMBko14744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 2002 08:11:46 +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 g4OMBfH14740 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 08:11:41 +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 RAA25528 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 17:59:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA22878 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 May 2002 17:59:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 17:59:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205242159.RAA22878@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > How are you defining optimum? In a simulation, each team is given a quantitative ranking, so you know the order in which the teams "ought" to finish. Then one defines a "figure of demerit" related to the difference between the expected and the actual order of finish. Reasonable people can disagree on exactly how to define the "figure of demerit." Qualitatively, it probably should be more important for the best or near-best team to finish first, and there should be little difference if "team 50" finishes in 40th place. In Richard's problem, you would want to define a figure of demerit that gets big if the best team finishes out of the top eight, for example, but switching team 8 with team 9 should have a minor effect, and ordering below eighth place shouldn't matter at all. If simulating a world championship, perhaps you would want to consider only first place. In any reasonable competition, playing more boards will reduce the figure of demerit. The trick is to minimize the demerit subject to the constraint of playing a fixed number of boards or rounds. > As far as running a simulation, how? You set up the competion rules, simulate (statistically) the result of each match, and arrange future matches according to the rules you have set up. Run the simulation a few thousand times, add up the demerits, divide by the number of runs, and you have an average demerit for that form of competion. You can look at the standard deviation, too, if you like. Then change to different rules, run the simulation another few thousand times, etc. Of course you have to make some assumptions about the ability of each team. For 100 teams, you might assume that each successive team is, say, 0.05 IMP/board worse than the next better team, or you might use a Gaussian distribution of abilities. Round robins and knockouts are easy to simulate; you can probably even do them analytically. Swisses are rather harder because matches after the first round depend on the results so far. > who can beat another, you will find cycles. A>B>C>A. You could take this into account, although I don't know anyone who does. The problem is that you have to specify exactly the "expected" result of each match. > A good starting point for a simulation might be a contest where N teams > all meet each other over N-1 rounds. Should the ordering of winners be > determined by total imps, VPs, number of matches won, or some other factor? You could try any or all. For Swiss matches, you could experiement with scoring algorithms such as adding in fractions of opponents' scores. You wouldn't even have to rerun the full similation to do that, just rescore each "event" after the fact. Of course it's wrong to take any of the above too seriously in all kinds of events. Bridge is for the players, and in some events, it's right to allow more randomness. However, if the question is how to run a serious competition in the "best" way, any arrangement with a very large figure of demerit should be ruled out. Nobody would run a national championship as a knockout with 4-board matches, for example. At least I hope nobody would do that. > From: "Wayne Burrows" > Is a 10-board Round Robin more random than a 20-Swiss playing 1/2 of the > other teams? I would think so, but a simulation such as the above should tell. The problem is that in the round robin, at least if there's a wide range of abilities, the winner will be the team that is best at "beating up" on the weak teams. To win the Swiss, you have to beat the good teams, especially if opponents' records are factored into the scoring. > While I am here does anyone have any data regarding how much randomness > there is in an individual board? I have seen figures from Jeff Goldsmith, and David Grabiner worked out an analytic estimate for pairs competitions. The latter has an irreduceable part and a part related to the number of times each board is played. > I once did some calculations that suggested a standard deviation of about 6 > Imps for Team play If I recall correctly, Jeff said the variance (roughly standard deviation squared) should be 35 IMPs^2, so this is excellent agreement. I don't recall what level of play he was measuring, but presumably the variance would be smaller in very high level play. > and about 30% at MPs. This sounds a bit large. The analytic estimate needs as input the fraction of comparisons that are pushes. Presumably this will be larger (and thus variance lower) in high level play. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 25 12:30:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4P2RxQ14846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 2002 12:27:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com ([194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4P2RrH14842 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 12:27:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-122-119-129.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.119.129] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17BR5V-0001Pu-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 May 2002 03:15:21 +0100 Message-ID: <005801c20391$f8b8d840$81777ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <240502144.15123@webbox.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 03:14:57 +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 DWS wrote: > I do not think it is that bad an idea to have an offence called > Convention Disruption whose use is solely concerned in particular > conventions that have been adjudged to cause a lot of trouble. I do not > think it necessary to either have CD, or not. > > If it is felt that there are too many problems with Ghestem then a reg > that says Ghestem may only be played subject to certain further rules, > that do not apply to other conventions, seems sensible to me. One might as well say that if the prisons are overcrowded by husbands who kill their wives, then a regulation that says uxoricide may only be committed subject to further rules seems sensible. There are rules that say: it is an offence to misinform your opponents, and if they suffer damage through misinformation, they may be entitled to redress. At least we know what those rules mean, and so do people who play the game. And at least those rules are based on a sound and solid principle, sometimes called "full disclosure". But it is not to be imagined that these rules and this principle could in any way be modified in a particular set of circumstances. It would be entirely ludicrous to say: it is all right to misinform your opponents in sequence X, but not in sequence Y, therefore if you misinform your opponents in sequence Y, you are subject to more severe penalties than if you misinform them in sequence X. To say, in effect: this convention may only be played by people who can remember it, because we Tournament Directors are (a) fed up with, and (b) incapable of solving the problems caused by, people who can't; whereas this other convention can be forgotten as often as you like because we Tournament Directors know what to do in such cases, is - well, there is an English expression "the tail wagging the dog". I do not know what this expression might mean in other languages. But then, it appears from recent correspondence that not only do I not know what the word "definition" means in English, I do not know what the word "mean" means in English either. However, I am pleased to report that DWS and I are moving ever closer to comprehensive agreement on important matters. In the normal run of events, I would need to vary entire sentences before they would even approximate to my view of the question. Here, I would need to make only one minor modification: the word "sensible" in the paragraph I have quoted above should be "absurd". David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 25 13:45:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4P3heI14893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 2002 13:43:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f114.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.114]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4P3hZH14889 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 13:43:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 24 May 2002 20:31:02 -0700 Received: from 172.153.111.98 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 25 May 2002 03:31:01 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.153.111.98] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 20:31:01 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 May 2002 03:31:02.0046 (UTC) FILETIME=[980B63E0:01C2039C] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun > >To say, in effect: this convention may only be played by people who can >remember it, because we Tournament Directors are (a) fed up with, and >(b) incapable of solving the problems caused by, people who can't; >whereas this other convention can be forgotten as often as you like >because we Tournament Directors know what to do in such cases, is - >well, there is an English expression "the tail wagging the dog". I do >not know what this expression might mean in other languages. But then, >it appears from recent correspondence that not only do I not know what >the word "definition" means in English, I do not know what the word >"mean" means in English either. If you're ever uncertain, http://phrases.shu.ac.uk/ is a reasonable resource for such matters. I figure that some of our foreign friends might find the site useful as well -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 May 25 16:33:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4P6VOV14954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 2002 16:31:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ptialaska.net (garza.acsalaska.net [209.193.61.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4P6VJH14950 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 16:31:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-151-118-127-dial-en3.fai.acsalaska.net (208-151-118-127-dial-en3.fai.acsalaska.net [208.151.118.127]) by ptialaska.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g4P6IkD19061; Fri, 24 May 2002 22:18:46 -0800 (AKDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 22:20:29 -0800 (Alaskan Daylight Time) From: Michael Schmahl To: David Burn cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun In-Reply-To: <005801c20391$f8b8d840$81777ad5@pbncomputer> 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 Sat, 25 May 2002, David Burn wrote: > DWS wrote: > > > I do not think it is that bad an idea to have an offence called > > Convention Disruption whose use is solely concerned in particular > > conventions that have been adjudged to cause a lot of trouble. I do > not > > think it necessary to either have CD, or not. > > > > If it is felt that there are too many problems with Ghestem then a > reg > > that says Ghestem may only be played subject to certain further rules, > > that do not apply to other conventions, seems sensible to me. > > One might as well say that if the prisons are overcrowded by husbands > who kill their wives, then a regulation that says uxoricide may only be > committed subject to further rules seems sensible. > > There are rules that say: it is an offence to misinform your opponents, I thought the term "Convention Disruption" applied to forgetting one's system and therefore misbidding, even if there is no misexplanation. In this context, your analogy doesn't apply, since there is no rule against misbidding. What would you say to a regulation that said "Convention X may only be played by pairs who do not misbid it"? -- Michael Schmahl, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 25 20:29:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4PAPpB15039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 2002 20:25:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from web10302.mail.yahoo.com (web10302.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.130.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g4PAPlH15035 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 20:25:47 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <20020525101317.8276.qmail@web10302.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [202.155.25.73] by web10302.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 25 May 2002 03:13:17 PDT Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 03:13:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Hanafiah Iskandar Subject: [BLML] sign in as mail recipient of bridge laws cases To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-880467700-1022321597=:6383" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --0-880467700-1022321597=:6383 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup --0-880467700-1022321597=:6383 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii



Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup --0-880467700-1022321597=:6383-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 25 22:06:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4PC4JV15077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 2002 22:04:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4PC4DH15073 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 22:04:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (svcr-216-108-198-222.dsl.svcr.epix.net [216.108.198.222]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g4PBpbKK013996 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 07:51:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] A question specific to online bridge Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 07:51:43 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: 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 There's a question that has come up on the OKBridge discussion list, and I'd like to hear any opinions from BLML members. Those of you who are familiar with OKBridge, please bear with me for a paragraph, I might need to explain a couple of things for those who don't play there. On OKBridge, the (overwhelmingly) majority practice is to use self-alerts, i.e. the bidder alerts and explains his own bid. This can cause a bit of a ruction if you psych, and your opponents don't know that you explain the agreement not your hand, but otherwise, the scheme seems to work well, it certainly improves the speed of the game. You type in the explanation as you make the bid, this explanation is sent as a private message to both opps, i.e. your partner is none the wiser. It's also the case on OKBridge that your agreements with a pickup partner are limited to a couple of sentences, common is "SAYC, pd?" "OK". You're expected to start play quickly, and refine any more detailed agreements as and when you get the chance. Now, the question that has come up is that of asking for further explanations. The view of OKB's CTD (I think that's still his post) is that it is perfectly legitimate to ask BOTH players for an explanation, and to compare the answers. There are a substantial number of people who think this is grossly unfair, that opps should in no way be entitled to *know* that you're having a misunderstanding. Others, including OKBridge, think otherwise. Opinions, please? Thanks, 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 May 25 23:27:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4PDPCf15111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 2002 23:25:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dc-mx13.cluster1.charter.net (dc-mx13.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.8.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4PDP7H15107 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 23:25:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.196.230.145] (HELO oemcomputer) by dc-mx13.cluster1.charter.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.9) with SMTP id 50389182 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 May 2002 09:12:32 -0400 Message-ID: <00e101c203ee$f303af80$91e6c418@charter.net> From: "Bill Bickford" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A question specific to online bridge Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 09:20:32 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Meadows" To: Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 7:51 AM Subject: [BLML] A question specific to online bridge > > There's a question that has come up on the OKBridge discussion > list, and I'd like to hear any opinions from BLML members. Those > of you who are familiar with OKBridge, please bear with me for a > paragraph, I might need to explain a couple of things for those > who don't play there. > > On OKBridge, the (overwhelmingly) majority practice is to use > self-alerts, i.e. the bidder alerts and explains his own bid. > This can cause a bit of a ruction if you psych, and your > opponents don't know that you explain the agreement not your > hand, but otherwise, the scheme seems to work well, it certainly > improves the speed of the game. You type in the explanation as > you make the bid, this explanation is sent as a private message > to both opps, i.e. your partner is none the wiser. It's also the > case on OKBridge that your agreements with a pickup partner are > limited to a couple of sentences, common is "SAYC, pd?" "OK". > You're expected to start play quickly, and refine any more > detailed agreements as and when you get the chance. > > Now, the question that has come up is that of asking for further > explanations. The view of OKB's CTD (I think that's still his > post) is that it is perfectly legitimate to ask BOTH players for > an explanation, and to compare the answers. There are a > substantial number of people who think this is grossly unfair, > that opps should in no way be entitled to *know* that you're > having a misunderstanding. Others, including OKBridge, think > otherwise. As a companion question, opponent A self alerts 2D as either forcing stayman or jacoby but not discussed. After his partner bids is it legitimate to ask the partner what the 2H bid is? Cheers.................../Bill Bickford > > Opinions, please? > > Thanks, > > 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 Sat May 25 23:49:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4PDmBw15128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 2002 23:48:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cshore.com ([63.237.136.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4PDm6H15124 for ; Sat, 25 May 2002 23:48:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from BillS [63.112.158.4] by cshore.com (SMTPD32-6.06) id A36F40801C0; Sat, 25 May 2002 09:36:47 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20020525093930.00813680@mail.cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@mail.cshore.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 09:39:30 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: [BLML] A question specific to online bridge In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Now, the question that has come up is that of asking for further >explanations. The view of OKB's CTD (I think that's still his >post) is that it is perfectly legitimate to ask BOTH players for >an explanation, and to compare the answers. There are a >substantial number of people who think this is grossly unfair, >that opps should in no way be entitled to *know* that you're >having a misunderstanding. Others, including OKBridge, think >otherwise. Recommendations from my 1998 publication, Alerts and Disclosure in Online Bridge (abstract published in OKbridge Spectator, full article available at http://home.cshore.com/bills/alerts.html): V. Dual explanations - When further information is requested following an alertable or non-alertable call, the player who is responsible for alerting and providing explanations should provide a timely and complete explanation of partnership agreements (7). Should a question be directed to both members of a partnership, the partner of the alerter has the option, but not the obligation, of also providing information. In principle, the provision of dual explanations should provide a measure of indemnity against liability for damage due to mis-explanation, much as the corrections under Law 75D do. Nonetheless, it seems clear that the provision of this information during the auction provides contemporaneous knowledge of a misunderstanding which is not provided under the laws, and that a pair should not be compelled to provide dual explanations of a single call (8). 7. The same person who answers questions after alerts should also answer after non-alerts, otherwise the asking of a question definitively creates a UI problem. [Note added 25 May, 2002: a complete discussion of this issue is contained in another section not quoted in this post.] Distinctions between alertable and non-alertable calls arise from the implementation by the sponsoring organization of methods to facilitate disclosure, rather than from fundamental differences in the legal status of alertable vs. non-alertable calls. 8. Minutes of the WBF Laws Committee (Lille, 1998) appear to affirm that questions may not be directed to both partners for the purpose of confirming an explanation or determining whether there is a disagreement. Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 26 00:17:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4PEFaE15153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 May 2002 00:15:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cshore.com ([63.237.136.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4PEFVH15149 for ; Sun, 26 May 2002 00:15:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from BillS [63.112.158.4] by cshore.com (SMTPD32-6.06) id A9DD3000250; Sat, 25 May 2002 10:04:13 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20020525100657.00813690@mail.cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@mail.cshore.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 10:06:57 -0400 To: From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: [BLML] A question specific to online bridge In-Reply-To: <00e101c203ee$f303af80$91e6c418@charter.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >As a companion question, opponent A self alerts 2D as either forcing stayman >or jacoby but not discussed. After his partner bids is it legitimate to ask >the partner what the 2H bid is? While I am not in favor of compelling both partners to answer questions about a single call (see my previous post on this), I do not see how the broader interests of disclosure can possibly be served by placing any restrictions on the right to inquire about each and every call made. That a response might *possibly* give the opponents contemporaneous knowledge of a misunderstanding does not come close to justifying any restriction, let alone the nightmare of trying to determine when such a restriction should or should not apply. Bill Segraves Guilford, CT -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 26 02:12:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4PGA2C15200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 May 2002 02:10:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oxmail.ox.ac.uk (oxmail1.ox.ac.uk [129.67.1.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4PG9vH15196 for ; Sun, 26 May 2002 02:09:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from heraldgate2.oucs.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.50] helo=frontend2.herald.ox.ac.uk ident=exim) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17Bdv5-0006NL-01 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 May 2002 16:57:27 +0100 Received: from whalleyg.balliol.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.158.34]) by frontend2.herald.ox.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 3.32 #1) id 17Bdv4-00071b-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 May 2002 16:57:26 +0100 Message-ID: <006401c20404$e6d208e0$229e01a3@balliol.ox.ac.uk> From: "George Whalley" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] call or bid ? Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 16:57:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk It's not surprising people don't know the difference between a bid and a call nowadays. If you play on EBU online (or the IOBC), it says "North to BID" .... rather than "N to call". Fantastic. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 26 02:27:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4PGQ1K15220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 May 2002 02:26:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4PGPtH15213 for ; Sun, 26 May 2002 02:25:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17BeAQ-0003ef-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 May 2002 17:13:22 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 14:35:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun References: <240502144.15123@webbox.com> <005801c20391$f8b8d840$81777ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <005801c20391$f8b8d840$81777ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >DWS wrote: >> I do not think it is that bad an idea to have an offence called >> Convention Disruption whose use is solely concerned in particular >> conventions that have been adjudged to cause a lot of trouble. I do >not >> think it necessary to either have CD, or not. >> >> If it is felt that there are too many problems with Ghestem then a >reg >> that says Ghestem may only be played subject to certain further rules, >> that do not apply to other conventions, seems sensible to me. >One might as well say that if the prisons are overcrowded by husbands >who kill their wives, then a regulation that says uxoricide may only be >committed subject to further rules seems sensible. Of course you can always produce absurd examples that are not similar. That, however, does not move the argument forward one iota. >There are rules that say: it is an offence to misinform your opponents, >and if they suffer damage through misinformation, they may be entitled >to redress. At least we know what those rules mean, and so do people who >play the game. And at least those rules are based on a sound and solid >principle, sometimes called "full disclosure". > >But it is not to be imagined that these rules and this principle could >in any way be modified in a particular set of circumstances. It would be >entirely ludicrous to say: it is all right to misinform your opponents >in sequence X, but not in sequence Y, therefore if you misinform your >opponents in sequence Y, you are subject to more severe penalties than >if you misinform them in sequence X. It is not ludicrous at all. Obviously whether damage has been done is not affected by the convention, but that does not mean that there is completely wrong to apply a penalty for misuse. >To say, in effect: this convention may only be played by people who can >remember it, because we Tournament Directors are (a) fed up with, and >(b) incapable of solving the problems caused by, people who can't; >whereas this other convention can be forgotten as often as you like >because we Tournament Directors know what to do in such cases, is - >well, there is an English expression "the tail wagging the dog". I do >not know what this expression might mean in other languages. As usual, you have got completely the wrong end of the stick. You may like making life easier for officials: I don't. My interest is in the players not the TDs. If a particular convention is making life difficult for players then a sponsoring organisation has a right to do something about it. This is legal, and sensible. It may, or may not be desirable. No-one but you is interested in making life easier for the Directors. > But then, >it appears from recent correspondence that not only do I not know what >the word "definition" means in English, I do not know what the word >"mean" means in English either. That is neither funny nor clever. >However, I am pleased to report that DWS and I are moving ever closer to >comprehensive agreement on important matters. In the normal run of >events, I would need to vary entire sentences before they would even >approximate to my view of the question. Here, I would need to make only >one minor modification: the word "sensible" in the paragraph I have >quoted above should be "absurd". That is neither funny nor clever. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 26 05:50:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4PJmXK15360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 May 2002 05:48:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cshore.com ([63.237.136.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4PJmSH15356 for ; Sun, 26 May 2002 05:48:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from BillS [63.112.158.171] by cshore.com (SMTPD32-6.06) id A7E310002A4; Sat, 25 May 2002 15:37:07 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20020525153953.01b37810@mail.cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@mail.cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 15:39:53 -0400 To: "BLML" From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: [BLML] call or bid ? In-Reply-To: <006401c20404$e6d208e0$229e01a3@balliol.ox.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >It's not surprising people don't know the difference >between a bid and a call nowadays. > >If you play on EBU online (or the IOBC), it says >"North to BID" .... rather than "N to call". Fantastic. So *that's* why online players are such massive overbidders! :) Bill Segraves -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 26 19:20:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4Q9IAi15677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 May 2002 19:18:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4Q9I4H15673 for ; Sun, 26 May 2002 19:18:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-75690.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.167.170]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g4Q952T00980 for ; Sun, 26 May 2002 11:05:02 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CF0A595.6010103@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 11:06:29 +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] A question specific to online bridge References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Very clear (personal) opinion on this subject : Opponents have the right to know the system, not that you are having a misunderstanding. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for the regulations to stipulate that the questions may be asked of either player, but it is not a sensible thing to be allowed to ask both players. I feel the 2007 laws should address this issue. Brian Meadows wrote: > There's a question that has come up on the OKBridge discussion > list, and I'd like to hear any opinions from BLML members. Those > of you who are familiar with OKBridge, please bear with me for a > paragraph, I might need to explain a couple of things for those > who don't play there. > > On OKBridge, the (overwhelmingly) majority practice is to use > self-alerts, i.e. the bidder alerts and explains his own bid. > This can cause a bit of a ruction if you psych, and your > opponents don't know that you explain the agreement not your > hand, but otherwise, the scheme seems to work well, it certainly > improves the speed of the game. You type in the explanation as > you make the bid, this explanation is sent as a private message > to both opps, i.e. your partner is none the wiser. It's also the > case on OKBridge that your agreements with a pickup partner are > limited to a couple of sentences, common is "SAYC, pd?" "OK". > You're expected to start play quickly, and refine any more > detailed agreements as and when you get the chance. > > Now, the question that has come up is that of asking for further > explanations. The view of OKB's CTD (I think that's still his > post) is that it is perfectly legitimate to ask BOTH players for > an explanation, and to compare the answers. There are a > substantial number of people who think this is grossly unfair, > that opps should in no way be entitled to *know* that you're > having a misunderstanding. Others, including OKBridge, think > otherwise. > > Opinions, please? > > Thanks, > > 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/ > > -- 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 May 26 20:05:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4QA4Dq15704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 May 2002 20:04:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (mta02-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.42]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4QA47H15700 for ; Sun, 26 May 2002 20:04:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from annescomputer ([62.255.8.79]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020526095133.LRUN4626.