From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 1 01:35:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4VFX0Z20658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jun 2002 01:33:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g4VFWsH20654 for ; Sat, 1 Jun 2002 01:32:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.12.128] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17DoBE-0003Ur-00; Fri, 31 May 2002 16:19:05 +0100 Message-ID: <004a01c208b6$7df3e080$7f41e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Carol von Linstow" , "Bill Segraves" Cc: "bridge-laws" , "Antonio Riccardi" , "Bill Schoder" , "Grattan Endicott" , "Grattan Endicott" , "John Wignall" , "Ralph Cohen" , "ton kooijman" , "Virgil Anderson" , "Gianarrigo Rona \(E-mail\)" , "Jean-Claude Beineix" Subject: [BLML] WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 15:35:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Sat, 1 Jun 2002 07:15:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g4VL2e206587 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 May 2002 22:02:40 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 22:02 +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: > > 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). Disclosure is primarily a matter for the SO, whether it should be by means of CC/Alert/answers to questions varies considerably. However it certainly isn't true that you are playing a two-way convention (unless you have built in a structure to cater to forgets). The fact that something is (quite rightly) disclosable doesn't make it a matter of convention. Just describe it as it is "We play it as X, but partner often forgets after his second pint." Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 1 07:58:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g4VLwZH20829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jun 2002 07:58:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g4VLwUH20825 for ; Sat, 1 Jun 2002 07:58:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-122-106-26.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.106.26] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17DuDT-0006H4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 May 2002 22:45:47 +0100 Message-ID: <001601c208ec$74bad2e0$1a6a7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Fielding (was Ghestem, 826894th rerun) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 22:45:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim wrote: > Disclosure is primarily a matter for the SO, whether it should be by means > of CC/Alert/answers to questions varies considerably. However it > certainly isn't true that you are playing a two-way convention (unless you > have built in a structure to cater to forgets). The fact that something > is (quite rightly) disclosable doesn't make it a matter of convention. > Just describe it as it is "We play it as X, but partner often forgets > after his second pint." And what use is that? Do I have to discuss with partner before the round begins whether we are going to treat the opponents' two-suited bids as having been remembered or as having been forgotten? There appears to be a belief that it is enough to alert and tell the opponents that your side often forgets convention X - but that is no help at all when a sequence arises in which convention X may or may not be in use. Suppose the auction begins (1D) 3C and I receive the West-Meads Patent Non-Explanation. How will I or my partner know what my bid of 3H (natural if 3C is clubs, clubs if 3C is majors) means? Is it to be considered that, in the face of the W-MPN-E, my own side may be guilty of giving misinformation should partner describe my 3H as clubs when I in fact have hearts? If you are in the habit of having either clubs or the majors for a 3C overcall of 1D, then it certainly *is* true that you are by (implicit) agreement playing a 3C overcall of 1D as clubs or the majors, and you must certainly tell the opponents this. Of course, such a convention may not be legal, in which case you must stop playing it. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 1 12:12:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g512BI020943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jun 2002 12:11:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g512BDH20939 for ; Sat, 1 Jun 2002 12:11:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.64.131.225] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17Dy8x-000IPQ-00; Sat, 01 Jun 2002 02:57:23 +0100 Message-ID: <000e01c20910$17a34d20$e183403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200205301257.IAA29137@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 02:12:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 1:57 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) > > 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." > -- +=+ As previously indicated I regard the wording of the law as ambiguous. Whichever were intended it could have been more carefully stated. ~ 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 Jun 2 07:55:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g51Lrqs21537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jun 2002 07:53:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g51LrlH21533 for ; Sun, 2 Jun 2002 07:53:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-58-250-215.s469.tnt1.nwhv.ct.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.250.215] helo=smtp.rcn.com) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17EGcP-0003Q7-00; Sat, 01 Jun 2002 17:41:02 -0400 FROM: ggitellemd Subject: [BLML] A New York, NY 10025 Gene X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B1_0196F2CC.F303CCB0" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Bcc: Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 17:41:02 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00B1_0196F2CC.F303CCB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A New York, NY 10025 Gene and Tobey Gitelle 280 Riverside Drive Apt. 8A New York, NY 10025 Gene and Tobey Gitelle 280 Riverside Drive Apt. 8A New York, NY 10025 Gene and Tobey Gitelle 280 Riverside Drive Apt. 8A New York, NY 10025 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 3 10:30:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g530Pcg22219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 10:25:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g530PSH22215 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 10:25:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.70.84] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17EfSM-0006zI-00; Mon, 03 Jun 2002 01:12:19 +0100 Message-ID: <000201c20a93$a4197fc0$5446e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , References: <200205211750.KAA18928@mailhub.irvine.com> <004b01c200f8$9dc02560$fdae01d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Guessing (was Insufficient bid) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 16:37:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 7:52 PM > 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" > +=+ Reading back over this I find myself a little surprised that David did not draw attention to Law 16A2 which is expressed clearly in terms not to call for bridge merit or logic. Perhaps someone else had done so? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 3 11:03:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5310CH22244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 11:00:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.56.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g53107H22240 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 11:00:08 +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 KAA15768 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 10:47:22 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020603104651.03a01988@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 10:48:00 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (by way of Markus Buchhorn ) Subject: [BLML] marvin's back... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [This tripped majordomo's filters again -Markus] I have been unable to get BLML messages for a while because my pseudo-address mlfrench@writeme.com suddenly stopped working. I am now on BLML again, and if any of my BLML friends have had private mail to the old address rejected, please resend to mfrench1@san.rr.com Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 3 14:52:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g534mkl22353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 14:48:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g534maH22346 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 14:48:41 +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 OAA10459 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 14:49:54 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 03 Jun 2002 14:32:14 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Oh, Calcutta! To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 14:35:15 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 03/06/2002 14:32:01 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: [snip] >>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. [snip] Alain Gottcheiner replied: >AG : as has been said before, many countries dictate this >to their players and L40D hasn't come to grouse about it. >I've learned to live with this. > >What baffles me more is that I'm liable to a penalty for >opening a weak 2S on S/KQ109xx and out -a classical example >which would (educated guess) be opened by 96% of W2 users. [snip] It should baffle you that you are liable to a penalty, as a regulation imposing a penalty is contrary to the current Laws. A solution will probably be achieved in the next edition of the Laws, as it is likely that SOs will be given the power to regulate *agreements* (instead of merely regulating *conventions*). IMHO I belive that the next edition of the Laws should also spell out what SOs are *not permitted* to regulate. (If a Bill of Rights is appropriate to limit the US Government, then a Bridge Bill of Rights is even more appropriate to limit the administrators of the ACBL.) Examples of what I would include in a Bridge Bill of Rights: 1. The right to have a non-agreement 2. The right to misbid 3. The right to psyche 4. The right to claim, without adjudication biased towards expert claimers 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 Jun 