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@annescomputer> for ; Sun, 26 May 2002 10:51:33 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c2049a$cac6dc20$4f08ff3e@annescomputer> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: <3CF0A595.6010103@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question specific to online bridge Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 10:50:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I agree that the opponents should not be told that you are having a misunderstanding, but it is difficult to prevent this if both opps self alert in a sequence and inform both of you at the same time. Such misunderstanding soon becomes apparent. In the F2F situation with screens, only a screenmate gets the self alert - so such misunderstanding may be less obvious. The Online alerting regulations on OKBridge have many advantages, but, as might be expected, some disadvantages as well. At the present time Bridgeclublive mirrors the F2F alerting methods with all it's associated UI to pard. We know how to deal with UI, and similarly we know how to deal with harassment. A middle of the road method would be better. Certainly I do not think that at the time of asking a question, that question should be asked of both opponents. This smacks of an inquisition. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 10:06 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A question specific to online bridge > Very clear (personal) opinion on this subject : > > Opponents have the right to know the system, not that you are having a > misunderstanding. > > Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for the regulations to stipulate > that the questions may be asked of either player, but it is not a > sensible thing to be allowed to ask both players. > > I feel the 2007 laws should address this issue. > > Brian Meadows wrote: > > > There's a question that has come up on the OKBridge discussion > > list, and I'd like to hear any opinions from BLML members. Those > > of you who are familiar with OKBridge, please bear with me for a > > paragraph, I might need to explain a couple of things for those > > who don't play there. > > > > On OKBridge, the (overwhelmingly) majority practice is to use > > self-alerts, i.e. the bidder alerts and explains his own bid. > > This can cause a bit of a ruction if you psych, and your > > opponents don't know that you explain the agreement not your > > hand, but otherwise, the scheme seems to work well, it certainly > > improves the speed of the game. You type in the explanation as > > you make the bid, this explanation is sent as a private message > > to both opps, i.e. your partner is none the wiser. It's also the > > case on OKBridge that your agreements with a pickup partner are > > limited to a couple of sentences, common is "SAYC, pd?" "OK". > > You're expected to start play quickly, and refine any more > > detailed agreements as and when you get the chance. > > > > Now, the question that has come up is that of asking for further > > explanations. The view of OKB's CTD (I think that's still his > > post) is that it is perfectly legitimate to ask BOTH players for > > an explanation, and to compare the answers. There are a > > substantial number of people who think this is grossly unfair, > > that opps should in no way be entitled to *know* that you're > > having a misunderstanding. Others, including OKBridge, think > > otherwise. > > > > Opinions, please? > > > > Thanks, > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > -- > 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 Sun May 26 21:14:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4QBBoT15741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 May 2002 21:11:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bean.epix.net (bean.epix.net [199.224.64.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4QBBiH15737 for ; Sun, 26 May 2002 21:11:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (svcr-216-37-228-36.dsl.svcr.epix.net [216.37.228.36]) by bean.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g4QAxBPD013268 for ; Sun, 26 May 2002 06:59:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question specific to online bridge Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 06:59:16 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <3CF0A595.6010103@village.uunet.be> <000701c2049a$cac6dc20$4f08ff3e@annescomputer> In-Reply-To: <000701c2049a$cac6dc20$4f08ff3e@annescomputer> 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, 26 May 2002 10:50:37 +0100, Anne Jones wrote: >I agree that the opponents should not be told that you are having a >misunderstanding, but it is difficult to prevent this if both opps self >alert in a sequence and inform both of you at the same time. Such >misunderstanding soon becomes apparent. I should probably have included something along those lines in my original post - obviously opps can realise that a wheel has come off from subsequent bidding and/or incompatible explanations, and as Bill Segraves recommends in his document, the advantage that the opps get from that has to be accepted because of the overriding principle of full disclosure. The question I was attempting to address was the one you answered at the end of your post, specifically asking the same question of both opps and comparing the answers. My view, and the overwhelming majority view of those who have expressed an opinion on the Discuss list, is that this is seeking an unfair advantage. If you can work out from opps bidding or incompatible explanations of bids that they have a problem, then that's fair enough, but the sort of scenario that I think stinks is along the lines of asking both opps and only intervening in their auction if you know they're both on the same wavelength. To me, that's clearly (and grossly) unfair, but OKBridge seems to think it's perfectly legitimate. If I can get sufficient (near-)unanimous support, I will try to persuade OKBridge to change the rule. Private responses are welcome if anyone is worried about swamping the list. The more the better for trying to persuade OKBridge of the error of their ways, I suspect. 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 May 27 01:06:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4QF4T315846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 May 2002 01:04:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4QF4OH15842 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 01:04:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-122-74-231.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.74.231] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17BzN8-000069-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 May 2002 15:51:50 +0100 Message-ID: <001401c204c4$d0d33940$e74a7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <240502144.15123@webbox.com> <005801c20391$f8b8d840$81777ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 15:51:25 +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 DWS wrote: > Of course you can always produce absurd examples that are not similar. > That, however, does not move the argument forward one iota. Whereas this, of course, does: > It is not ludicrous at all. Obviously whether damage has been done is > not affected by the convention, but that does not mean that there is > completely wrong to apply a penalty for misuse. Why? What justification is there for applying a penalty to misuse of convention X but not convention Y? Are we to imagine a world in which I can forget Ghestem in England without penalty, but will be fined for so doing in the Netherlands? Or, worse, where I will be fined in one English bridge club but not in another? To say merely that something is so, or seems reasonable, or is not wrong, is to contribute nothing; one must say why it is so, or why it is not wrong. > As usual, you have got completely the wrong end of the stick. You may > like making life easier for officials: I don't. My interest is in the > players not the TDs. If it were possible for the officials to know what the rules were, so that the same players in the same circumstances could be given the same rulings, then life would be a great deal easier for all concerned. That is what I am interested in, not some mad scenario in which players are monitored to see whether or not they forget whichever particular convention the SO at the time does not happen to like. I am interested in making life easier for everyone, whereas the necessity to draw up a list of conventions for which misuse is a punishable offence is - well, it is not a simplifying step. > That is neither funny nor clever. It was not intended to be. I do not write in order to impress people with either my wit or my erudition. I write in order to put forward points of view supported by arguments. I do not necessarily expect these to be responded to in the language of the school playground by someone who has not understood a single word. I am occasionally disappointed in that respect. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 27 09:20:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4QNIBF16064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 May 2002 09:18:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4QNI6H16060 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 09:18:06 +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 JAA10271 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 09:19:31 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 27 May 2002 09:02:11 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 09:05:01 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 27/05/2002 09:02:00 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain wrote: [snip] >People who intend to use subtle conventions have >an absolute duty to avoid creating trouble through >incorrections related to their use. If you can't >remember it, don't use it, and I fine you, just to >remember you you'll have to choose between >explaining right and abandoning the convention. [snip] So the Gospel According to Alain is: 1. Thou shalt not forget subtle conventions, even though misbidding is specifically allowed by Law 75. 2. Thou shalt be fined thy first-born son if thy correct explanation of a subtle convention does not describe what is in thy partner's hand. 3. Forgetting non-subtle conventions remains Lawful according to the Word of Alain, and He shall separarate the subtle from the non-subtle. 4. Ghestem is banished to the outer darkness, where it shall join Relay systems amidst wailing and gnashing of teeth. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 27 09:45:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4QNhdt16086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 May 2002 09:43:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4QNhZH16082 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 09:43:35 +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 JAA16190 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 09:45:01 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 27 May 2002 09:27:41 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 09:30:30 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 27/05/2002 09:27:30 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: [snip] > If a particular convention is making life difficult >for players then a sponsoring organisation has a right >to do something about it. This is legal, and sensible. [snip] The Lindpaddock Bridge Club has found that the Blackwood convention is making life difficult for ordinary players, because their expert opponents are now avoiding slams off two aces. The Lindpaddock Bridge Club has therefore decided legally and sensibly to ban the Blackwood convention, so that ordinary and expert players' slam auctions are now on a level playing field. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 27 11:47:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4R1j8D16154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 May 2002 11:45:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4R1j0H16146 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 11:45:01 +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 17C9Mx-0007LL-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 May 2002 02:32:28 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 02:04:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun 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 >David Stevenson wrote: > >[snip] > >> If a particular convention is making life difficult >>for players then a sponsoring organisation has a right >>to do something about it. This is legal, and sensible. > >[snip] > >The Lindpaddock Bridge Club has found that the Blackwood >convention is making life difficult for ordinary players, >because their expert opponents are now avoiding slams off >two aces. > >The Lindpaddock Bridge Club has therefore decided legally >and sensibly to ban the Blackwood convention, so that >ordinary and expert players' slam auctions are now on a >level playing field. That is hardly fair on the players. I do not know why the concept is so difficult to understand. No-one is suggesting that we penalise players for playing better than their opponents, as you suggest here, or playing better conventions. I find it strange that you think this is what is being suggested. There is a specific problem with players causing trouble in illegal ways, not in legal ways. It seems not unreasonable to attempt to control these illegal acts. This has no connection whatever with your suggesting of limiting players for no good reason that I can see. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 27 11:47:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4R1j7H16153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 May 2002 11:45:07 +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-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 g4R1ixH16144 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 11:44:59 +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 17C9Mu-0007LK-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 May 2002 02:32:25 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 02:00:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun References: <240502144.15123@webbox.com> <005801c20391$f8b8d840$81777ad5@pbncomputer> <001401c204c4$d0d33940$e74a7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <001401c204c4$d0d33940$e74a7ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> Of course you can always produce absurd examples that are not >similar. >> That, however, does not move the argument forward one iota. > >Whereas this, of course, does: > >> It is not ludicrous at all. Obviously whether damage has been done is >> not affected by the convention, but that does not mean that there is >> completely wrong to apply a penalty for misuse. > >Why? What justification is there for applying a penalty to misuse of >convention X but not convention Y? Are we to imagine a world in which I >can forget Ghestem in England without penalty, but will be fined for so >doing in the Netherlands? Or, worse, where I will be fined in one >English bridge club but not in another? To say merely that something is >so, or seems reasonable, or is not wrong, is to contribute nothing; one >must say why it is so, or why it is not wrong. Perhaps if you read what I wrote it would help. Still, I am always happy to try again. We have a specific convention that causes opponents a lot more trouble than other ones, though not in legal ways. It is therefore logical to penalise for its misuse to try to control the trouble. >> That is neither funny nor clever. > >It was not intended to be. I do not write in order to impress people >with either my wit or my erudition. I don't believe you. Much of your writing here is designed to show what a clever fellow you are, and how ignorant the rest of us are. Your interest in the game of bridge does not shine through your writing: your liking to belittle other people stands out like a beacon. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 27 12:34:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4R2WiK16188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 May 2002 12:32:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4R2WdH16184 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 12:32:39 +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/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g4R2Jwf23727; Sun, 26 May 2002 22:19:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 22:02:14 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun 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 5/27/02, David Stevenson wrote: >There is a specific problem with players causing trouble in illegal >ways, not in legal ways. It seems not unreasonable to attempt to >control these illegal acts. Which law says it's illegal to forget how to use a convention? 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 May 27 14:20:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4R4J1216247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 May 2002 14:19:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4R4IvH16243 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 14:18:57 +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 OAA15764 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 14:20:24 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 27 May 2002 14:03:01 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 14:05:53 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 27/05/2002 02:02:50 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >On 5/27/02, David Stevenson wrote: > >>There is a specific problem with players causing >>trouble in illegal ways, not in legal ways. It >>seems not unreasonable to attempt to control >>these illegal acts. > >Which law says it's illegal to forget how to use a >convention? > >Regards, > >Ed While L40A gives an absolute right to psyche, the ACBL has long used a regulation made under L40D to override that "absolute" right. Therefore, SOs could use the anti-psyching legislative precedent to declare a Convention Disruption regulation under L40D - annihilating the "absolute" right to misbid theoretically provided by L75B. But why stop there? Surely SOs should also use L40D to create a Roll Back regulation - prohibiting ridiculous but lucky contracts reached after misbidding. And SOs should also use L40D to prohibit conventions whose names are longer than two syllables: Permitted - Stayman, Blackwood, Transfers, Ghestem Prohibited - Lebensohl, Negative Doubles, Flannery Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 27 17:23:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4R7MKI16322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 May 2002 17:22:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4R7MFH16318 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 17:22:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-122-178-126.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.178.126] helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17CEdR-0001f4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 May 2002 08:09:41 +0100 Message-ID: <001801c2054d$69a77cc0$7eb27ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <240502144.15123@webbox.com> <005801c20391$f8b8d840$81777ad5@pbncomputer> <001401c204c4$d0d33940$e74a7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 08:09:13 +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 DWS wrote: > We have a specific convention that causes opponents a lot more trouble > than other ones, though not in legal ways. It is therefore logical to > penalise for its misuse to try to control the trouble. It isn't. You see, if we did that, we would logically be compelled to ban all conventions. Once we have "controlled" convention G under the above principle, there will be another convention X that now causes more trouble than other ones, though not in legal ways. We must now, if we are to be consistent, penalise for misuse of that convention. But then there will be another convention Y that... David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 27 17:58:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4R7wPF16341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 May 2002 17:58:25 +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 g4R7wKH16337 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 17:58:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g4R7jgr13699 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 09:45:43 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon May 27 09:41:34 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KI7UWGOJVW00359H@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 27 May 2002 09:45:10 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 27 May 2002 09:44:45 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 09:45:03 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun To: "'David Burn'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > DWS wrote: > > > We have a specific convention that causes opponents a lot more > trouble > > than other ones, though not in legal ways. It is therefore > logical to > > penalise for its misuse to try to control the trouble. > > It isn't. You see, if we did that, we would logically be compelled to > ban all conventions. Once we have "controlled" convention G under the > above principle, there will be another convention X that now > causes more > trouble than other ones, though not in legal ways. We must now, if we > are to be consistent, penalise for misuse of that convention. But then > there will be another convention Y that... That could be solved by just slightly changing the reasons to penalise, introducing a level of trouble above which mistakes are penalized. There is a better reason not to do so, the laws! I don't understand what 'logic' as used by DWS has to do with it. This approach, a level of trouble, is introduced by the national appeal committee in my country some years ago and I am fighting against it from that moment on. Being the chairman of this committee at the moment I even succeed once in a while. We had a case recently where 1H was opened and LHO overcalled 2NT Ghestem, showing clubs and diamonds as explained by partner. Third man had a good hand with heart support and long strong clubs, but he devaluated his holding since his RHO showed long clubs as well. The slam wasn't reached and they felt damaged when LHO appeared to have diamonds and spades. The Nat.AC was not impressed by the bidding of the 'slam' pair but felt that slam had been reached had Norh known his system, bidding 3C with this holding. We decided that a pair not knowing the meaning of 2NT in Ghestem (showing the lowest remaining suits) doesn't know what it is playing, therefore gave misinformation. They should have said something like 'ghestem with random bids to show a twosuiter since we don't know how it works'. Misinformation is an infraction , so we could adjust the score. May I tell you a consequence of not trying to solve this problem in a similar way? It introduces misbehaviour from the other side. With his holding in this case third player is tempted to ask about the meaning of the bid, since he himself has long clubs. So we will see the following: a question will be asked when third player deems a mistake possible and not when his holding fits with the meaning of the overcall. Kind of a self-protection the laws don't give him. I consider this issue an important one for the drafting committee of the laws. The 'convention disruption' issue. Any interesting suggestions? This issue will be discussed in a Dutch bridge magazine shortly. ton > David Burn > London, England > > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 27 19:22:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4R9M9G16398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 May 2002 19:22:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4R9M3H16394 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 19:22:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g4R99S421339 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 May 2002 10:09:28 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 10:09 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun 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: > While L40A gives an absolute right to psyche, the > ACBL has long used a regulation made under L40D to > override that "absolute" right. The "absolute right to psyche" is (to an extent) subordinate to the right of an SO to regulate conventions. The laws, IMO, permit SOs stipulating that certain conventional bids may not be psyched - although I recommend that they use this power as little as possible. Obviously psyches of natural bids cannot be forbidden and "rules" to that effect can safely be ignored (notwithstanding that knowledge of partner's psyching habits may be subject to specific regulations on disclosure). > Therefore, SOs could use the anti-psyching > legislative precedent to declare a Convention > Disruption regulation under L40D - annihilating the > "absolute" right to misbid theoretically provided by > L75B. The right to misbid is one thing but that must be balanced with the duty to full disclosure. So "We have agreed Ghestem but never played it together before - ostensibly 2N shows H/C" may be correct while "2 suiter H/C" would be incorrect. I am broadly in agreement with DWS here. If there are particular conventions that cause a high number of TD calls there is nothing wrong with having explicit disclosure requirements (and penalties) associated with their use. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 27 20:22:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4RAMKj16429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 May 2002 20:22:20 +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 [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4RAMEH16425 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 20:22:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48642.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.2]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g4RA9XU08915 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 12:09:34 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CF20634.2030006@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 12:11:00 +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] Ghestem, 826894th rerun References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David, I think you are wriggling. Trying to get out of an argument you should not have been in to start with. David Stevenson wrote: > richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >> >>>If a particular convention is making life difficult >>>for players then a sponsoring organisation has a right >>>to do something about it. This is legal, and sensible. >>> >>[snip] >> >>The Lindpaddock Bridge Club has found that the Blackwood >>convention is making life difficult for ordinary players, >>because their expert opponents are now avoiding slams off >>two aces. >> >>The Lindpaddock Bridge Club has therefore decided legally >>and sensibly to ban the Blackwood convention, so that >>ordinary and expert players' slam auctions are now on a >>level playing field. >> > > That is hardly fair on the players. I do not know why the concept is > so difficult to understand. > Nor do I. > No-one is suggesting that we penalise players for playing better than > their opponents, as you suggest here, or playing better conventions. I > find it strange that you think this is what is being suggested. > Richard was being sarcastic, trying to show you that your argument was wrong. He was not suggesting this as a real regulation. You see David, you have been backed into a corner. > There is a specific problem with players causing trouble in illegal > ways, not in legal ways. It seems not unreasonable to attempt to > control these illegal acts. > But this is where it all starts. These acts are LEGAL. OK, they cause trouble, but no more so than Blackwood does to lesser abled players. It is only the regulation which makes the acts illegal. Trying to justify a regulation by saying that it bans something illegal, when the only way it becomes illegal is by applying the regulation is circular reasoning that I did not believe you were capable of. Let's go back to the basic issue. We are talking of misbids. Misbids are legal per se. So a regulation which makes these misbids illegal is contrary to the Laws. Now the dutch did not make misbidding illegal. They just told all their players that they would not, ever, accept any evidence that proved the explanation of a ghestem was a correct one if it did not correspond to the hand. That makes Ghestem-mistakes MI in all cases, and this is an irregularity. > This has no connection whatever with your suggesting of limiting > players for no good reason that I can see. > > -- 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 May 27 22:35:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4RCY7Z16578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 May 2002 22:34:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4RCXvH16574 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 22:33:58 +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 OAA18827; Mon, 27 May 2002 14:18:52 +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 OAA18890; Mon, 27 May 2002 14:21:21 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020527142042.00a89a60@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 14:28:13 +0200 To: "David Burn" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun In-Reply-To: <001401c204c4$d0d33940$e74a7ad5@pbncomputer> References: <240502144.15123@webbox.com> <005801c20391$f8b8d840$81777ad5@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:51 26/05/2002 +0100, David Burn wrote: >DWS wrote: > > > Of course you can always produce absurd examples that are not >similar. > > That, however, does not move the argument forward one iota. > >Whereas this, of course, does: > > > It is not ludicrous at all. Obviously whether damage has been done is > > not affected by the convention, but that does not mean that there is > > completely wrong to apply a penalty for misuse. > >Why? What justification is there for applying a penalty to misuse of >convention X but not convention Y? Are we to imagine a world in which I >can forget Ghestem in England without penalty, but will be fined for so >doing in the Netherlands? Or, worse, where I will be fined in one >English bridge club but not in another? To say merely that something is >so, or seems reasonable, or is not wrong, is to contribute nothing; one >must say why it is so, or why it is not wrong. AG : there are conventions you may use, other that you may not, in the same tournament. There are conventions that you may use in England, but not in France, and the other way round. Tell me why similar regulations may not apply to misuse. As for the reason, here it is : there are conventions which will cause more difficulties when misused or misexplained (more difficult to assess the probable outcome absent the infraction, more frustration to the victim, more quarrels between AC members, larger chunks of IMPs changing hands when an adjustment is made) . Any convention which appears more readily in a competitive setting, describes a freakish hand and is quite artificial (not merely a treatment) fits this description. Ghestem and Namyats are the most widely used, and for some reason Ghestem is the most misused. > > As usual, you have got completely the wrong end of the stick. You may > > like making life easier for officials: I don't. My interest is in the > > players not the TDs. AG : my interest is to avoid discouraging a player who has been robbed of his normal score by convention disruption. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 27 23:21:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4RDLad16619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 May 2002 23:21:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.btinternet.com (thorium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.67]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4RDLUH16615 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 23:21:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from lanthanum ([194.75.226.97]) by thorium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17CKF6-0000PD-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 May 2002 14:08:56 +0100 Received: from 213.166.16.2 by lanthanum ([194.75.226.97]); Mon, 27 May 02 14:08:55 BST Message-ID: <4629079.1022504935906.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 14:08:55 +0100 (BST) From: dalburn@btopenworld.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MAILER: talk21.com WAS v2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain wrote: > AG : there are conventions you may use, other that you may not, in the same tournament. There are conventions that you may use in England, but not in France, and the other way round. Tell me why similar regulations may not apply to misuse. Oh, they "may", in the sense that the Laws permit regulations of the nature suggested to be imposed by SOs. Some have perceived a conflict between Law 40A and Law 40D. I do not think that this conflict exists, for Law 40A gives only the right to make any call (including a psyche or a misbid) provided that such call is not based on a partnership understanding. Now, a conventional call is based on a partnership understanding, so Law 40A does not of itself give the "right" to bid contrary to your agreed methods (either by accident or on purpose) unless your bid is not conventional. It would not, in my opinion, be illegal for a SO to make a rule like this: if Ghestem is misused, then the offending side shall receive for that board a score of 30% or their table result, whichever is worse. [Ton Kooijman has suggested that this would in fact not be legal; Herman de Wael has suggested that there is at any rate some circularity involved in such regulation. I have not considered their arguments fully.] But whether or not such regulations are legal has nothing very much to do with the fact that such regulations would be foolish beyond belief, even for bridge administrators. The set of rules surrounding misbids, misexplanations, disclosure, and so forth is already far more complex than the players can be expected to cope with. The notion that some additional structure is imposed under which certain instances of a violation of law are handled differently from other instances of exactly the same violation of exactly the same law is... well, the only person who could be happy with it at all would be a lawyer. >As for the reason, here it is : there are conventions which will cause more difficulties when misused or misexplained (more difficult to assess the probable outcome absent the infraction, more frustration to the victim, more quarrels between AC members, larger chunks of IMPs changing hands when an adjustment is made). Of course there are. But that is not a "reason" for doing anything, since (as I have already said) it will remain true as long as the number of conventions being played is greater than zero. > > > As usual, you have got completely the wrong end of the stick. This was not in fact written by me, but by David Stevenson (as was, not so long ago, the memorable phrase "Expect friendlier posts from me".) >AG : my interest is to avoid discouraging a player who has been robbed of his normal score by convention disruption. Of course it is; that is the duty of tournament directors, appeals committees, and regulatory bodies everywhere. It is not difficult to restore equity in misinformation cases, whether Ghestem is involved or not. What would, in my view, be quite difficult - not to say discouraging - is to explain that when player A forgets convention X, he is subject to no penalty, but when player B forgets convention Y, a millstone is hanged about his neck, and he is cast into the depths of the sea. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 28 00:13:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4RED2L16651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 00:13:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4RECuH16647 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 00:12:57 +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 g4RE0H216753; Mon, 27 May 2002 16:00:17 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g4RE0HF22934; Mon, 27 May 2002 16:00:17 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 16:00:17 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "Kooijman, A." cc: "'David Burn'" , Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 27 May 2002, Kooijman, A. wrote: > We had a case recently where 1H was opened and LHO overcalled 2NT > Ghestem, showing clubs and diamonds as explained by partner. Third man > had a good hand with heart support and long strong clubs, but he > devaluated his holding since his RHO showed long clubs as well. The slam > wasn't reached and they felt damaged when LHO appeared to have diamonds > and spades. The Nat.AC was not impressed by the bidding of the 'slam' > pair but felt that slam had been reached had Norh known his system, > bidding 3C with this holding. > We decided that a pair not knowing the meaning of 2NT in Ghestem > (showing the lowest remaining suits) doesn't know what it is playing, > therefore gave misinformation. They should have said something like > 'ghestem with random bids to show a twosuiter since we don't know how it > works'. Misinformation is an infraction , so we could adjust the score. I agree with the concept but completely disagree with decision: if you show clubs and diamonds but have spades and diamonds, then this will look foolish. However, the AC cannot decide on the basis of one hand that the pair was playing (otherwise illegal) random 2-suiters instead of Ghestem. This pair had no history of frequent misbids with Ghestem, so the explanation _was_ correct and LHO just made a mistake. This is part of the game and should be allowed. The statement about Ghestem was confirmed by the TD at the table. He stated that he had played with LHO for years and could not remember a Ghestem misbid. (OK, I immediately agree that in a court of law, this statement would/should not carry too much weight, but then again, this was a local 3rd division team game, where the TD had no reason whatsoever to make a false statement). > I consider this issue an important one for the drafting committee of the > laws. The 'convention disruption' issue. > Any interesting suggestions? I'd suggest: Convention disruption: a misbid by a partnership that has not spent enough time discussing all consequences of their system and/or frequently forgets the meaning of their conventional calls. An established partnership that has spent time on discussing a system and has no history of frequent misbids, should be allowed an occasional misbid. > This issue will be discussed in a Dutch bridge magazine shortly. 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 May 28 00:42:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4REfvs16669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 00:41:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4REfqH16665 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 00:41:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A2BEF5FA0144; Mon, 27 May 2002 07:29:18 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Message-Id: <270502147.26959@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 07:29:21 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: >What would, in my view, be quite difficult - not to say discouraging - is to explain that when player A forgets convention X, he is subject to no penalty, but when player B forgets convention Y, a millstone is hanged about his neck, and he is cast into the depths of the sea. and Henk wrote: >Convention disruption: a misbid by a partnership that has not spent enough time discussing all consequences of their system and/or frequently forgets the meaning of their conventional calls. >An established partnership that has spent time on discussing a system and has no history of frequent misbids, should be allowed an occasional misbid. which seems to me a suggestion that when casual player A forgets convention X, he is drowned, but when established player B forgets convention X, he is not penalised. Whereas I would be entirely happy were the Laws and the regulations amended to the extent that *all* misuse of *any* convention is subject to adjustment and penalty, I am entirely against the idea that adjustments and penalties should apply only in the cases of certain conventions, certain players, or certain types of partnership. This will create an administrative nightmare; worse, it will not in my view be possible to impose any such regime in a way that is remotely consistent or equitable. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 28 01:05:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4RF4tH16686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 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 guppy.vub.ac.be (www.DSS.Brussels-2002.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4RF4nH16682 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 01:04:49 +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 QAA20617; Mon, 27 May 2002 16:50:42 +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 QAA09739; Mon, 27 May 2002 16:52:12 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020527144028.00a8a3a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 14:43:41 +0200 To: "Kooijman, A." , "'David Burn'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun 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 09:45 27/05/2002 +0200, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > > > DWS wrote: > > > > > We have a specific convention that causes opponents a lot more > > trouble > > > than other ones, though not in legal ways. It is therefore > > logical to > > > penalise for its misuse to try to control the trouble. > > > > It isn't. You see, if we did that, we would logically be compelled to > > ban all conventions. Once we have "controlled" convention G under the > > above principle, there will be another convention X that now > > causes more > > trouble than other ones, though not in legal ways. We must now, if we > > are to be consistent, penalise for misuse of that convention. But then > > there will be another convention Y that... > >That could be solved by just slightly changing the reasons to penalise, >introducing a level of trouble above which mistakes are penalized. There is >a better reason not to do so, the laws! I don't understand what 'logic' as >used by DWS has to do with it. >This approach, a level of trouble, is introduced by the national appeal >committee in my country >some years ago and I am fighting against it from that moment on. Being the >chairman of this committee at the moment I even succeed once in a while. > >We had a case recently where 1H was opened and LHO overcalled 2NT Ghestem, >showing clubs and diamonds as explained by partner. Third man had a good >hand with heart support and long strong clubs, but he devaluated his holding >since his RHO showed long clubs as well. The slam wasn't reached and they >felt damaged when LHO appeared to have diamonds and spades. The Nat.AC was >not impressed by the bidding of the 'slam' pair but felt that slam had been >reached had Norh known his system, bidding 3C with this holding. >We decided that a pair not knowing the meaning of 2NT in Ghestem (showing >the lowest remaining >suits) doesn't know what it is playing, therefore gave misinformation. They >should have said something like 'ghestem with random bids to show a >twosuiter since we don't know how it works'. >Misinformation is an infraction , so we could adjust the score. AG : Ton seems to have found the answer to the question asked by many : which law does prohibit you from erring in the use of a convention ? The answer is : L75C ! If you know your partner is apt to err in the use of a convention, you have to tell it to the opponents. However, you could give out UI by doing this, because you will remember to do it when your hand tells you he might have erred. But this could be a way to disallow repeated errors un the use of the same convention. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 28 01:05:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4RF52O16692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 01:05:02 +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 (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4RF4uH16688 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 01:04:56 +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 QAA15602; Mon, 27 May 2002 16:49:40 +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 QAA09708; Mon, 27 May 2002 16:52:10 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020527143648.00a8b9a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 14:37:33 +0200 To: Ed Reppert , David Stevenson , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun 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 22:02 26/05/2002 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 5/27/02, David Stevenson wrote: > > >There is a specific problem with players causing trouble in illegal > >ways, not in legal ways. It seems not unreasonable to attempt to > >control these illegal acts. > >Which law says it's illegal to forget how to use a convention? AG : there is a law that may be taken to suggest that it's illegal to *repeatedly* forget : L74B1. Also perhaps L74A2. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 28 01:23:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4RFMh216716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 01:22:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4RFMbH16712 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 01:22:38 +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 RAA21584; Mon, 27 May 2002 17:07:31 +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 RAA27353; Mon, 27 May 2002 17:10:01 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020527170520.00a96b00@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 17:15:47 +0200 To: "David Burn" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun In-Reply-To: <270502147.26959@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:29 27/05/2002 -0700, David Burn wrote: >I wrote: > > >What would, in my view, be quite difficult - not to say discouraging >- is to explain that when player A forgets convention X, he is >subject to no penalty, but when player B forgets convention Y, >a millstone is hanged about his neck, and he is cast into the >depths of the sea. > >and Henk wrote: > > >Convention disruption: a misbid by a partnership that has not >spent enough time discussing all consequences of their system >and/or frequently forgets the meaning of their conventional calls. > > > >An established partnership that has spent time on discussing >a system and has no history of frequent misbids, should be allowed >an occasional misbid. > >which seems to me a suggestion that when casual player A forgets >convention X, he is drowned, but when established player B forgets >convention X, he is not penalised. AG : casual player vs established player is not an issue. Casual forgetter vs established forgetter is. As a TD, I had to adjudge, some months ago, two cases of L72B1 (undue hesitations with only small cards in the suit) perpetrated by below-average players. To the first, I said : 'this is not correct ; I pull the result back to 3S making in lieu of -2'. To the second, I said : 'this is not correct ; I pull the result back to [sorry, don't remember]... , and fine you 20% of a top'. Why ? Because the second player had a long history of such deceptive behavior and I wanted to teach her (bet she didn't learn ?). I intend to do so with bidding errors, and apperantly Henk is on my side : occasional error, no penalty ; regular errors, PP based on L72 or, harsher, disallowance to play that convention. Now, David and others tell me I may not. The ball is now in your court, David : why are we allowed to make differences between occasional and regular disrupting behavior in one case, but not in the other ? Best regards, Alain. >Whereas I would be entirely happy were the Laws and the regulations >amended to the extent that *all* misuse of *any* convention is >subject to adjustment and penalty, I am entirely against the >idea that adjustments and penalties should apply only in the >cases of certain conventions, certain players, or certain types >of partnership. This will create an administrative nightmare; >worse, it will not in my view be possible to impose any such >regime in a way that is remotely consistent or equitable. > >David Burn >London, England > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 28 01:52:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4RFqhf16734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 01:52:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4RFqcH16730 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 01:52:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A354CA1B0112; Mon, 27 May 2002 08:40:04 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Message-Id: <270502147.31204@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 08:40:06 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain wrote: >Now, David and others tell me I may not. You may, of course, impose different *penalties* on different offenders for identical violations, in order to discourage those who regularly offend. Procedural penalties and disciplinary penalties are at the discretion of the director. >The ball is now in your court, David : why are we allowed to make differences between occasional and regular disrupting behavior in one case, but not in the other ? But you may not impose different *score adjustments* on different offenders for identical violations. Score adjustment is designed to provide redress for damage, not to penalise infractions. There is an legal procedure that determines to what extent a pair that has been damaged by misinformation is entitled to score adjustment; that procedure must not be varied. When pair X forgets to tell its opponents that 4C was Gerber, denying them the opportunity to double for a club lead, one adjusts the score in accordance with what would have happened on a club lead. One does not - indeed, one may not - award EW 30% for misuse of Gerber; there is no legal ground for such a course. Similarly, when pair Y tells its opponents that 2NT shows clubs, denying them the opportunity to make a natural bid in clubs, one adjusts the score in accordance with what would have happened had clubs been bid by the side that had them. One does not - indeed, one may not - award EW 30% for misuse of Ghestem; there is no legal ground for such a course. It is not my belief that Law 40D allows a SO to vary the provisions of Law 12C and call this variation "regulation of a convention". (Neither, for what it is worth, do I believe that the Dutch have acted legally in decreeing that any discrepancy between what a Ghestem bidder's partner claims the bidder has, and what the bidder actually has, automatically constitutes misinformation.) It is, of course, open to directors and SOs to circumvent the position above in all kinds of ways. One may, for example, imagine a regulation that said: as soon as a pair misuses Ghestem, the board is deemed unplayable, and is dealt with under L12A2. But it is important to preserve the distinction between penalty and score adjustment - a distinction that is frequently forgotten in the context of more rarefied discussions. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 28 02:47:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4RGhrA16762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 02:43:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4RGhnH16758 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 02:43:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id AF535E9200C4; Mon, 27 May 2002 09:31:15 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: [BLML] Waste of ink Message-Id: <270502147.34275@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 09:31:17 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk It has occurred to me in the course of this Ghestem business that Law 40A doesn't actually give you the right to do anything. The Law says: A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding. But all calls (or plays) are to a very large extent based on a partnership understanding. If I open one spade, my partner will understand that I am purporting to have at least X high-card points and at least Y spades. If I overcall 1NT, my partner will understand that I am purporting to have a balanced hand of a certain strength, with a certain type of holding in the opponent's suit. What the Law intends, of course, is that if I am to depart from my previously announced methods, then neither the timing nor the nature of that departure may be the subject of a partnership understanding. But that is not what it actually says, and as such, it has for practical purposes no force at all. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 28 03:28:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4RHRuD16820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 03:27:56 +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-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 g4RHRoH16816 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 03:27:51 +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 17CO5R-000PPB-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 May 2002 18:15:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 17:16:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun References: <3CF20634.2030006@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3CF20634.2030006@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, I think you are wriggling. Trying to get out of an argument >you should not have been in to start with. Oh, yes? there are new rules I have not heard of, are there? When I disagree with Herman I should not be in the argument, is that it? >David Stevenson wrote: >> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes >> No-one is suggesting that we penalise players for playing better than >> their opponents, as you suggest here, or playing better conventions. I >> find it strange that you think this is what is being suggested. >Richard was being sarcastic, trying to show you that your argument was >wrong. He was not suggesting this as a real regulation. If he was not suggesting it as a real regulation, and since it is not similar, or anything like what is being suggested, what is the point? >You see David, you have been backed into a corner. By something irrelevant being argued and getting your support? I don't think so! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 28 03:28:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4RHSVF16828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 03:28:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4RHSOH16822 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 03:28:24 +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 17CO60-000Pbf-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 May 2002 18:15:49 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 14:01:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun 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 >Ed Reppert writes >>On 5/27/02, David Stevenson wrote: >> >>>There is a specific problem with players causing >>>trouble in illegal ways, not in legal ways. It >>>seems not unreasonable to attempt to control >>>these illegal acts. >> >>Which law says it's illegal to forget how to use a >>convention? L74A2. We are talking about a convention whose misuse is great enough to upset opponents regularly. >While L40A gives an absolute right to psyche, the >ACBL has long used a regulation made under L40D to >override that "absolute" right. > >Therefore, SOs could use the anti-psyching >legislative precedent to declare a Convention >Disruption regulation under L40D - annihilating the >"absolute" right to misbid theoretically provided by >L75B. > >But why stop there? Surely SOs should also use >L40D to create a Roll Back regulation - prohibiting >ridiculous but lucky contracts reached after >misbidding. > >And SOs should also use L40D to prohibit conventions >whose names are longer than two syllables: > >Permitted - Stayman, Blackwood, Transfers, Ghestem > >Prohibited - Lebensohl, Negative Doubles, Flannery Why should they? The trouble with your arguments is that you are merely suggesting that ludicrous regs would not be a good idea. Do you really think anyone here thinks they are a good idea? I do not see how your examples impinge on arguments where there is a reason for control, namely upsetting people by illegal use of a convention. -- 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 May 28 03:28:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4RHSdb16838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 03:28:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4RHSWH16830 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 03:28:32 +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 17CO61-000Pbh-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 May 2002 18:15:51 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 14:53:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun References: <240502144.15123@webbox.com> <005801c20391$f8b8d840$81777ad5@pbncomputer> <001401c204c4$d0d33940$e74a7ad5@pbncomputer> <001801c2054d$69a77cc0$7eb27ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <001801c2054d$69a77cc0$7eb27ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> We have a specific convention that causes opponents a lot more >trouble >> than other ones, though not in legal ways. It is therefore logical to >> penalise for its misuse to try to control the trouble. > >It isn't. You see, if we did that, we would logically be compelled to >ban all conventions. Once we have "controlled" convention G under the >above principle, there will be another convention X that now causes more >trouble than other ones, though not in legal ways. We must now, if we >are to be consistent, penalise for misuse of that convention. But then >there will be another convention Y that... --------- Kooijman, A. writes >> DWS wrote: >> > We have a specific convention that causes opponents a lot more >> trouble >> > than other ones, though not in legal ways. It is therefore >> logical to >> > penalise for its misuse to try to control the trouble. >> It isn't. You see, if we did that, we would logically be compelled to >> ban all conventions. Once we have "controlled" convention G under the >> above principle, there will be another convention X that now >> causes more >> trouble than other ones, though not in legal ways. We must now, if we >> are to be consistent, penalise for misuse of that convention. But then >> there will be another convention Y that... Is it not logical, though, to have a special rule, not for the one with the greatest misuse, but for any one with a misuse greater than a certain amount, ie one that causes great trouble? So if you control convention G, making convention X the worst, and if convention X is not bad enough to worry, then the reg has done its job successfully, and no more is needed? >That could be solved by just slightly changing the reasons to penalise, >introducing a level of trouble above which mistakes are penalized. There is >a better reason not to do so, the laws! I don't understand what 'logic' as >used by DWS has to do with it. >This approach, a level of trouble, is introduced by the national appeal >committee in my country >some years ago and I am fighting against it from that moment on. Being the >chairman of this committee at the moment I even succeed once in a while. It looks as though your NAC see the logic. I think it is legal to use L40D for this since it is meant to be very wide in its application to control of conventions. -- 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 May 28 03:49:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4RHnDo16868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 03:49:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4RHn7H16864 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 03:49:08 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g4RHaW308963 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 May 2002 18:36:32 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 18:36 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Waste of ink 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: <270502147.34275@webbox.com> David Burn wrote: > It has occurred to me in the course of this Ghestem business > that Law 40A doesn't actually give you the right to do anything. > > The Law says: > > A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally > misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that > departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use > of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such > call or play is not based on a partnership understanding. > > But all calls (or plays) are to a very large extent based on > a partnership understanding. If I open one spade, my partner > will understand that I am purporting to have at least X high-card > points and at least Y spades. If I overcall 1NT, my partner will > understand that I am purporting to have a balanced hand of a > certain strength, with a certain type of holding in the opponent's > suit. Is the order of the laws important? Put L40B before L40A. Now L40A seems to read nicely as giving additional license to psyche, or otherwise invent (eg after a sudden emergence of a flaw/undiscussed area in the system), calls not based on partnership understandings. To me it is obvious that partner will always have some chance of understanding what is going on and the "based on" draws a nice distinction with something stronger like "where a modicum of understanding may exist". I don't ever want to see a game of bridge where one isn't allowed to "invent" calls in previously unexplored auctions. And how about a game where it is illegal to make a splinter if playing against a known novice pair just because one hasn't explicitly agreed them with a cut-in partner? While we are about it can we change the heading of L40B to "Duty of Full Disclosure" - I know headings aren't part of the laws but that is much more in keeping with the actual text. 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 May 28 03:51:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4RHojD16880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 03:50:45 +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-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 g4RHoeH16876 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 03:50:41 +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 17CORS-0005uU-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 May 2002 18:37:59 +0100 Message-ID: <58gw$iGM7m88Ewtg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 18:37:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun References: <270502147.31204@webbox.com> In-Reply-To: <270502147.31204@webbox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >Alain wrote: > >>Now, David and others tell me I may not. > >You may, of course, impose different *penalties* on different >offenders for identical violations, in order to discourage those >who regularly offend. Procedural penalties and disciplinary penalties >are at the discretion of the director. But, but, but, ..... When I suggested that this is logical you said it wasn't! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 28 06:54:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4RKrpv16958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 06:53:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4RKrfH16954 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 06:53:46 +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 g4RKf4O02039 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 13:41:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <008401c205be$c00567a0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL alerting from March 2002 Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 13:37:44 -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: "David Stevenson" > > A new version of the simplified document of ACBL alerts, compiled by > Marv, is now on my Lawspage at > > http://blakjak.com/acbl_alt.htm > > It can be read there, or WordPerfect, RTF or text versions may be > downloaded. Belated thanks, David. Just returned from a trip. My version is unofficial because it has not been blessed by the ACBL. Tired of waiting for that blessing, I asked David to post it anyway. There may be a few changes before it becomes (semi) official (i.e., declared okay by the ACBL CTD). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Off to Alaska May 15-27 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 28 07:04:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4RL47S16974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 07:04:07 +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-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4RL42H16970 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 07:04:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.63.61] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17CRSR-0004sX-00; Mon, 27 May 2002 21:51:11 +0100 Message-ID: <00ad01c205c0$851faae0$3d3fe150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" , "David Stevenson" , "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 21:51:53 +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: "David Stevenson" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 4:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) > > Huh. Reinterpreting the words of Law 73 to mean > something other than what they say ("from among > logical alternatives") is more than looking for a > technicality - it's ignoring the law > Ed > +=+ Something taken from among a number of items does not necessarily have the same qualities and characteristics as those items. In Law 16 the word 'one' may refer to 'logical alternative actions' or equally it may refer simply to 'actions'. It is in the latter sense that the law has been construed. ~ 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 May 28 07:10:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4RLA7Y16987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 07:10:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4RLA2H16983 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 07:10:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-75.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.75] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 17CRYV-0005sG-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 May 2002 16:57:27 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020527162156.00aa34b0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 16:59:19 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun In-Reply-To: <005801c20391$f8b8d840$81777ad5@pbncomputer> References: <240502144.15123@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I'm quite in agreement with David's general viewpoint and conclusion, but must take exception to some of the reasoning he uses to get there. At 10:14 PM 5/24/02, David wrote: >DWS wrote: > > > I do not think it is that bad an idea to have an offence called > > Convention Disruption whose use is solely concerned in particular > > conventions that have been adjudged to cause a lot of trouble. I do >not > > think it necessary to either have CD, or not. > > > > If it is felt that there are too many problems with Ghestem then a >reg > > that says Ghestem may only be played subject to certain further rules, > > that do not apply to other conventions, seems sensible to me. > >One might as well say that if the prisons are overcrowded by husbands >who kill their wives, then a regulation that says uxoricide may only be >committed subject to further rules seems sensible. > >There are rules that say: it is an offence to misinform your opponents, >and if they suffer damage through misinformation, they may be entitled >to redress. At least we know what those rules mean, and so do people who >play the game. And at least those rules are based on a sound and solid >principle, sometimes called "full disclosure". > >But it is not to be imagined that these rules and this principle could >in any way be modified in a particular set of circumstances. It would be >entirely ludicrous to say: it is all right to misinform your opponents >in sequence X, but not in sequence Y, therefore if you misinform your >opponents in sequence Y, you are subject to more severe penalties than >if you misinform them in sequence X. It may not be a good idea, but it's easily imaginable and far from ludicrous. We must remember that we have one set of rules for everybody. It might be considered, and treated, as a far more egregious offense to misinform one's opponents about sequences they would assume players at one's level to have a firm understanding about than to misinform them about more complex, esoteric sequences about which confusion might well be expected. The practical argument for this view is stregthened by particular stricture of L75 which tells us that we must presume misexplanation in those cases where confusion reigns and there is no evidence to the contrary, or of any kind at all. To actually find this a good idea, one perhaps needs more sympathy than I have with the tendency of inexperienced players, when asked about the meaning of their partner's calls, to reveal interpretations, not agreements, when the truthful answer would be, "I don't know." But some would interpret the stricture of L75 as requiring that "I don't know" be equivalent to, "[We are presumed absent evidence to the contrary to have an agreement and] I don't know what it is," which then presumptively deprives the opponents of information to which they are entitled. Confronted with the consequences of that interpretation, it's easy to like the idea of finding misinformation about some sequences subject to more or less severe penalties than others. >To say, in effect: this convention may only be played by people who can >remember it, because we Tournament Directors are (a) fed up with, and >(b) incapable of solving the problems caused by, people who can't; >whereas this other convention can be forgotten as often as you like >because we Tournament Directors know what to do in such cases, is - >well, there is an English expression "the tail wagging the dog". I do >not know what this expression might mean in other languages. But then, >it appears from recent correspondence that not only do I not know what >the word "definition" means in English, I do not know what the word >"mean" means in English either. > >However, I am pleased to report that DWS and I are moving ever closer to >comprehensive agreement on important matters. In the normal run of >events, I would need to vary entire sentences before they would even >approximate to my view of the question. Here, I would need to make only >one minor modification: the word "sensible" in the paragraph I have >quoted above should be "absurd". 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 May 28 07:43:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4RLhdo17009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 07:43:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4RLhYH17005 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 07:43:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-75.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.75] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 17CS4x-0000yF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 May 2002 17:31:00 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020527172256.00a9cb90@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 17:32:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun 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 10:00 AM 5/27/02, Henk wrote: >I'd suggest: > > Convention disruption: a misbid by a partnership that has not spent > enough time discussing all consequences of their system and/or > frequently > forgets the meaning of their conventional calls. And what of those denizens of the partnership desk, of those who mill about in the halls prior to tournament events to fetch a partner, sit down and play some bridge, or of those who make an advance tournament date with an acquaintance but don't have the time or feel the need to "spen[d] enough time discussing all consequences of their system"? Would they all become automatic offenders, subject to penalty, any time a bidding misunderstanding arises between them? Or be simpy barred from using conventional calls? >An established partnership that has spent time on discussing a system and >has no history of frequent misbids, should be allowed an occasional >misbid. And a new or casual partnership that has not spent any time on discussing a system and has no history at all to speak of should 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 Tue May 28 07:57:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4RLutA17022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 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 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 g4RLuoH17018 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 07:56:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP5.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.5]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA21679; Mon, 27 May 2002 17:44:09 -0400 (EDT) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: , Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL alerting from March 2002 Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 17:47:36 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <008401c205be$c00567a0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk My version is unofficial because it has not been blessed by the ACBL. Tired of waiting for that blessing, I asked David to post it anyway. There may be a few changes before it becomes (semi) official (i.e., declared okay by the ACBL CTD). ____________________________________________________________________________ Happy to know that it also takes a while for somebody like you. I am still waiting for any kind of ACBL approval of my law flow charts after 4 years.... despite the fact their former CTD wrote "it is a great job"... I also made a French "short version" of ACBL alerts and published it through a local bridge magazine... without any "official" approval. 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 May 28 08:00:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4RM03517038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 08:00:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4RLxvH17030 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 07:59:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP5.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.5]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA21776 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 17:47:22 -0400 (EDT) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL alerting from March 2002 Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 17:50:49 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk My version is unofficial because it has not been blessed by the ACBL. Tired of waiting for that blessing, I asked David to post it anyway. There may be a few changes before it becomes (semi) official (i.e., declared okay by the ACBL CTD). ____________________________________________________________________________ Happy to know that it also takes a while for somebody like you. I am still waiting for any kind of ACBL approval of my law flow charts after 4 years.... despite the fact their former CTD wrote "it is a great job"... I also made a French "short version" of ACBL alerts and published it through a local bridge magazine... without any "official" approval. 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 May 28 08:25:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4RMPXY17056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 08:25:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4RMPRH17052 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 08:25:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (hbge-216-222-232-34.dsl.hbge.epix.net [216.222.232.34]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g4RMCpKK001503 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 18:12:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question specific to online bridge -- Down with self alerts! Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 18:12:58 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <119.121b310c.2a23fc83@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <119.121b310c.2a23fc83@aol.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 27 May 2002 17:17:55 EDT, Craig Hemphill wrote: >It is a distortion of bridge to require the bidder to explain his bid. The >OKB practice was, I believe, an offshoot of the original programming, which >permits the standard alert mechanism by the partner of the player making the >alertable call, but which alert is "broadcast" to the table at large. I think you are wrong, Craig, at least based on what was in force when I joined OKBridge in early 1995. Partner alerts (which are still available for those who prefer them) were never broadcast to the bidder in my recollection of the system. However, the bidder COULD tell that his call had been alerted by inference, if his LHO beat his partner to the alert. An alert by partner after LHO had called resulted in an automatic "undo" of LHO's call, and that made it easy to tell that the bid had been alerted. There was also a question of UI for the opponents, when LHO decided to make a call based on the bid being natural, but decided to change that call once the bid was alerted - and we must bear in mind that, due to the vagaries of internet connections, this may NOT have been due to a slow alert on the part of the original bidder's partner. As an example, I routinely see pings of less than half a second to American opps, but one of my regular partners, who lives in a rural part of New Zealand, routinely has a ping of around four seconds. > That >is an accurate reflection of the game as played face to face. The "self >alert" was offered as a means of preventing the bidder from "hearing" the >alert. My recollection of the extended discussion that occurred on the OKBridge mailing list was that increasing the pace of the game was seen as being at least as important a benefit - and as above, I believe that the bidder only heard the alert by inference. If you date back to the days of free OKBridge, before Matt went commercial, it may well be that we are talking about the software at two different stages of its development. > >The goal could have been achieved while maintaining the principle of face to >face bridge that the partner of the bidder should explain the call. A simple >programming technique could have removed the alert from passing to partner >while passing to the opponents. That could have been the standard or an >option. The programming option chosen was made somewhat innocently, without >considering the frequency of misunderstandings. > As above, that code is already there. Bidder does *not* see his partner's alerts, although he may be able to infer them from an unasked-for 'undo'. >Don't we want OKB -- any online bridge -- to be an accurate reflection of the >standard game? > I don't think so, no - for if it were to be an accurate reflection of the standard game, OKBridge would need to allow code to allow revokes, LOOTs, BOOTs, insufficient bids, and probably a few other things that escape me at the moment. They would definitely also need to revise their claims procedures! >What has transpired is an abomination, which is the subject of the current >thread. The bidder is allowed to dishonor his "system," but opponents will >feel vicimized when he does so, and describes the agreement accurately. I would suggest that this is due to a lack of knowledge on the part of the opponents, who are presumably inexperienced enough not to know that a bidder explains his call, not his hand. >The >second prong is that, during a misunderstanding, the opponents know MORE than >the players, and they are NOT entitled to more than the bidding pair. Indeed, particularly when the current OKBridge rule is that you can ask *both* players the meaning of a call, and it's this particular abomination (I agree with the word here) that I'm trying to attack. >The >third prong of the problem is that the litigious nature of some players is >offered an enhanced opportunity when different explanations are given. It is >common for one defender to ask a single opponent the meaning of a bid. When >the other opponent gives a different answer to the other opponent, much >consternation may occur. I honestly cannot remember encountering the situation where one player explains to one opponent, and the other player explains to the other opponent. > >Simplify. > >Remove self alerts. Fix the problem by requiring alerts by the bidder's >partner, and offer silent alerts as the standard, with table-wide alerts only >as an option. > As above, "silent alerts" *are* currently the norm if you want to play partner alerts, which is something that is left to the discretion of the table server. >Make the partner responsible for explanations, but leave the option for the >bidder to explain "common" bids (transfers, 4SF, inverted minors, checkback, >splinters, fit jumps, etc.), but leave complex matters to the alert system. > The difficulty with this is that what constitutes a "common" bid varies from country to country, and OKBridge is an international forum. You would be massively over-complicating things if you required the bidder to explain some bids, and the bidder's partner to alert others. >And if programming can simplify all of this, through a programmed explanation >for SAYC, 2/1 OKB style, or other recognized standard methods, which is sent >to the defenders automatically, saving both the time to type and the >distraction factor, wouldn't that be a beneficial use of the computer's power >to improve our enjoyment of the game? > It would, but while some proposals have been made along these lines, notably by Richard Willey (there may be others), Richard has shown me his specification for such a system, and his version, at least, would be far from trivial to program. You also have the problem that a sizeable percentage (in my personal experience, the majority) of OKB players like to add their own tweaks to SAYC and 2/1, and this would involve a degree of work to edit the automated responses (and I doubt it would be trivial) before play could start. For regular partnerships, this may well be a worthwhile idea, although Mike Mardesich's OKScript program does provide a degree of automation of alerts at the expense of far less programming and (IMHO) a much simpler setup. Brian. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 28 09:42:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4RNfX717101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 09:41:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4RNfSH17097 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 09:41:28 +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 JAA03913 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 09:42:54 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 28 May 2002 09:25:31 +0000 (EST) Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 09:28:22 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 28/05/2002 09:25:20 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton wrote: [snip] >We had a case recently where 1H was opened and >LHO overcalled 2NT Ghestem, showing clubs and >diamonds as explained by partner. Third man had >a good hand with heart support and long strong >clubs, but he devaluated his holding since his >RHO showed long clubs as well. The slam wasn't >reached and they felt damaged when LHO appeared >to have diamonds and spades. The Nat.AC was not >impressed by the bidding of the 'slam' pair but >felt that slam had been reached had Norh known >his system, bidding 3C with this holding. > >We decided that a pair not knowing the meaning >of 2NT in Ghestem (showing the lowest remaining >suits) doesn't know what it is playing, >therefore gave misinformation. They should have >said something like 'ghestem with random bids to >show a twosuiter since we don't know how it >works'. > >Misinformation is an infraction , so we could >adjust the score. [snip] Recently I opened a Precision 1C, LHO overcalled 2D (showing hearts + spades), partner passed, and RHO bid 2H. I held a minimum hand for my strong club opening, with a five-card spade suit, so therefore passed, and 2H became the final contract. LHO's dummy turned up with hearts + *diamonds*. Partner also had a five-card spade suit, (with semi-positive values), so defeating 2H one trick was inadequate compensation for our missed spade game. But it was demonstrably clear that LHO had misbid, rather than RHO misexplaining. It was equally demonstrably clear to me that I should not ask for an adjusted score, as that would was violate the spirit of L75B. My view is that if partner's and RHO's hands had been interchanged, RHO would have leapt to 4S, and I would have gained an unearned +1100. Given that bidding confusion by the opponents will almost always damage them, the occasional lucky error should be stoically accepted as "the rub of the green". 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 May 28 10:25:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4S0PFS17128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 10:25:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4S0PAH17124 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 10:25:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-1-170-179.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.1.170.179] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17CUbJ-0003PB-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 May 2002 01:12:34 +0100 Message-ID: <006601c205dc$4e9ab160$b3aa01d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <270502147.31204@webbox.com> <58gw$iGM7m88Ewtg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 01:12:06 +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 DWS wrote: > >You may, of course, impose different *penalties* on different > >offenders for identical violations, in order to discourage those > >who regularly offend. Procedural penalties and disciplinary penalties > >are at the discretion of the director. > > But, but, but, ..... > > When I suggested that this is logical you said it wasn't! It isn't. But it is permissible. When I said that you "may" do X, this meant only that doing X was legal. It did not mean that it was logical, or even sensible. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 28 10:34:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4S0Y0f17140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 10:34:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4S0XtH17136 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 10:33:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-1-170-179.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.1.170.179] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17CUjo-0004RT-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 May 2002 01:21:20 +0100 Message-ID: <006c01c205dd$886dbe40$b3aa01d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <240502144.15123@webbox.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020527162156.00aa34b0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 01:20:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: > I'm quite in agreement with David's general viewpoint and conclusion, You need to be a little more specific, Eric. I am sure that just about everybody on this list agrees with David's viewpoint and conclusion. Indeed, on any of the many questions that have vexed us over the years, it is highly probable that David was right every time. > but must take exception to some of the reasoning he uses to get there. It is said that a politician once began his speech as follows: "My opponent has just argued faultlessly. Unfortunately, the premisses from which he argues are wrong, and since his logic has been faultless, his conclusions are certain to be wrong. Now, my premisses are just as likely to be wrong as my opponent's. But I intend to make some mistakes in the logic of my arguments, so that there is a probability greater than zero that I will reach correct conclusions. You should, therefore, vote for me." David (Burn) London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 28 12:18:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4S2I7g17192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 12:18:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4S2I2H17188 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 12:18:03 +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 MAA11208 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 12:19:28 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 28 May 2002 12:02:04 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 12:04:56 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 28/05/2002 12:01:52 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >>>There is a specific problem with players causing >>>trouble in illegal ways, not in legal ways. It >>>seems not unreasonable to attempt to control >>>these illegal acts. Ed Reppert queried: >>Which law says it's illegal to forget how to use a >>convention? David Stevenson replied: > L74A2. > > We are talking about a convention whose misuse is >great enough to upset opponents regularly. L75B gives specific authority to misbid. L74A2, however, is titled "Etiquette of Word and Action". I am aware that Laws headings are not part of the Laws. However, it seems to me that L74A2 is narrowly aimed with the purpose of regulating non- bridge behaviour. It is not logical that a incredibly stretched *intrepretation* of L74A2 should over-rule the *specific words* of L75B. Next time I play in an event directed by David Stevenson, I shall ask for an adjusted score if the opponents regularly upset me by bidding making slams. 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 May 28 13:23:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4S3Mbn17237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 13:22:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4S3MUH17226 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 13:22:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g4S39tD09633 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 23:09:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 23:05:00 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Waste of ink 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 5/27/02, Tim West-meads wrote: >a sudden emergence of a flaw/undiscussed area in the system It seems to me that the end of this road down which Ghestem is leading us is that systems will not be permitted to have flaws or undiscussed areas. When I lived in California, I took a short course (about 4 hours, iirc) in how to make sushi. I learned the basics of how to make the rice, how to shape it, how to cut the fish, or whatever, how to put the rice on the nori (seaweed) for rolled sushi, and so on. When I was done, I could present a passable plate of sushi. But I also learned that in Japan, sushi chefs have to be certified - and that takes *twelve years*. Do we really want to tell prospective bridge players that it will be a dozen years before they'll be allowed to play in tournaments? 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 May 28 13:23:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4S3MoP17249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 13:22:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4S3McH17240 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 13:22:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g4S3A2D09725; Mon, 27 May 2002 23:10:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 22:51:21 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au 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 5/27/02, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >Convention disruption: a misbid by a partnership that has not spent >enough time discussing all consequences of their system and/or >frequently forgets the meaning of their conventional calls. Define "enough time" in this context. Does it matter how experienced the players are? If one is much more experienced than the other? Define "all consequences". Are a pair required to discuss sequences that may come up once in ten years? Once in a hundred? Define "frequently". Once per year? Once per session? They forgot once five years ago? If a convention is sufficiently disruptive, then ban it at the levels at which it is found to be disruptive. But I don't think we want to go down the "convention disruption" road. 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 May 28 13:23:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4S3MnK17248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 13:22:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.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 g4S3MbH17238 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 13:22:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g4S39xD09687; Mon, 27 May 2002 23:10:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 22:41:17 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun 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 5/27/02, David Stevenson wrote: >L74A2. > > We are talking about a convention whose misuse is great enough to >upset opponents regularly. See my response to Alain. Also, consider this: if a pair often forget how to use Ghestem, then perhaps a PP *might* be justified. But if a pair are annoyed because their opponents forget Ghestem *once*, is a PP justified? I think not, even if the annoyed pair are so because it's happened to them a dozen times. 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 May 28 13:23:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4S3Miu17247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 13:22:44 +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.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 g4S3MYH17232 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 13:22:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g4S39vD09665 for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 23:09:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 22:41:44 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun To: 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 5/27/02, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >At 22:02 26/05/2002 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >>On 5/27/02, David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >There is a specific problem with players causing trouble in illegal >> >ways, not in legal ways. It seems not unreasonable to attempt to >> >control these illegal acts. >> >>Which law says it's illegal to forget how to use a convention? > >AG : there is a law that may be taken to suggest that it's illegal to >*repeatedly* forget : L74B1. Also perhaps L74A2. Pfui. You would stretch the law out of shape to get what you want. Law 74 uses the word "should", so violation should "incur a procedural penalty only seldom". Yet the "convention disruption" crowd seem to want not only a severe PP on *any* occasion, but also to adjust the score. I see no justification for *any* score adjustment in Law 74. 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 May 28 13:35:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4S3ZRA17279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 13:35:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4S3ZMH17275 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 13:35:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g4S3MiD20273; Mon, 27 May 2002 23:22:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 23:13:16 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) To: Grattan Endicott cc: David Stevenson , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <00ad01c205c0$851faae0$3d3fe150@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 5/27/02, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ Something taken from among a number of items >does not necessarily have the same qualities and >characteristics as those items. In Law 16 the word >'one' may refer to 'logical alternative actions' or >equally it may refer simply to 'actions'. > It is in the latter sense that the law has been >construed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The set of "logical alternative actions" includes "actions", true, but it doesn't include any that aren't "logical alternative actions". With all due respect, if the law has been construed to say otherwise, then perhaps those doing the construing need to think again. 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 May 28 17:25:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4S7OAw17383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 17:24:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4S7O0H17379 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 17:24:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g4S7BOr29187 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 09:11:24 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue May 28 09:07:09 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KI980IMFHE0036IG@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 28 May 2002 09:11:04 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 28 May 2002 09:10:39 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 09:11:01 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun To: "'David Burn'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk It is, of course, open to directors and SOs to circumvent the > position above in all kinds of ways. One may, for example, imagine > a regulation that said: as soon as a pair misuses Ghestem, the > board is deemed unplayable, and is dealt with under L12A2. Tell me which law allows a TD or/and SO to make such a regulation. And try to avoid L40D first sentence, which I don't accept as a proof (as I still deem banning psyches on conventional bids based on L40D as wrong). Try also to include L75B saying that a pair may deviate from an agreement. ton But > it is important to preserve the distinction between penalty and > score adjustment - a distinction that is frequently forgotten > in the context of more rarefied discussions. > > David Burn > London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 28 17:47:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4S7kZY17401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 17:46:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4S7kUH17397 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 17:46:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A2E15DC20082; Tue, 28 May 2002 00:33:53 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Message-Id: <280502148.2034@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 00:33:58 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton wrote: >It is, of course, open to directors and SOs to circumvent the position above in all kinds of ways. One may, for example, imagine a regulation that said: as soon as a pair misuses Ghestem, the board is deemed unplayable, and is dealt with under L12A2. >Tell me which law allows a TD or/and SO to make such a regulation. I didn't say I considered it allowable; I simply said one may imagine it. Like you, I think that the extent to which Law 40D is employed is excessive; its use to (effectively) prohibit opening bids on less than 8 hcp by saying that no conventional responses may be played to them. But these uses have been sanctioned by the appropriate official bodies, and it is not for the likes of me to question them. >Try also to include L75B saying that a pair may deviate from an agreement. It doesn't quite say that. It says that a player may violate an announced partnership agreement. I am not in my own mind certain that one can violate something accidentally; the word has always seemed to me to connote a purposeful act. But if it is accepted that violations can be both accidental and purposeful, then Law 75B seems to me to say what Law 40A does not, which is useful. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 28 17:55:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4S7st417414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 17:54:55 +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 g4S7snH17410 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 17:54:50 +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 g4S7fL229002; Tue, 28 May 2002 09:41:21 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g4S7fLv01335; Tue, 28 May 2002 09:41:21 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 09:41:20 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Eric Landau cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020527172256.00a9cb90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 27 May 2002, Eric Landau wrote: > At 10:00 AM 5/27/02, Henk wrote: > > >I'd suggest: > > > > Convention disruption: a misbid by a partnership that has not spent > > enough time discussing all consequences of their system and/or > > frequently > > forgets the meaning of their conventional calls. > > And what of those denizens of the partnership desk, of those who mill > about in the halls prior to tournament events to fetch a partner, sit > down and play some bridge, or of those who make an advance tournament > date with an acquaintance but don't have the time or feel the need to > "spen[d] enough time discussing all consequences of their system"? > Would they all become automatic offenders, subject to penalty, any time > a bidding misunderstanding arises between them? Or be simpy barred from > using conventional calls? No and No. They can still use any convention they like and they will only be penalized if the CD damages the opponents. My problem is with pairs not spending enough time are auctions like: (1D)-3C/D. In "standard" Ghestem, 3C shows the majors and 3D is natural (or asks for a stopper with a running suit). However, a large minority here plays 3C to show clubs and 3D to show the majors. This minority is large enough so that when I sit down with a pick-up partner and agree on "Ghestem", I'd have no idea what (1D)-3C/D shows and thus have no agreement yet. Now, if the auction comes up and there is a mismatch between hand and explanation, I can always manage to make it sound as a misbid, where in fact the damage is caused by players putting a convention on their card without sufficient discussion. What I want is that pairs are forced to make a choice: either play Ghestem and discuss the exceptions, _or_ don't play Ghestem. 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 May 28 18:04:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4S84AU17432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 18:04:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4S844H17428 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 18:04:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-75093.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.165.85]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g4S7pFk11971 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 09:51:15 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CF33749.4020302@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 09:52:41 +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] Ghestem, 826894th rerun References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard is on the right track towards explaining why Ghestem is such a problem: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Recently I opened a Precision 1C, LHO overcalled > 2D (showing hearts + spades), partner passed, and > RHO bid 2H. I held a minimum hand for my strong > club opening, with a five-card spade suit, so > therefore passed, and 2H became the final > contract. > > LHO's dummy turned up with hearts + *diamonds*. > Partner also had a five-card spade suit, (with > semi-positive values), so defeating 2H one trick > was inadequate compensation for our missed spade > game. > > But it was demonstrably clear that LHO had misbid, > rather than RHO misexplaining. It was equally > demonstrably clear to me that I should not ask for > an adjusted score, as that would was violate the > spirit of L75B. > > My view is that if partner's and RHO's hands had > been interchanged, RHO would have leapt to 4S, and > I would have gained an unearned +1100. Given that > bidding confusion by the opponents will almost > always damage them, the occasional lucky error > should be stoically accepted as "the rub of the > green". > with any other convention this is far more likely to happen than with two-suiters. You cannot fail to bid one of the two suits right, since there are only three of them. Now in about 40% of the cases partner chooses the one you got right, and in those cases we are bound to have a big fit and obvious damage. I happen to agree that in two-suiter mistakes the "rub of the green" is too big for the normal "usually it works against us" to be sufficient. Which is why Ghestem errors do merit a special consideration. > 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 Tue May 28 19:00:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4S8xXu17467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 18:59:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4S8xOH17463 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 18:59:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g4S8kjr19919 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 10:46:47 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue May 28 10:42:36 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KI9BBVSQOW0035HD@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 28 May 2002 10:46:31 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 28 May 2002 10:46:06 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 10:46:24 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun To: "'David Burn'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > David B. wrote: > > >It is, of course, open to directors and SOs to circumvent the > position above in all kinds of ways. One may, for example, imagine > a regulation that said: as soon as a pair misuses Ghestem, the > board is deemed unplayable, and is dealt with under L12A2. > >> ton: Tell me which law allows a TD or/and SO to make such a regulation. David: > I didn't say I considered it allowable; I simply said one may > imagine it. Like you, I think that the extent to which Law 40D > is employed is excessive; its use to (effectively) prohibit opening > bids on less than 8 hcp by saying that no conventional responses > may be played to them. But these uses have been sanctioned by > the appropriate official bodies, and it is not for the likes > of me to question them. You are not that modest? > > >Try also to include L75B saying that a pair may deviate from > an agreement. > > It doesn't quite say that. It says that a player may violate > an announced partnership agreement. I am not in my own mind certain > that one can violate something accidentally; the word has always > seemed to me to connote a purposeful act. But if it is accepted > that violations can be both accidental and purposeful, then Law > 75B seems to me to say what Law 40A does not, which is useful. Any objections, folks, to understand violating an agreement as being possible accidentally? That is the interpretation we follow for millennia in my country already. And we even hadn't any idea of walking along (in) a mine field of interpretation here. 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 May 28 19:09:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4S99QE17484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 19:09:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4S99LH17480 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 19:09:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A64EE1901F2; Tue, 28 May 2002 01:56:46 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Message-Id: <280502148.7006@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 01:56:49 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Henk wrote: >Now, if the auction comes up and there is a mismatch between hand and explanation, I can always manage to make it sound as a misbid, where in fact the damage is caused by players putting a convention on their card without sufficient discussion. >What I want is that pairs are forced to make a choice: either play Ghestem and discuss the exceptions, _or_ don't play Ghestem. If *this* is the context in which the Dutch say: "all Ghestem explanations that don't match the hand are deemed to be MI", then I agree with it entirely. What I don't agree with is the concept that, if a pair's correctly completed convention cards both say "3C=majors, 3D=stopper ask", and they then explain 3C as majors when it turns out to be clubs, they have committed any infraction. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 28 19:12:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4S9Cbp17500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 19:12:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4S9CWH17496 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 19:12:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A70DDDF000D6; Tue, 28 May 2002 01:59:57 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Message-Id: <280502148.7198@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 01:59:59 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: >with any other convention this is far more likely to happen than with two-suiters. >I happen to agree that in two-suiter mistakes the "rub of the green" is too big for the normal "usually it works against us" to be sufficient. >Which is why Ghestem errors do merit a special consideration. Look out for the Herman de Wael dealing program. It allows suits to break 5-1, for this is a "rub of the green" situation that does not very often work against you. But it will not allow suits to break 4-1, for this is too big to be admissible in the normal category of "bad luck". David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 28 19:18:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4S9IiE17512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 19:18:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4S9IdH17508 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 19:18:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A87CCDF0278; Tue, 28 May 2002 02:06:04 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Message-Id: <280502148.7564@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 02:06:06 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton wrote: >>But these uses have been sanctioned by the appropriate official bodies, and it is not for the likes of me to question them. >You are not that modest? It's not modesty. It's realism. >Any objections, folks, to understand violating an agreement as being possible accidentally? Oh, I don't object in the slightest. I was just trying to describe a vague feeling of unease, in the hope that someone might pick up on it and either: substitute a word such as "depart from"; or add a rider to the effect that the violation could be either purposeful or accidental. The word is, in English at any rate, somewhat emotionally charged (from the Latin for "to do violence", which very strongly implies an intent), and the language of the Laws is occupying various minds at present. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 28 19:31:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4S9VPN17529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 19:31:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4S9VJH17525 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 19:31:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-75093.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.165.85]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g4S9IDT05584 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 11:18:13 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CF34BAC.3010304@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 11:19:40 +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] Ghestem, 826894th rerun References: <280502148.7006@webbox.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 Burn wrote: > Henk wrote: > > >>What I want is that pairs are forced to make a choice: either >> > play Ghestem and discuss the exceptions, _or_ don't play Ghestem. > > If *this* is the context in which the Dutch say: "all Ghestem > explanations that don't match the hand are deemed to be MI", > then I agree with it entirely. What I don't agree with is the > concept that, if a pair's correctly completed convention cards > both say "3C=majors, 3D=stopper ask", and they then explain 3C > as majors when it turns out to be clubs, they have committed > any infraction. > Correct David, and I doubt that the dutch TDs disagree. However, you use the words "correctly" "completed" and "CC". These three words are not always present in the cases that are ruled according to this so-called "regulation". When they are not, I am sure you don't disagree with a harsh ruling against possible offenders. > David Burn > London, England > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 28 19:37:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4S9b2T17541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 19:37:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f132.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4S9avH17537 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 19:36:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 28 May 2002 02:24:17 -0700 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 28 May 2002 09:24:15 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 09:24:15 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 May 2002 09:24:17.0233 (UTC) FILETIME=[70998410:01C20629] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun >Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 01:59:59 -0700 > > >Herman wrote: > > >with any other convention this is far more likely to happen >than with two-suiters. > > >I happen to agree that in two-suiter mistakes the "rub of the >green" is too big for the normal "usually it works against us" >to be sufficient. > > >Which is why Ghestem errors do merit a special consideration. > >Look out for the Herman de Wael dealing program. It allows suits >to break 5-1, for this is a "rub of the green" situation that >does not very often work against you. But it will not allow suits >to break 4-1, for this is too big to be admissible in the normal >category of "bad luck". > >David Burn >London, England No worse than the 'program' that our secretary, Leslie Milton, wrote on his PC. All geared up, we were: The results were entered, there was a bit of whirring and a sheet of paper emerged from the printer. Seems that evening there was a dead heat. Half the pairs were equal first with 100%, the other half equal last with 0%. Leslie returned to the drawing board, and has been at it ever since... _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 28 20:12:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4SAC4R17574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 20:12:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailing.poczta.interia.pl ([217.74.65.28]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4SABrH17570 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 20:11:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (naos.interia.pl [217.74.65.50]) by mailing.poczta.interia.pl (mailing) with ESMTP id D24275D8D for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 11:59:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (naos.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by rav.antivirus (Mailserver) with SMTP id A5FEC7E82 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 11:59:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 3C10B7E95; Tue, 28 May 2002 11:59:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 8A0BE7E84 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 11:59:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <005e01c2062e$4ba17550$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <280502148.7006@webbox.com> <3CF34BAC.3010304@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 11:56:39 +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 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 11:19 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun > David Burn wrote: > > > Henk wrote: > > > > > >>What I want is that pairs are forced to make a choice: either > >> > > play Ghestem and discuss the exceptions, _or_ don't play Ghestem. > > > > If *this* is the context in which the Dutch say: "all Ghestem > > explanations that don't match the hand are deemed to be MI", > > then I agree with it entirely. What I don't agree with is the > > concept that, if a pair's correctly completed convention cards > > both say "3C=majors, 3D=stopper ask", and they then explain 3C > > as majors when it turns out to be clubs, they have committed > > any infraction. > > > > > Correct David, and I doubt that the dutch TDs disagree. > However, you use the words "correctly" "completed" and "CC". > These three words are not always present in the cases that are ruled > according to this so-called "regulation". If so than rule MI on every case when the explantation doesn't match the actual hand - this is what you do in every other MI/misbid case, don't you? You don't need a special regulation to do it - L75D lets you do just that. But you what they do in the Netherlands is to rule MI *even* if a pair is able to prove that it was a misbid. This is illegal. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERIA.PL: Portal pelen informacji >>> http://link.interia.pl/f15b7 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 28 20:14:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4SAEQ517586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 20:14:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailing.poczta.interia.pl ([217.74.65.28]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4SAEKH17582 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 20:14:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mailing.poczta.interia.pl (mailing) with ESMTP id BCEF25E3A for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 12:01:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by rav.antivirus (Mailserver) with SMTP id CDE205C69 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 12:01:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 9F5CB59E0; Tue, 28 May 2002 11:48:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id E201859DD for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 11:48:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <004901c2062c$e2021470$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3CF33749.4020302@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 11:45:46 +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 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > > > with any other convention this is far more likely to happen than with > two-suiters. You cannot fail to bid one of the two suits right, since > there are only three of them. Now in about 40% of the cases partner > chooses the one you got right, and in those cases we are bound to have > a big fit and obvious damage. > > I happen to agree that in two-suiter mistakes the "rub of the green" > is too big for the normal "usually it works against us" to be sufficient. > > Which is why Ghestem errors do merit a special consideration. > Come on, Herman, you really should know better than this. Your position is that if a convention construction is such that the "forgets" don't damage the pair that uses it often enough, then the we should damage this pair ourselves. On these grounds you want to treat Ghestem misbids more harshly than other misbids. This is what Kaplan thought procedural penalties were for. He used them whenever the misbidders were able to land on their feet. I though we all agreed that this was illegal. The fact that you want to do this only for one specific convention doesn't make it any more legal (I may be wrong about this) and any more sensible (I may not be wrong about this). Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERIA.PL: Portal pelen informacji >>> http://link.interia.pl/f15b7 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 28 21:49:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4SBmuB17624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 21:48:56 +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.tiscali.com [212.74.114.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4SBmpH17620 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 21:48:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.8.191] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17CfGq-000Mma-00; Tue, 28 May 2002 12:36:09 +0100 Message-ID: <006001c2063b$b8672600$4e41e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "David Burn" References: <280502148.2034@webbox.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 12:33:49 +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: 28 May 2002 08:33 Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun . > > I didn't say I considered it allowable; I simply > said one may imagine it. Like you, I think that > the extent to which Law 40D is employed is > excessive; its use to (effectively) prohibit opening > bids on less than 8 hcp by saying that no > conventional responses may be played to them. > But these uses have been sanctioned by the > appropriate official bodies, > +=+ This is certainly true in the case of the WBF Laws Committee, the EBL and the ACBL Rules and Regulations Committees (with the acquiescence of their respective Laws Committee/Commission). My opinion is that such regulations as the EBL and the ACBL have adopted are appropriate and desirable for certain forms of competition. And that it is a subject for variation by regulation, not to be imposed unilaterally by law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 28 22:41:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4SCei717793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 22:40:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4SCeZH17789 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 22:40:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-75093.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.165.85]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g4SCRmH06155 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 14:27:48 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CF3781B.7070902@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 14:29:15 +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] Ghestem, 826894th rerun References: <3CF33749.4020302@village.uunet.be> <004901c2062c$e2021470$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Konrad, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > >> >>Which is why Ghestem errors do merit a special consideration. >> >> > > > Come on, Herman, you really should know better than > this. Your position is that if a convention construction > is such that the "forgets" don't damage the pair that > uses it often enough, then the we should > damage this pair ourselves. > No, certainly not. What I am saying is that the general perception among bridge players is such that THEY (not we) find that their opponents are not sufficiently punished for their mistakes. With all other cases, you can talk of tough luck, but not with Ghestem mistakes. That is why I agree that Ghestem errors merit special treatment. I am also trying to put this special treatment within a legal framework. > On these grounds you want to treat Ghestem > misbids more harshly than other misbids. > No, I want to class Ghestem errors more quickly into the MI not misbid category. If I am convinced it is a Ghestem misbid, I shall be forced to treat it exactly as any other misbid = not treat it at all. > This is what Kaplan thought procedural penalties > were for. He used them whenever the misbidders > were able to land on their feet. I though we > all agreed that this was illegal. The fact > that you want to do this only for one specific > convention doesn't make it any more legal > (I may be wrong about this) and any more > sensible (I may not be wrong about this). > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > INTERIA.PL: Portal pelen informacji >>> http://link.interia.pl/f15b7 > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 May 28 23:55:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4SDscF17833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 2002 23:54:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4SDsXH17829 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 23:54:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-75.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.75] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 17ChEc-0006p5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 May 2002 09:41:58 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020528092712.00adfad0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 09:43:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun In-Reply-To: <006c01c205dd$886dbe40$b3aa01d5@pbncomputer> References: <240502144.15123@webbox.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020527162156.00aa34b0@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 08:20 PM 5/27/02, David wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > I'm quite in agreement with David's general viewpoint and conclusion, > >You need to be a little more specific, Eric. I am sure that just about >everybody on this list agrees with David's viewpoint and conclusion. >Indeed, on any of the many questions that have vexed us over the years, >it is highly probable that David was right every time. I read David's "general viewpoint" as that misinformation is misinformation, the remedy for which should not depend on the particular sequence that generated it, and his "conclusion" (in the thread at hand) that special rules for giving misinformation about a Ghestem sequence in particular are ill-advised. > > but must take exception to some of the reasoning he uses to get there. I agree with David's general viewpoint as stated above, but take exception to his statement that contrary views are "entirely ludicrous" or "not to be imagined". A good case can be made for the notion that misinformation about easy sequences that one might be expected to have fully mastered should be treated more harshly than misinformation about rare or complicated sequences that might reasonably be expected to be subject to some degree of partnership confusion or misunderstanding. I do not, at present, agree with that view, but do not find it inconceivable that convincing arguments for it could change my mind in the future. >It is said that a politician once began his speech as follows: > >"My opponent has just argued faultlessly. Unfortunately, the premisses >from which he argues are wrong, and since his logic has been faultless, >his conclusions are certain to be wrong. Now, my premisses are just as >likely to be wrong as my opponent's. But I intend to make some mistakes >in the logic of my arguments, so that there is a probability greater >than zero that I will reach correct conclusions. You should, therefore, >vote for me." He was not a logician. Faultless logic cannot produce false conclusions from true premises, but can and does produce true conclusions from false premises: David lives in London. Everyone who lives in London plays bridge. Therefore David plays bridge. 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 May 29 00:20:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4SEKWQ17857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 2002 00:20:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4SEKRH17853 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 00:20:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-75.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.75] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 17Chdf-00047h-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 May 2002 10:07:52 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020528095648.00aa6810@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 10:09:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) In-Reply-To: References: <00ad01c205c0$851faae0$3d3fe150@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 11:13 PM 5/27/02, Ed wrote: >On 5/27/02, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >+=+ Something taken from among a number of items > >does not necessarily have the same qualities and > >characteristics as those items. In Law 16 the word > >'one' may refer to 'logical alternative actions' or > >equally it may refer simply to 'actions'. > > It is in the latter sense that the law has been > >construed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >The set of "logical alternative actions" includes "actions", true, but >it doesn't include any that aren't "logical alternative actions". > >With all due respect, if the law has been construed to say otherwise, >then perhaps those doing the construing need to think again. [AHD:] "Among: (1) In the midst of; in the company of; surrounded by." Think of choosing an illogical suggested action from among logical alternative actions as choosing a white cow from among brown cows. 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 May 29 00:28:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4SESW717870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 2002 00:28:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4SESRH17866 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 00:28:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-75.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.75] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 17ChlP-0005fI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 May 2002 10:15:51 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020528101305.00ad1100@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 10:17:45 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun 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 10:51 PM 5/27/02, Ed wrote: >On 5/27/02, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > >Convention disruption: a misbid by a partnership that has not spent > >enough time discussing all consequences of their system and/or > >frequently forgets the meaning of their conventional calls. > >Define "enough time" in this context. Does it matter how experienced the >players are? If one is much more experienced than the other? Define "all >consequences". Are a pair required to discuss sequences that may come up >once in ten years? Once in a hundred? Define "frequently". Once per >year? Once per session? They forgot once five years ago? > >If a convention is sufficiently disruptive, then ban it at the levels at >which it is found to be disruptive. But I don't think we want to go down >the "convention disruption" road. Perhaps there is something to be said for reaching the point where the entire membership of our competitive bridge organizations will fit into a single tournament venue, for that is where we will be headed if we start down the path of making it an offense to not know what one is doing at the bridge table. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 29 00:33:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4SEXPj17882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 2002 00:33:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4SEXLH17878 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 00:33:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A23DF13E0148; Tue, 28 May 2002 07:20:45 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Message-Id: <280502148.26445@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 07:20:47 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: >I'm quite in agreement with David's general viewpoint and conclusion and I wrote: >You need to be a little more specific, Eric. I am sure that just about everybody on this list agrees with David's viewpoint and conclusion. and Eric wrote: >I read David's "general viewpoint" as that misinformation is misinformation... I didn't mean "specific about which viewpoint", Eric, though I am pleased that on this occasion it is mine which finds favour, and grateful for a most concise and elegant summary thereof. I meant "specific about which David". I know we all call him DWS, but that is in honour of the service he has provided by supplying those useful acronyms. His name, however... David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 29 00:36:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4SEaKd17894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 2002 00:36:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (zomeruniversiteit.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4SEaFH17890 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 00:36:15 +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 QAA24681; Tue, 28 May 2002 16:22:04 +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 QAA21575; Tue, 28 May 2002 16:23:35 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020528162754.00a8c880@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 16:30:23 +0200 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Waste of ink 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 18:36 27/05/2002 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: >While we are about it can we change the heading of L40B to "Duty of Full >Disclosure" - I know headings aren't part of the laws but that is much >more in keeping with the actual text. AG : I'm with you on that one. When setting L40B against a pair, you will seldom consider they had secret understandings ; more commonly you will tell them they had to disclose such and such, and didn't. I consider headings as very important as they create the structure of the laws. This would be a good suggestion for a future version. 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 May 29 01:00:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4SF0Al17916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 2002 01:00:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4SF05H17912 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 01:00:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-75.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.75] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 17CiG1-00042l-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 May 2002 10:47:29 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020528102359.00adcad0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 10:49:24 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020527172256.00a9cb90@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 03:41 AM 5/28/02, Henk wrote: >My problem is with pairs not spending enough time are auctions like: >(1D)-3C/D. In "standard" Ghestem, 3C shows the majors and 3D is natural >(or asks for a stopper with a running suit). However, a large minority >here plays 3C to show clubs and 3D to show the majors. This minority is >large enough so that when I sit down with a pick-up partner and agree on >"Ghestem", I'd have no idea what (1D)-3C/D shows and thus have no >agreement yet. > >Now, if the auction comes up and there is a mismatch between hand and >explanation, I can always manage to make it sound as a misbid, where in >fact the damage is caused by players putting a convention on their card >without sufficient discussion. > >What I want is that pairs are forced to make a choice: either play Ghestem >and discuss the exceptions, _or_ don't play Ghestem. Throughout this thread, I have been struck by the fact that the disclosure problems occasioned by "the Ghestem convention" in particular seem to have to do with the way the words, rather than the methods themselves, are used. Which tells me that the problems can be solved far more parsimoniously by regulating the former than by regulating the latter. It seems to me that problems of disclosure arise *not* from the fact that there is a mismatch between hand and explanation, but rather from the fact that there has been no explanation whatsoever other than in the ears of the beholder. This is one area where the ACBL has gotten it right, with a policy that says that full disclosure requires that bids be explained, not merely tagged with a name. Examples of explanations, as written on convention cards, are "3C/1D=majors", "3D/1D natural" or "3D/1D=majors". "Ghestem" is a name, not an explanation, by itself explains nothing, and should not be acceptable as an entry on a CC or a response to an inquiry. What I want is that pairs are free to agree to whatever thay want, provided they *describe* their agreements, with the recognition that they fail to meet this obligation if they merely offer a collection of meaningless syllables like "Ghestem" as though it were an explanation. 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 May 29 01:14:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4SFEVh17933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 2002 01:14:31 +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 g4SFEQH17929 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 01:14:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-75.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.75] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 17CiTu-0006tD-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 May 2002 11:01:51 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020528105107.00adad00@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 11:03:45 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun In-Reply-To: <280502148.2034@webbox.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 03:33 AM 5/28/02, David wrote: >I didn't say I considered it allowable; I simply said one may >imagine it. Like you, I think that the extent to which Law 40D >is employed is excessive; its use to (effectively) prohibit opening >bids on less than 8 hcp by saying that no conventional responses >may be played to them. But these uses have been sanctioned by >the appropriate official bodies, and it is not for the likes >of me to question them. This scares me, for if it is not for the likes of David Burn to question them, for whom is it? If what has been "sanctioned by the appropriate official bodies" cannot be properly questioned by David, who regularly sits among the councils of those "appropriate official bodies", they cannot be properly questioned by anyone, but must be accepted without demur as godlike wisdom not to be questioned by mere mortals. 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 May 29 02:05:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4SG4eF17964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 2002 02:04:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4SG4ZH17960 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 02:04:35 +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 RAA15525; Tue, 28 May 2002 17:50:25 +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 RAA14784; Tue, 28 May 2002 17:51:57 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020528174612.00a8cd80@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 17:58:50 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020528102359.00adcad0@pop.starpower.net> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020527172256.00a9cb90@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 10:49 28/05/2002 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 03:41 AM 5/28/02, Henk wrote: > >>My problem is with pairs not spending enough time are auctions like: >>(1D)-3C/D. In "standard" Ghestem, 3C shows the majors and 3D is natural >>(or asks for a stopper with a running suit). However, a large minority >>here plays 3C to show clubs and 3D to show the majors. This minority is >>large enough so that when I sit down with a pick-up partner and agree on >>"Ghestem", I'd have no idea what (1D)-3C/D shows and thus have no >>agreement yet. >> >>Now, if the auction comes up and there is a mismatch between hand and >>explanation, I can always manage to make it sound as a misbid, where in >>fact the damage is caused by players putting a convention on their card >>without sufficient discussion. >> >>What I want is that pairs are forced to make a choice: either play Ghestem >>and discuss the exceptions, _or_ don't play Ghestem. > >Throughout this thread, I have been struck by the fact that the disclosure >problems occasioned by "the Ghestem convention" in particular seem to have >to do with the way the words, rather than the methods themselves, are >used. Which tells me that the problems can be solved far more >parsimoniously by regulating the former than by regulating the latter. > >It seems to me that problems of disclosure arise *not* from the fact that >there is a mismatch between hand and explanation, but rather from the fact >that there has been no explanation whatsoever other than in the ears of >the beholder. This is one area where the ACBL has gotten it right, with a >policy that says that full disclosure requires that bids be explained, not >merely tagged with a name. Examples of explanations, as written on >convention cards, are "3C/1D=majors", "3D/1D natural" or >"3D/1D=majors". "Ghestem" is a name, not an explanation, by itself >explains nothing, and should not be acceptable as an entry on a CC or a >response to an inquiry. > >What I want is that pairs are free to agree to whatever thay want, >provided they *describe* their agreements, with the recognition that they >fail to meet this obligation if they merely offer a collection of >meaningless syllables like "Ghestem" as though it were an explanation. AG : this is an important part of the problem (the other part being that having discussed and put your conventions the right way on your CC, you might still forget them). The Belgian federation has issued a leaflet describing the most popular conventions and giving them a name. If you play one of those, the way it is described, you may be satisfied with putting the name on your CC ; any deviations must be mentioned. The guide to fulfilling the international CC (BCC program) does the same. As an example for both, if you play the following : 2C overcall of 1NT = length in both majors 2D answer asks which suit is the longer or stronger 2NT answer strong and artificial you may write down "Landy" ; you are advised to specify minimum length ; if there are variations ATV or ATS you have to mention them. The problem with this attitude is that some players write down a name, not noticing that they play it differently, and that opponents take the CC's word for granted (as they are entitled to), thereby recieving MI. Remember, however, that in the initial case, 3C was *not alerted*, thus not prompting the player to look at the CC or ask ; the non-alert itself, not the explanation, was the MI. Names aren't the reason of the mess. After an alert, and an explanation (oral or CC) consisting of a convention name, you may still ask "please explain" ; here the player could not (unless he accepted the risk of creating UI). 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 May 29 02:17:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4SGHW617987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 2002 02:17:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4SGHNH17979 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 02:17:23 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g4SG4jU15706 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 May 2002 17:04:45 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 17:04 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: Richard wrote: > Recently I opened a Precision 1C, LHO overcalled > 2D (showing hearts + spades), partner passed, and > RHO bid 2H. I held a minimum hand for my strong > club opening, with a five-card spade suit, so > therefore passed, and 2H became the final > contract. > > LHO's dummy turned up with hearts + *diamonds*. > Partner also had a five-card spade suit, (with > semi-positive values), so defeating 2H one trick > was inadequate compensation for our missed spade > game. > > But it was demonstrably clear that LHO had misbid, > rather than RHO misexplaining. It was equally > demonstrably clear to me that I should not ask for > an adjusted score, as that would was violate the > spirit of L75B. > > My view is that if partner's and RHO's hands had > been interchanged, RHO would have leapt to 4S, and > I would have gained an unearned +1100. Given that > bidding confusion by the opponents will almost > always damage them, the occasional lucky error > should be stoically accepted as "the rub of the > green". You may think this. But perhaps RHO would have bid a safe 2S, knowing that his partner often gets the 2D bid wrong and being suspicious of the apparent 10 card fit (perfectly legal to do that of course). I do not see why you shouldn't be entitled to information about habitual forgets or unfamiliarity - perhaps you/partner would have acted differently on a fuller explanation. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 29 02:17:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4SGHW517988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 2002 02:17:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4SGHNH17980 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 02:17:23 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g4SG4ku15734 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 May 2002 17:04:46 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 17:04 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun 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: <4.3.2.7.0.20020527172256.00a9cb90@pop.starpower.net> > At 10:00 AM 5/27/02, Henk wrote: > > >I'd suggest: > > > > Convention disruption: a misbid by a partnership that has not spent > > enough time discussing all consequences of their system and/or > > frequently > > forgets the meaning of their conventional calls. > > And what of those denizens of the partnership desk, of those who mill > about in the halls prior to tournament events to fetch a partner, sit > down and play some bridge, or of those who make an advance tournament > date with an acquaintance but don't have the time or feel the need to > "spen[d] enough time discussing all consequences of their > system"? Would they all become automatic offenders, subject to > penalty, any time a bidding misunderstanding arises between them? Or > be simpy barred from using conventional calls? Personally I think a casual partnership that agrees to play Ghestem (without further discussion) needs their heads examined. If it goes horribly wrong they deserve what they get. I can't see a real problem with requiring people who do choose Ghestem to discuss and agree the exact meaning first. On a broader note I think that "convention disruption" per se should be seen as an issue of disclosure. I am fully aware that if I play non-standard conventions with unfamiliar partners they may have different views about certain calls - I will, as far as possible, cater to this in my own bidding. The same is true if a known partner has a habit of forgetting. In my view "convention disruption" can only occur if this "degree of uncertainty" is NOT communicated to opponents as part of the explanation. 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 May 29 02:31:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4SGVTQ18010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 2002 02:31:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4SGVOH18006 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 02:31:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id ADE81D27009C; Tue, 28 May 2002 09:18:48 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Message-Id: <280502148.33528@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 09:18:51 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: >If what has been "sanctioned by the appropriate official bodies" cannot be properly questioned by David, who regularly sits among the councils of those "appropriate official bodies", they cannot be properly questioned by anyone, but must be accepted without demur as godlike wisdom not to be questioned by mere mortals. Godlike wisdom indeed... 1 And it came to pass that in the land which is called Ebu, there arose one who spake with the tongue of an serpent. 2 For he did oft represent his holdings as above rubies, when verily his holdings were as a crock of ordure. 3 And to this end he was guided by Satan, who tempted him saying, When though hast that holding which is called Yar-ba-ra, thou shalt not pass, for then will thine opponents be unafraid. 4 Instead, thou shalt arise in thy might and speak the words Two Clubs, for then will thine opponents tremble. 5 And should thine opponent on the left hand speak, then shall thy partner not double, nor shall he bid. 6 Nor shall thy partner in any wise proceed other than by passing. 7 And then shalt thou alert this pass, telling thine opponents that it signifieth an holding that is not as a crock of ordure. 8 For this is a method widely published in Gath, and told in the streets of Ashkelon. 9 And then will thine opponent on the right hand be sore afraid, and he will be struck dumb. 10 So shalt thou also be dumb, for then shall thine opponents play in an part score. 11 And great will be the number of overtricks therein, and there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 12 Now when the man tempted of Satan began to do all that the Evil One had told him, great was the wrath of the people of Ebu. 13 And they called upon the High Priest of Ebu, which was called Grat-an, saying, 14 This man taketh from us our birthright, he stealeth the bread from our mouths, 15 And he must be put to death, according to the law, for is it not written Thou shalt not cause offence to another? 16 And Grat-an spake to the people of Ebu saying, Not so, for that is not according to our holy law, 18 For the time of David is not yet come, when if a man followeth not when able to the suit of an card, he shall be torn limb from limb and his body devoured by wolves. 17 Yet must this man be prevented from treading further the paths of unrighteousness, 18 Therefore will I issue a decree, that shall declare it an abomination in the sight of the Lord for a man to employ an artifice in order to dissemble. 19 Yet were others of the Council of Ebu troubled, and they said to Grat-an, 20 Art thou sure that this accordeth with Holy Writ? For doth the Good Book not say, Thou mayest in any wise dissemble, provided that thy partner hath no idea what goeth on? 21 And Grat-an said to the Council, Be not afraid, for doth not the Good Book also say, A Council may in any wise control the use of an artifice? 22 Then were the Council glad, and a decree went out that if a man were by means of an artifice to disguise the nature of his holding, a millstone would be tied about his neck, and he would be cast into the depths of the sea. 23 And when the people of Ebu saw this, their hearts were joyful, and they praised Grat-an saying, Verily, this man could talk the hind leg off an donkey. 24 Yet there was one called Cam-er-on who departed from the land of Ebu with an heavy heart, 25 And he went and hanged himself. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 29 04:59:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4SIxGa18093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 2002 04:59:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4SIxBH18089 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 04:59:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-75.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.75] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 17ClzP-0006Ev-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 May 2002 14:46:35 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020528144257.00ad4650@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 14:48:30 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:04 PM 5/28/02, Tim wrote: >Personally I think a casual partnership that agrees to play Ghestem >(without further discussion) needs their heads examined. Yes. >If it goes >horribly wrong they deserve what they get. Yes. >I can't see a real problem >with requiring people who do choose Ghestem to discuss and agree the >exact >meaning first. It is a real problem if you single out Ghestem for such treatment, as, as David B. points out, there is no basis in law for doing so. It is also a real problem if you require people who do choose any method to discuss and agree the exact meaning first, because 99% of all calls made in all duplicates worldwide on any given day would become infractions. Perhaps we should regulate that pairs are allowed to play Ghestem only if they've had their heads examined within the past 12 months. 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 May 29 07:23:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4SLMTY18157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 2002 07:22:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4SLMOH18153 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 07:22:25 +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 g4SL9lL20413 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 14:09:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004701c2068c$22661a20$6501a8c0@irv> From: "Irv Kostal" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] RE: A question specific to online bridge Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 14:10:45 -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 I didn't see any reaction to an idea I had, and perhaps it was because it was buried deep in a rather long post, or maybe because it's a lousy idea! I would like to say that I have no particular heartburn about selt-alerts, especially for regular partnerships, but self-alerts do come close to the line as regards disclosure of your actual hand, especially for those not sensitive to the difference between that and explaining agreements. How would everybody like it if the software showed your bid to partner BEFORE it was displayed to the opponents? Partner could then provide an alert, if required (with explanation, hit an appropriate button, and the bid would be displayed for all to see. I think this would not slow up the game very much, if at all, would tend to duplicate the FTF situation, with the advantage that there is little or no UI to deal with. I don't know how difficult to program this would be, but it seems possible, at least. If so, would this be a good solution? Or does everyone really LIKE self-alerts? Irv Kostal -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 29 08:59:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4SMwKI18198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 2002 08:58:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4SMwEH18194 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 08:58:15 +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 17Cpie-000OQ9-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 May 2002 23:45:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 18:58:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Waste of ink 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 Ed Reppert writes >On 5/27/02, Tim West-meads wrote: > >>a sudden emergence of a flaw/undiscussed area in the system > >It seems to me that the end of this road down which Ghestem is leading >us is that systems will not be permitted to have flaws or undiscussed >areas. > >When I lived in California, I took a short course (about 4 hours, iirc) >in how to make sushi. I learned the basics of how to make the rice, how >to shape it, how to cut the fish, or whatever, how to put the rice on >the nori (seaweed) for rolled sushi, and so on. When I was done, I could >present a passable plate of sushi. But I also learned that in Japan, >sushi chefs have to be certified - and that takes *twelve years*. Do we >really want to tell prospective bridge players that it will be a dozen >years before they'll be allowed to play in tournaments? There is a fish which is eaten in Japan which is poisonous. It is considered a great delicacy, but it does need to be prepared with care. Every so often there is a scandal as some Japanese restaurant manages to poison its diners one evening. Failure to prepare that particular dish correctly causes more trouble [!!] and I would not be averse to Ed not being allowed to serve it on four hour's training. It is not unreasonable to treat things differently which cause more trouble. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 29 10:36:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4T0Zb818264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 2002 10:35:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4T0ZWH18260 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 10:35:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g4T0MsD10145 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 20:22:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 20:16:27 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020528095648.00aa6810@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 5/28/02, Eric Landau wrote: >Think of choosing an illogical suggested action from among logical >alternative actions as choosing a white cow from among brown cows. "Pfui." -- Nero Wolfe, as reported by Rex Stout :-) 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 May 29 11:05:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4T15hn18286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 2002 11:05:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4T15cH18282 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 11:05:39 +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/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g4T0qrf28103 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 20:52:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 20:30:04 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Waste of ink 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 5/28/02, David Stevenson wrote: > There is a fish which is eaten in Japan which is poisonous. It is >considered a great delicacy, but it does need to be prepared with care. >Every so often there is a scandal as some Japanese restaurant manages to >poison its diners one evening. > > Failure to prepare that particular dish correctly causes more trouble >[!!] and I would not be averse to Ed not being allowed to serve it on >four hour's training. > > It is not unreasonable to treat things differently which cause more >trouble. The fish is called (in Japanese) "fugu". It is a kind of blowfish. It contains a gland whose contents are highly poisonous, and the art of removing that gland safely is the subject of intense training, and chefs who prepare fugu must be certified and licensed to do so. Several hundred thousand people eat fugu each year. One or two die, in spite of the training and expertise of the chefs. The preparation of fugu has nothing to do with the preparation of sushi, and the licensing of fugu chefs has nothing to do with the licensing of sushi chefs. I would not attempt to serve fugu in any case. My luck, I'd poison myself. :-) 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 May 29 14:23:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4T4MkZ18458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 2002 14:22:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.56.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4T4MfH18454 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 14:22:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from accordion2.acsys.anu.edu.au (accordion2.apac.edu.au [150.203.56.15]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA28646 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 14:10:05 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020529133948.031de700@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 14:10:41 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi All Due to various constraints on my time, my third new job (at the same institution) in 18 months (all improvements :-) ), my new role here, and various other issues, I've had to make a difficult decision. I want to give BLML to somebody else. I'm not under an immediate time pressure, yet, but would like to find a solution, where somebody else on this big, wide, sunburnt Net of ours can take on the hosting of the list - running a mailing list manager, with bonus services such as a digest version, a web interface, a web archive, handle the usual "Reply-to:List" discussion, etc. I'd love to provide all of these, but just don't have the time or other resources. Handling the daily set of bounces from the list alone, considering who to kick off, who to wait-and-see, etc. take up time. Not to mention that the rgb.anu.edu.au host is starting to show its age (an old, and worryingly noisy, Sun SPARC5). I'm looking for somebody very sympathetic to BLML to take this on. You'll also need to convince me you have the resources, time, bandwidth, storage, etc. I've subscribed to the list again, so it can be discussed on-list if you like, otherwise, feel free to email me directly. Clearly the opinions of those whose name appears near the top of the subscriber list carries more weight than those lower down ;^> (Just kidding. Mostly.) Obviously I'll pass on the existing subscriber list and BLML archives to the new host. I'd also set up a forwarding mechanism for the rgb address for a while. Did you know that BLML is (just) over 6 years old now? And in the next few days it will see its 45,000th message posted.... (Hmm, and with an average of around 250 subscribers for the bulk of its life (275 at this moment), that's somewhere around 11 million messages delivered....). Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Information Infrastructure Services, | Ph: +61 2 61258810 Markus.Buchhorn@anu.edu.au, mail: CompSci,CSIT Bldg #108|Fax: +61 2 61259805 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia|Mobile: 0417 281429 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 29 18:00:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4T7xfL18542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 2002 17:59:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (mta05-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4T7xZH18538 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 17:59:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from annescomputer ([62.255.11.137]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020529074656.EKNG2755.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@annescomputer> for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 08:46:56 +0100 Message-ID: <002201c206e5$036c45a0$890bff3e@annescomputer> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020529133948.031de700@acsys.anu.edu.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 08:46:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk What made me feel that this was going to be a good day ?- awe!!!! Marcus :-( I understand how time consuming the job is - but isn't there another labour of love that you would like to dump instead. If you are adamant , and I do understand, all I hope is that we find someone who does as good a job as you have, and I for one would like to thank you for all you have done for us. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Markus Buchhorn" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 5:10 AM Subject: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home > > Hi All > > Due to various constraints on my time, my third new job (at the same institution) in 18 months (all improvements :-) ), my new role here, and various other issues, I've had to make a difficult decision. > > I want to give BLML to somebody else. > > I'm not under an immediate time pressure, yet, but would like to find a solution, where somebody else on this big, wide, sunburnt Net of ours can take on the hosting of the list - running a mailing list manager, with bonus services such as a digest version, a web interface, a web archive, handle the usual "Reply-to:List" discussion, etc. I'd love to provide all of these, but just don't have the time or other resources. Handling the daily set of bounces from the list alone, considering who to kick off, who to wait-and-see, etc. take up time. Not to mention that the rgb.anu.edu.au host is starting to show its age (an old, and worryingly noisy, Sun SPARC5). > > I'm looking for somebody very sympathetic to BLML to take this on. You'll also need to convince me you have the resources, time, bandwidth, storage, etc. > > I've subscribed to the list again, so it can be discussed on-list if you like, otherwise, feel free to email me directly. > > Clearly the opinions of those whose name appears near the top of the subscriber list carries more weight than those lower down ;^> (Just kidding. Mostly.) > > Obviously I'll pass on the existing subscriber list and BLML archives to the new host. I'd also set up a forwarding mechanism for the rgb address for a while. > > Did you know that BLML is (just) over 6 years old now? And in the next few days it will see its 45,000th message posted.... (Hmm, and with an average of around 250 subscribers for the bulk of its life (275 at this moment), that's somewhere around 11 million messages delivered....). > > Cheers, > Markus > > Markus Buchhorn, Information Infrastructure Services, | Ph: +61 2 61258810 > Markus.Buchhorn@anu.edu.au, mail: CompSci,CSIT Bldg #108|Fax: +61 2 61259805 > Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia|Mobile: 0417 281429 > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 29 18:05:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4T84uP18558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 2002 18:04:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4T84pH18554 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 18:04:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g4T7qCr28721 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 09:52:13 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed May 29 09:48:02 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KIANP9B0L40037VF@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 29 May 2002 09:51:42 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 29 May 2002 09:51:16 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 09:51:41 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun To: "'David Burn'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Am I illiterate (yes I am) and is this a rephrased chapter of a famous work or did you really create this in the previous hours? If the latter may I ask to reform this group in just readers and asking you to contribute a daily column? We probably can produce a book out of it and I gladly share the money with you (30% to your side). ton > Eric wrote: > > >If what has been "sanctioned by the appropriate official bodies" > cannot be properly questioned by David, who regularly sits among > the councils of those "appropriate official bodies", they cannot > be properly questioned by anyone, but must be accepted without > demur as godlike wisdom not to be questioned by mere mortals. > > Godlike wisdom indeed... > > 1 And it came to pass that in the land which is called Ebu, there > arose one who spake with the tongue of an serpent. > 2 For he did oft represent his holdings as above rubies, when > verily his holdings were as a crock of ordure. > 3 And to this end he was guided by Satan, who tempted him saying, > When though hast that holding which is called Yar-ba-ra, thou > shalt not pass, for then will thine opponents be unafraid. > 4 Instead, thou shalt arise in thy might and speak the words > Two Clubs, for then will thine opponents tremble. > 5 And should thine opponent on the left hand speak, then shall > thy partner not double, nor shall he bid. > 6 Nor shall thy partner in any wise proceed other than by passing. > 7 And then shalt thou alert this pass, telling thine opponents > that it signifieth an holding that is not as a crock of ordure. > 8 For this is a method widely published in Gath, and told in > the streets of Ashkelon. > 9 And then will thine opponent on the right hand be sore afraid, > and he will be struck dumb. > 10 So shalt thou also be dumb, for then shall thine opponents > play in an part score. > 11 And great will be the number of overtricks therein, and there > will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. > 12 Now when the man tempted of Satan began to do all that the > Evil One had told him, great was the wrath of the people of Ebu. > 13 And they called upon the High Priest of Ebu, which was called > Grat-an, saying, > 14 This man taketh from us our birthright, he stealeth the bread > from our mouths, > 15 And he must be put to death, according to the law, for is > it not written Thou shalt not cause offence to another? > 16 And Grat-an spake to the people of Ebu saying, Not so, for > that is not according to our holy law, > 18 For the time of David is not yet come, when if a man followeth > not when able to the suit of an card, he shall be torn limb from > limb and his body devoured by wolves. > 17 Yet must this man be prevented from treading further the paths > of unrighteousness, > 18 Therefore will I issue a decree, that shall declare it an > abomination in the sight of the Lord for a man to employ an artifice > in order to dissemble. > 19 Yet were others of the Council of Ebu troubled, and they said > to Grat-an, > 20 Art thou sure that this accordeth with Holy Writ? For doth > the Good Book not say, Thou mayest in any wise dissemble, provided > that thy partner hath no idea what goeth on? > 21 And Grat-an said to the Council, Be not afraid, for doth not > the Good Book also say, A Council may in any wise control the > use of an artifice? > 22 Then were the Council glad, and a decree went out that if > a man were by means of an artifice to disguise the nature of > his holding, a millstone would be tied about his neck, and he > would be cast into the depths of the sea. > 23 And when the people of Ebu saw this, their hearts were joyful, > and they praised Grat-an saying, Verily, this man could talk > the hind leg off an donkey. > 24 Yet there was one called Cam-er-on who departed from the land > of Ebu with an heavy heart, > 25 And he went and hanged himself. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 29 18:11:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4T8Bgn18575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 2002 18:11:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4T8BaH18571 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 18:11:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g4T7wwr29972 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 09:58:59 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed May 29 09:54:49 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KIANXB0GMM0037VI@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 29 May 2002 09:58:11 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 29 May 2002 09:57:46 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 09:58:08 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun To: "'David Burn'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > Eric wrote: > > >If what has been "sanctioned by the appropriate official bodies" > cannot be properly questioned by David, who regularly sits among > the councils of those "appropriate official bodies", they cannot > be properly questioned by anyone, but must be accepted without > demur as godlike wisdom not to be questioned by mere mortals. Why is it that from all of you only David seems to understand laws and order? 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 May 29 18:20:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4T8K1K18596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 2002 18:20:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4T8JtH18591 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 18:19:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g4T87Hr03151 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 10:07:18 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed May 29 10:03:02 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KIAO97BPAE0037WD@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 29 May 2002 10:07:00 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 29 May 2002 10:06:34 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 10:06:57 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home To: "'Anne Jones'" , 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 > > What made me feel that this was going to be a good day ?- > awe!!!! Marcus > :-( Don't count on it. We want and need to have a say in your (not) civil career! 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 May 29 20:35:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4TAYwP18642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 2002 20:34:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4TAYrH18638 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 20:34:53 +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 g4TAMA231424; Wed, 29 May 2002 12:22:10 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g4TAMA320560; Wed, 29 May 2002 12:22:10 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 12:22:10 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Markus Buchhorn cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020529133948.031de700@acsys.anu.edu.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Markus, others, > I'm looking for somebody very sympathetic to BLML to take this on. > You'll also need to convince me you have the resources, time, bandwidth, > storage, etc. Please take a look at http://www.amsterdamned.org/ and in particular the mailing list section (toybox-announce@amsterdamned.org). It is fairly straightforward for me to make a copy of this list and call it blml. The only thing I want to add, is to install very strict spam filters. 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 May 29 22:40:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4TCduI18798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 2002 22:39:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4TCdmH18794 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 22:39:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-75.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.75] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 17D2Xn-0001qK-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 May 2002 08:27:11 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020529082823.00ad5350@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 08:29:07 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Fwd: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >At 03:58 AM 5/29/02, Kooijman wrote: > >> > Eric wrote: >> > >> > >If what has been "sanctioned by the appropriate official bodies" >> > cannot be properly questioned by David, who regularly sits among >> > the councils of those "appropriate official bodies", they cannot >> > be properly questioned by anyone, but must be accepted without >> > demur as godlike wisdom not to be questioned by mere mortals. >> >>Why is it that from all of you only David seems to understand laws and >>order? > >We who live under democratic governments are brainwashed from birth to >believe that if we don't like a law, we must nevertheless obey it, but >that we have the god-given right as citizens to express our opinion of >it and to try to convince our lawmakers to change it. When we find >ourselves in a context where "law and order" requires that the laws be >followed without demur, where it is considered improper to question >those laws, we find we simply cannot overcome our life-long conditioning. > >Admittedly, neither David nor Ton has ever claimed that the WBF was a >democratic institution. I hope they will forgive us if we >occasionally slip and try to deal with it as though it were. 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 May 29 23:07:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4TD77918843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 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 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 g4TD71H18838 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 23:07:02 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g4TCsMp27538 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 May 2002 13:54:22 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 13:54 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun 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: <4.3.2.7.0.20020528144257.00ad4650@pop.starpower.net> > At 12:04 PM 5/28/02, Tim wrote: > > >Personally I think a casual partnership that agrees to play Ghestem > >(without further discussion) needs their heads examined. > > Yes. > > >If it goes > >horribly wrong they deserve what they get. > > Yes. > > >I can't see a real problem > >with requiring people who do choose Ghestem to discuss and agree the > >exact meaning first. > > It is a real problem if you single out Ghestem for such treatment, as, > as David B. points out, there is no basis in law for doing so. It could be a condition of use imposed under L40D. This is certainly more mild than some of the abominations that would be condoned under that law. It could also be part of a regulation on proper disclosure (If you have not discussed Ghestem in detail the proper form of disclosure is....). In fact disclosure regulations of this nature (If there is a reasonable possibility of uncertainty this should be included in the explanation) would not, IMO, be unhelpful. > It is > also a real problem if you require people who do choose any method to > discuss and agree the exact meaning first, because 99% of all calls > made in all duplicates worldwide on any given day would become > infractions. I fully agree. But we can trust our SOs to use a restriction like this very infrequently. Oh my god what have I said. Nurse! Sedatives please. > Perhaps we should regulate that pairs are allowed to play Ghestem only > if they've had their heads examined within the past 12 months. Catch 22. Any pair wishing to play Ghestem is mad, an examination professing to their sanity is out of date as soon as they express that desire. 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 May 30 00:08:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4TE7lL18879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 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 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 g4TE7gH18875 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 00:07:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-75.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.75] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 17D3ur-0003Be-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 May 2002 09:55:05 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020529094450.00ad1410@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 09:57:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:54 AM 5/29/02, twm wrote: >In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020528144257.00ad4650@pop.starpower.net> > > > It is a real problem if you single out Ghestem for such treatment, as, > > as David B. points out, there is no basis in law for doing so. > >It could be a condition of use imposed under L40D. This is certainly >more >mild than some of the abominations that would be condoned under that law. Yes, I suppose Tim is right about that. I should have written "no basis in law for doing so unless one is prepared to commit [yet] an[other] abomination". Here's a thought. With the WBF telling us that L40D permits SOs to make any regulation they choose provided it has the word "convention" in it, we would be entirely within the law to try a controlled experiment by, say, having special rules that apply only to the use of Ghestem by left-handed players, or (if we wanted more equality in the size of our comparison groups) by players sitting at even-numbered tables. That would give us the hard data to determine how efficacious our special rules were. If that doesn't sound like such a good idea, perhaps we should try harder to convince the WBF that it is their "anything goes" interpretation of L40D that is the real abomination here. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 30 04:37:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4TIaPS19058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 2002 04:36:25 +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-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 g4TIaKH19054 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 04:36:21 +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 17D86h-0007Vb-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 May 2002 19:23:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 00:01:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020528144257.00ad4650@pop.starpower.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020528144257.00ad4650@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 >It is a real problem if you single out Ghestem for such treatment, as, >as David B. points out, there is no basis in law for doing so. Maybe he has, but there is a view that L40D permits regulations that differ with different conventions. I haven't actually seen any argument as to why this is not so. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 30 04:41:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4TIf4219075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 2002 04:41:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4TIewH19067 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 04:40:59 +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 g4TITix25527 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 19:29:44 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:04:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun 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 > >Am I illiterate (yes I am) and is this a rephrased chapter of a famous work >or did you really create this in the previous hours? If the latter may I ask >to reform this group in just readers and asking you to contribute a daily >column? We probably can produce a book out of it and I gladly share the >money with you (30% to your side). > >ton This is routine DALB! In London we've been privileged to see this sort of rubbish for the last 20 years. cheers john > >> Eric wrote: >> >> >If what has been "sanctioned by the appropriate official bodies" >> cannot be properly questioned by David, who regularly sits among >> the councils of those "appropriate official bodies", they cannot >> be properly questioned by anyone, but must be accepted without >> demur as godlike wisdom not to be questioned by mere mortals. >> >> Godlike wisdom indeed... >> >> 1 And it came to pass that in the land which is called Ebu, there >> arose one who spake with the tongue of an serpent. >> 2 For he did oft represent his holdings as above rubies, when >> verily his holdings were as a crock of ordure. >> 3 And to this end he was guided by Satan, who tempted him saying, >> When though hast that holding which is called Yar-ba-ra, thou >> shalt not pass, for then will thine opponents be unafraid. >> 4 Instead, thou shalt arise in thy might and speak the words >> Two Clubs, for then will thine opponents tremble. >> 5 And should thine opponent on the left hand speak, then shall >> thy partner not double, nor shall he bid. >> 6 Nor shall thy partner in any wise proceed other than by passing. >> 7 And then shalt thou alert this pass, telling thine opponents >> that it signifieth an holding that is not as a crock of ordure. >> 8 For this is a method widely published in Gath, and told in >> the streets of Ashkelon. >> 9 And then will thine opponent on the right hand be sore afraid, >> and he will be struck dumb. >> 10 So shalt thou also be dumb, for then shall thine opponents >> play in an part score. >> 11 And great will be the number of overtricks therein, and there >> will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. >> 12 Now when the man tempted of Satan began to do all that the >> Evil One had told him, great was the wrath of the people of Ebu. >> 13 And they called upon the High Priest of Ebu, which was called >> Grat-an, saying, >> 14 This man taketh from us our birthright, he stealeth the bread >> from our mouths, >> 15 And he must be put to death, according to the law, for is >> it not written Thou shalt not cause offence to another? >> 16 And Grat-an spake to the people of Ebu saying, Not so, for >> that is not according to our holy law, >> 18 For the time of David is not yet come, when if a man followeth >> not when able to the suit of an card, he shall be torn limb from >> limb and his body devoured by wolves. >> 17 Yet must this man be prevented from treading further the paths >> of unrighteousness, >> 18 Therefore will I issue a decree, that shall declare it an >> abomination in the sight of the Lord for a man to employ an artifice >> in order to dissemble. >> 19 Yet were others of the Council of Ebu troubled, and they said >> to Grat-an, >> 20 Art thou sure that this accordeth with Holy Writ? For doth >> the Good Book not say, Thou mayest in any wise dissemble, provided >> that thy partner hath no idea what goeth on? >> 21 And Grat-an said to the Council, Be not afraid, for doth not >> the Good Book also say, A Council may in any wise control the >> use of an artifice? >> 22 Then were the Council glad, and a decree went out that if >> a man were by means of an artifice to disguise the nature of >> his holding, a millstone would be tied about his neck, and he >> would be cast into the depths of the sea. >> 23 And when the people of Ebu saw this, their hearts were joyful, >> and they praised Grat-an saying, Verily, this man could talk >> the hind leg off an donkey. >> 24 Yet there was one called Cam-er-on who departed from the land >> of Ebu with an heavy heart, >> 25 And he went and hanged himself. >> >> David Burn >> London, England >> >> >> >> -- >> ============================================================== >> ========== >> (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email >> majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >> "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >> A Web archive is at >> http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ >> >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 30 04:44:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4TIiPM19087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 2002 04:44:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4TIiJH19083 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 04:44:19 +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 g4TIX5x25552 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 19:33:06 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:08:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020529133948.031de700@acsys.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020529133948.031de700@acsys.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <5.1.0.14.0.20020529133948.031de700@acsys.anu.edu.au>, Markus Buchhorn writes > >Hi All > a very tentative maybe. I need to talk to my webmaster >Due to various constraints on my time, my third new job (at the same >institution) in 18 months (all improvements :-) ), my new role here, and various >other issues, I've had to make a difficult decision. > >I want to give BLML to somebody else. > >I'm not under an immediate time pressure, yet, but would like to find a >solution, where somebody else on this big, wide, sunburnt Net of ours can take >on the hosting of the list - running a mailing list manager, with bonus >services such as a digest version, a web interface, a web archive, handle the >usual "Reply-to:List" discussion, etc. I'd love to provide all of these, but >just don't have the time or other resources. Handling the daily set of bounces >from the list alone, considering who to kick off, who to wait-and-see, etc. take >up time. Not to mention that the rgb.anu.edu.au host is starting to show its age >(an old, and worryingly noisy, Sun SPARC5). > >I'm looking for somebody very sympathetic to BLML to take this on. You'll also >need to convince me you have the resources, time, bandwidth, storage, etc. > >I've subscribed to the list again, so it can be discussed on-list if you like, >otherwise, feel free to email me directly. > >Clearly the opinions of those whose name appears near the top of the subscriber >list carries more weight than those lower down ;^> (Just kidding. Mostly.) > >Obviously I'll pass on the existing subscriber list and BLML archives to the new >host. I'd also set up a forwarding mechanism for the rgb address for a while. > >Did you know that BLML is (just) over 6 years old now? And in the next few days >it will see its 45,000th message posted.... (Hmm, and with an average of around >250 subscribers for the bulk of its life (275 at this moment), that's somewhere >around 11 million messages delivered....). > >Cheers, > Markus > >Markus Buchhorn, Information Infrastructure Services, | Ph: +61 2 61258810 >Markus.Buchhorn@anu.edu.au, mail: CompSci,CSIT Bldg #108|Fax: +61 2 61259805 >Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia|Mobile: 0417 281429 > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 May 30 05:29:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4TJTJi19116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 2002 05:29:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail3.panix.com (mail3.panix.com [166.84.1.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4TJTEH19112 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 05:29:14 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail3.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 0474C981B2; Wed, 29 May 2002 15:14:52 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020529133948.031de700@acsys.anu.edu.au> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020529133948.031de700@acsys.anu.edu.au> Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 15:14:42 -0400 To: Markus Buchhorn From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home 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 Have you considered using a mailing list hosting service such as topica.com? They maintain searchable web archives and provide digest versions. I use Topica for several lists, though none with anywhere near the volume of BLML. The lists have received no Spam, though of course that could change. I'd be willing to manage or (better) co-manage the list if it were moved to Topica or a similar service. At present Topica does not charge to run a mailing list, nor do they insert ads in the messages without the list owner's consent. Either of those could change in the future. -- 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 Thu May 30 07:04:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4TL3V019164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 2002 07:03:31 +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 g4TL3QH19160 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 07:03:27 +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 QAA18633 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 16:50:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA23284 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 May 2002 16:50:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 16:50:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205292050.QAA23284@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Wildavsky > Have you considered using a mailing list hosting service such as > topica.com? NASA (!) uses Yahoo Groups for its mailing lists. I have no idea what services are available on the administrative side, but the messages come out OK. I don't know whether Yahoo is better or worse than Topica, but it's an option to be considered. If somebody wants to get ambitious, the domain names blml.org and blml.net are both available. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 30 07:12:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4TLBtS19181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 2002 07:11:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wmpmta03-app.mail-store.com ([194.73.242.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4TLBnH19177 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 07:11:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from davicaltd ([62.7.68.99]) by wmpmta03-app.mail-store.com (InterMail vM.5.01.02.00 201-253-122-103-101-20001108) with SMTP id <20020529205905.XCCT17555.wmpmta03-app.mail-store.com@davicaltd> for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 21:59:05 +0100 Message-ID: <003101c20753$ce78d2e0$6344073e@davicaltd> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Waste of ink Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 21:54:55 +0100 Organization: Davica Ltd MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > On 5/28/02, David Stevenson wrote: > > > There is a fish which is eaten in Japan which is poisonous. It is > >considered a great delicacy, but it does need to be prepared with care. > >Every so often there is a scandal as some Japanese restaurant manages > to > >poison its diners one evening. > > > > Failure to prepare that particular dish correctly causes more trouble > >[!!] and I would not be averse to Ed not being allowed to serve it on > >four hour's training. > > > > It is not unreasonable to treat things differently which cause more > >trouble. > > The fish is called (in Japanese) "fugu". It is a kind of blowfish. It > contains a gland whose contents are highly poisonous, and the art of > removing that gland safely is the subject of intense training, and chefs > who prepare fugu must be certified and licensed to do so. Several > hundred thousand people eat fugu each year. One or two die, in spite of > the training and expertise of the chefs. > > The preparation of fugu has nothing to do with the preparation of sushi, > and the licensing of fugu chefs has nothing to do with the licensing of > sushi chefs. > > I would not attempt to serve fugu in any case. My luck, I'd poison > myself. :-) ###### The final test before a Fugu chef becomes qualified is that he must prepare and eat one such fish within a very tight time limit. There are no resits for this exam! ######## -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 30 07:20:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4TLKfw19196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 2002 07:20:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4TLKaH19192 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 07:20:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1792.bb.online.no [80.212.215.0]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA25331 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 23:07:51 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003f01c20754$e531f920$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <003101c20753$ce78d2e0$6344073e@davicaltd> Subject: Re: [BLML] Waste of ink Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 23:07:51 +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 ..... > > The fish is called (in Japanese) "fugu". It is a kind of blowfish. It > > contains a gland whose contents are highly poisonous, and the art of > > removing that gland safely is the subject of intense training, and chefs > > who prepare fugu must be certified and licensed to do so. Several > > hundred thousand people eat fugu each year. One or two die, in spite of > > the training and expertise of the chefs. > > > > The preparation of fugu has nothing to do with the preparation of sushi, > > and the licensing of fugu chefs has nothing to do with the licensing of > > sushi chefs. > > > > I would not attempt to serve fugu in any case. My luck, I'd poison > > myself. :-) > > > > ###### The final test before a Fugu chef becomes qualified is that he must > prepare and eat one such fish within a very tight time limit. There are no > resits for this exam! ######## Did you pass? 8-) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 30 07:45:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4TLjR519215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 2002 07:45:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4TLjLH19211 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 07:45:22 +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 g4TLWc214270; Wed, 29 May 2002 23:32:38 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by penguin.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g4TLWcp24601; Wed, 29 May 2002 23:32:38 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: penguin.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 23:32:38 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Steve Willner cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home In-Reply-To: <200205292050.QAA23284@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 29 May 2002, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Adam Wildavsky > > Have you considered using a mailing list hosting service such as > > topica.com? > > NASA (!) uses Yahoo Groups for its mailing lists. I have no idea what > services are available on the administrative side, but the messages come > out OK. I don't know whether Yahoo is better or worse than Topica, but > it's an option to be considered. > > If somebody wants to get ambitious, the domain names blml.org and > blml.net are both available. I can put virtual hosts on amsterdamned.org, though I was thinking about rtflb.org or rtflb.td 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 May 30 08:01:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4TM17b19232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 2002 08:01:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4TM12H19228 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 08:01:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g4TLmMD19694 for ; Wed, 29 May 2002 17:48:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 17:42:02 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Waste of ink To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <003101c20753$ce78d2e0$6344073e@davicaltd> 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 5/29/02, David Martin wrote: >###### The final test before a Fugu chef becomes qualified is that he >must prepare and eat one such fish within a very tight time limit. >There are no resits for this exam! ######## Heh. I'd forgotten that little tidbit. Makes sense, though, don't 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 Thu May 30 09:03:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4TN2uq19274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 2002 09:02:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz ([210.185.31.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g4TN2qH19270 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 09:02:52 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 31558 invoked by uid 504); 29 May 2002 22:50:07 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.001581 secs); 29 May 2002 22:50:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.198) by 0 with SMTP; 29 May 2002 22:50:06 -0000 Message-ID: <011d01c20762$f7e27c80$2c2538d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020527144028.00a8a3a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 10:24:15 +1200 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: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Kooijman, A." ; "'David Burn'" ; Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 12:43 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun > AG : Ton seems to have found the answer to the question asked by many : > which law does prohibit you from erring in the use of a convention ? > The answer is : L75C ! If you know your partner is apt to err in the use of > a convention, you have to tell it to the opponents. > However, you could give out UI by doing this, because you will remember to > do it when your hand tells you he might have erred. But this could be a > way to disallow repeated errors un the use of the same convention. > A ruling of this kind would only apply when an explanation was requested at the table. If I simply look at the opponents' convention card L75C does not apply. I would be worried that if we start ruling in this way then we will encourage unnecessary questions. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 30 11:00:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4U0xhQ19317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 2002 10:59:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4U0xbH19313 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 10:59:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from rota.alumni.princeton.edu (pcp01782626pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net [68.32.52.241]) by mtaout06.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GWW006FWFH5OG@mtaout06.icomcast.net> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 May 2002 20:46:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 20:46:31 -0400 From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home In-reply-to: <200205292050.QAA23284@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Sender: davidgrabiner@mail.comcast.net To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020529204304.020fec78@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 04:50 PM 5/29/2002 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Adam Wildavsky > > Have you considered using a mailing list hosting service such as > > topica.com? > >NASA (!) uses Yahoo Groups for its mailing lists. I have no idea what >services are available on the administrative side, but the messages come >out OK. I don't know whether Yahoo is better or worse than Topica, but >it's an option to be considered. Please do not use a Yahoo group. Yahoo does insert advertisements, and has recently decided that it could set up a new advertising system, and assume that all users who had signed up before the new advertising system (and thus had no "known" preference to receive ads) were interested in the new ads. In addition, it doesn't work well; I was a member of one group but could not post, and when I deleted my Yahoo account, I stayed subscribed. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 30 11:54:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4U1rwi19370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 2002 11:53:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4U1rdH19362 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 11:53:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.62.208] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17DEvg-0001vf-00; Thu, 30 May 2002 02:40:40 +0100 Message-ID: <004101c2077b$4d848ee0$d03ee150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" Cc: "David Stevenson" , "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 02:41:19 +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 > > The set of "logical alternative actions" includes "actions", true, but > it doesn't include any that aren't "logical alternative actions". > > With all due respect, if the law has been construed to say otherwise, > then perhaps those doing the construing need to think again. > +=+ With the utmost respect, the words can be construed as saying that an action may be selected from amongst logical alternatives. This does not require that the selected action be logical itself, it may be a finch amongst sparrows.The set of actions includes some that are logical alternatives to the one selected. " From amongst the boys the one girl in the class was removed to sit in a row to herself." ~ 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 May 30 11:54:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4U1rox19369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 2002 11:53:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4U1rdH19361 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 11:53:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.62.208] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17DEve-0001vf-00; Thu, 30 May 2002 02:40:38 +0100 Message-ID: <004001c2077b$4c472ce0$d03ee150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020529094450.00ad1410@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 02:28:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 2:57 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun > > Here's a thought. With the WBF telling us that L40D permits > SOs to make any regulation they choose provided it has the > word "convention" in it, we would be entirely within the law to > try a controlled experiment by, say, having special rules that > apply only to the use of Ghestem by left-handed players, > +=+ In a letter addressed to the English Bridge Union, Edgar Kaplan informed us that if it wished its regulation to say that a given convention could only be used if the player wore a bright yellow conical dunce's hat this would be a legitimate regulation of a convention. (I am unsure what kind of hat a conical dunce wears.) ~ 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 May 30 16:04:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4U63gq19488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 2002 16:03:42 +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 [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4U63aH19484 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 16:03:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47331.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.56.227]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g4U5oJT14131 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 07:50:19 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CF5BDF2.2080502@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 07:51:46 +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] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > On Wed, 29 May 2002, Steve Willner wrote: > > >>> >>NASA (!) uses Yahoo Groups for its mailing lists. I have no idea what >>services are available on the administrative side, but the messages come >>out OK. I don't know whether Yahoo is better or worse than Topica, but >>it's an option to be considered. >> I use Yahoo for several lists. It's not bad, but not as "ad-free" as what Markus has given us over the years. Of course it also provides extra features - which we don't use at the moment but might like in future. OTOH, something like Yahoo can be managed by just about everyone. Even me. >>If somebody wants to get ambitious, the domain names blml.org and >>blml.net are both available. >> > > I can put virtual hosts on amsterdamned.org, though I was thinking about > rtflb.org or rtflb.td > Shall we move to Chad ? (.td) > -- 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 May 30 16:26:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4U6QQb19506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 2002 16:26:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4U6QLH19502 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 16:26:21 +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 QAA18212 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 16:27:45 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 30 May 2002 16:10:16 +0000 (EST) Subject: RE: [BLML] Fielding (was Ghestem, 826894th rerun) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 16:13:13 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 30/05/2002 04:10:04 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: [snip] >>My view is that if partner's and RHO's hands had >>been interchanged, RHO would have leapt to 4S, and >>I would have gained an unearned +1100. Given that >>bidding confusion by the opponents will almost >>always damage them, the occasional lucky error >>should be stoically accepted as "the rub of the >>green". Tim West-Meads replied: >You may think this. But perhaps RHO would have bid >a safe 2S, knowing that his partner often gets the >2D bid wrong and being suspicious of the apparent >10 card fit (perfectly legal to do that of course). > >I do not see why you shouldn't be entitled to >information about habitual forgets or unfamiliarity >- perhaps you/partner would have acted differently >on a fuller explanation. I agree with Tim (and Ton) that habitual misbids can create an implicit understanding, changing the relevant Law from L75B to L75A/L75C. For a comprehensive discussion of this point, see the famous Bridge World editorial on the Wolfschmitz convention. I disagree that bidding a "safe 2S" is *legal* when presumptively holding a 10-card fit - such an action is equivalent to the CPU used when fielding a psyche. Only when your cards *guarantee* partner's misbid may you field. For example: Pard bids 4D = Namyats, preempt in spades with the top 3 spade honours. But you hold the king of spades. So either pard has misbid, or the pack contains 53 cards. 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 May 30 18:18:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4U8HC019582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 2002 18:17:12 +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.tiscali.com [212.74.114.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4U8H4H19574 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 18:17:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.20.141] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17DKuw-00097o-00; Thu, 30 May 2002 09:04:19 +0100 Message-ID: <002701c207b0$dfdaeb60$8d14e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Grant Sterling" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: <77GAeHBPAQ68Ewch@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.1.0.14.1.20020521135311.00a60ae0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 08:13:20 +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 > > The law says: > "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous > information that may suggest a call or play...the partner may not > chose from among logical alternative actions one that could > demonstrably have been suggested over another by the > extraneous information." > What is the antecedent of 'one'? Must it grammatically > be the same as 'another'? > If the antecedent of 'one' is 'call or play', then the > sentence says only that when in the presence of LAs the partner > may not chose a suggested call or play over a LA. It doesn't > require that the call or play be a LA. > OTOH, if 'one' must refer to 'logical alternative action' {as 'another' seems to, and as would be the ordinary reading of > the sentence}, then indeed the law applies only in cases where > the action chosen is a LA. > In any case, I have some sympathy for David Burn's > argument that > _IF_ the player choses the 'illogical' action based on some line of reasoning which shows that it might, indeed, be the > best-scoring alternative given the situation, then the action is > not illogical after all. If 4S will surely be ruled back, and 2S > is a sure bottom, and 6S might make for a top, then 6S looks > like the logical action to me. > +=+ In this rarity at least I have found someone to the west of Ireland who speaks the same language as I. The antecedent is normally the more adjacent of a plurality of prior possibilities, if the writer is adept, and here could be 'actions'. Reference to the dictionary discovers that 'among' is described as "in the company of, amid, in the thick of". To quote again the extract from Byron's 'Childe Harold's Pilgrimage': "I was among them, but not of them". Or refer to Ballybunnion above. ~ Grataan* ~ +=+ *Edgar's pronunciation. He regularly called up the three A's. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 30 18:18:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4U8HDv19583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 2002 18:17:13 +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-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4U8H5H19575 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 18:17:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.20.141] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17DKuy-00097o-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 May 2002 09:04:21 +0100 Message-ID: <002801c207b0$e119d400$8d14e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Fielding (was Ghestem, 826894th rerun) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 09:00:57 +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 > I agree with Tim (and Ton) that habitual misbids can > create an implicit understanding, changing the > relevant Law from L75B to L75A/L75C. > +=+ I do not see that 'violate' in Law 75B relates solely to purposeful violations. Not having seen the 'No Parking' sign you may intend to park the vehicle but not intend to violate the law. The cop observes that you have done both and does not distinguish. At the table there may be no evidence as to intent and the effects are not distinguishable. ~ 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 May 30 20:26:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4UAPcq19641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 2002 20:25:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4UAPWH19637 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 20:25:33 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g4UACpQ09614 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 May 2002 11:12:52 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 11:12 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] Fielding (was Ghestem, 826894th rerun) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: Richard wrote: > > I disagree that bidding a "safe 2S" is *legal* when > presumptively holding a 10-card fit - such an > action is equivalent to the CPU used when fielding > a psyche. Don't be ridiculous. There can be no question of a CPU if you have disclosed properly. If you are not in possession of UI and have kept opponents properly informed then you can bid what the hell you like. OK there is a possibility that an implicit understanding of sufficient strength is formed that you could be deemed to be playing an illegal convention but that should be a very rare exception (note that the lack of any investigative response structure would make it a highly undesirable convention anyway). Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 30 21:32:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4UBW9Z19669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 2002 21:32:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cshore.com ([63.237.136.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4UBW3H19665 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 21:32:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from BillS [63.112.158.197] by cshore.com (SMTPD32-6.06) id AB2164A00B8; Thu, 30 May 2002 07:21:05 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20020530072323.00879e70@mail.cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@mail.cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 07:23:23 -0400 To: "BLML" From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: [BLML] RE: A question specific to online bridge In-Reply-To: <004701c2068c$22661a20$6501a8c0@irv> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >How would everybody like it if the software showed your bid to partner >BEFORE it was displayed to the opponents? Partner could then provide an >alert, if required (with explanation, hit an appropriate button, and the bid >would be displayed for all to see. > >I think this would not slow up the game very much, if at all, would tend to >duplicate the FTF situation, with the advantage that there is little or no >UI to deal with. I'm not personally so concerned with the shortcomings of self alerts and explanations that I'd want to put up with the delays, which I think you may underestimate (I can expand on this), but this is not without merit. It's essentially an automation of my suggestion in "Alerts and Disclosure in Contract Bridge" for players who don't want to use self alerts: "Players who remain concerned with the potential for disclosure in excess of the minimum specified by the Laws and who are prepared to deal with [potential] damage and UI problems ... may wish to agree amongst themselves to use partner alerts and explanations (10). To minimize problems under these circumstances, it is recommended that players wait for at least three seconds before making a call, so as to allow for the possibility of an impending alert. Alerts should be delivered as quickly as possible, to serve as a warning against an intervening bid, and then followed as expeditiously as possible by a brief explanation (11). "Footnotes: 10. For the reasons outlined in section 3.III, it is recommended that players preferring to use partner explanations also employ partner alerts. 11. As is described for self alerts and explanations, the provision of an accompanying explanation serves to alleviate the informational burden on the alert. However, first priority must be accorded to the provision of the alert notification. With self alerts, the withholding of the bid until completion of the preparation of the alert and accompanying explanation allows simultaneous delivery of all three." Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 30 22:39:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4UCdQm19798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 2002 22:39:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4UCdIH19794 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 22:39:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-75.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.75] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 17DP0o-0002C6-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 May 2002 08:26:38 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020530081840.00ad47c0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 08:28:37 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem, 826894th rerun In-Reply-To: <004001c2077b$4c472ce0$d03ee150@dodona> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020529094450.00ad1410@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 09:28 PM 5/29/02, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > > > Here's a thought. With the WBF telling us that L40D permits > > SOs to make any regulation they choose provided it has the > > word "convention" in it, we would be entirely within the law to > > try a controlled experiment by, say, having special rules that > > apply only to the use of Ghestem by left-handed players, > >+=+ In a letter addressed to the English Bridge Union, Edgar >Kaplan informed us that if it wished its regulation to say >that a given convention could only be used if the player wore >a bright yellow conical dunce's hat this would be a legitimate >regulation of a convention. (I am unsure what kind of hat a >conical dunce wears.) Old news. We know that that was Mr. Kaplan's interpretation originally, which was adopted by the WBF as policy. And, of course, we know also that Mr. Kaplan was representing the ACBL, which wanted to perpetrate precisely such abominations and needed a way to be able to claim that they were legal. Mr. Kaplan may have been a respected authority on the laws, but such statements as the above must be seen in their poliical context; his "constituency" wanted to do something, and he represented them properly by stretching the words of the Law to encompass a loophole that would let them do what they wanted to. The point, of course, is that the ACBL's rule against, say, the mini-NT, is just as legal as Mr. Kaplan's dunce-cap example would be, and serves the bridge community just as well as Mr. Kaplan's example would. 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 May 30 23:10:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4UDA6H19823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 2002 23:10:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4UDA1H19819 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 23:10:01 +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 IAA15493 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 08:57:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id IAA29137 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 May 2002 08:57:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 08:57:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200205301257.IAA29137@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > "From among the brown, white and pink > seashells on the shore at Ballybunnion > Orlaith took away a pebble that was the > green of Connemara marble." An interesting construction, but examined carefully it shows a clear contrast with the wording of L16. In the above, the exceptional item "a pebble that was the green of Connemara marble" is explicitly denoted with a noun (and subsequent modifiers). In contrast, in L16 all we have is a pronoun, "one." The normal reading of "one" is that the antecedent will be found in close proximity, but there is no antecedent in sight other than "logical alternative actions." If "one" in L16 were changed to something like "any action," the phrase could be read as Grattan suggests. If his reading really is the intent, though, it probably would be better to turn the whole phrase around to make the intended meaning explicit: "... the partner may not choose any action that could demonstrably have been suggested by the extraneous information if there is any logical alternative action that is not suggested." -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 31 12:33:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4V2WSo20190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 May 2002 12:32:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4V2WNH20186 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 12:32:24 +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 MAA20323 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 12:33:46 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 31 May 2002 12:16:16 +0000 (EST) Subject: RE: [BLML] Fielding (was Ghestem, 826894th rerun) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 12:19:09 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 31/05/2002 12:16:04 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard wrote: >>>I disagree that bidding a "safe 2S" is *legal* when >>>presumptively holding a 10-card fit - such an >>>action is equivalent to the CPU used when fielding >>>a psyche. Tim replied: >>Don't be ridiculous. There can be no question of a >>CPU if you have disclosed properly. If you are not >>in possession of UI and have kept opponents properly >>informed then you can bid what the hell you like. The WBF Code of Practice for Appeals Committees states: >A player's habitual practices form part of his method >and his partner's awareness of them is legitimate >information; but such method is subject to any >regulations governing partnership agreements and to >the requisite disclosure. Habit is to be identified >when an occurrence is so frequent that it may be >anticipated. Not to disclose knowledge of partner's >habits and practices is contrary to Law 75A and where >this is the case it is a violation of Law 40 (and thus >illegal) when the call is made. The key issue is "keeping the opponents properly informed". If you know that partner habitually misbids, so that you choose a safe 2S just in case, then the opponents should be given prior warning that you are playing a two-way convention (showing spades when pard remembers, or not-spades when pard forgets). On the other hand, if pard does not habitually misbid, then attempting to field is legal (at the cost of an embarassing debacle when pard has their bid but you assume otherwise). 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 May 31 14:55:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4V4sxU20286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 May 2002 14:54:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4V4siH20282 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 14:54:44 +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 OAA18859 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 14:56:04 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 31 May 2002 14:38:32 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Usenet Bridge abbreviations To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 14:41:28 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 31/05/2002 14:38:20 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Below are usenet bridge abbreviations supplied by David Stevenson. My suggestions for additions to the list are: CD Convention Disruption IB Insufficient Bid MB Misbid NLA Non-Logical Alternative Best wishes Richard Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn BTW By the way C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FAQ Frequently asked questions [often produced as a document] GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HTH Hope this helps FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn IIRC If I remember correctly IMHO In my humble opinion [included under protest] IMO In my opinion LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NG Newsgroup NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side NP No problem OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side OTOH On the other hand POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn [or] POOT Play-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RotG Rub-of-the-green RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union WTP What's the problem? YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3Ha 3H alerted Emails only: FFTQFTE Feel free to quote from this email The above may also be found on David's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 31 16:21:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4V6LDN20346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 May 2002 16:21:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4V6L9H20342 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 16:21:09 +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 QAA08748 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 16:22:33 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 31 May 2002 16:04:59 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Oh, Calcutta! To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 16:07:15 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 31/05/2002 16:04:47 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Australia's only Calcutta event, sponsored by the ABF, has some peculiar and possibly unLawful regulations: >1.3 The decision of the CTD is final. Pairs who wish to >contest a decision of the CTD may discuss the matter with >the Tournament Advisors who may suggest to the CTD that he >review his decision. This is an apparent deliberate distortion of L93A. >1.5 All penalties are assessed as disciplinary penalties >from which there is no appeal. This is a questionable nullification of L90 by L91. >5.1 Any convention or treatment that can be explained to a >tournament player of average ability within 10 seconds is >permitted. Methods of a destructive nature are not >permitted. Specific examples: > >YELLOW systems or conventions are not permitted >One level openings require 18 opening points (high card >points plus length of longest 2 suits) >Two level openings require 15 opening points. >Psychic use of calls that are conventional or invitational >in principle are not permitted (e.g., relays, Drury by a >non-passed hand) As has been discussed in previous threads, the rule of 18 & 15 cannot be used to regulate natural bids. Such a regulation is prohibited by L40D. While "average ability within 10 seconds" is so fuzzy a rule that the CTD could make any final decision he likes about the admissibility of 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/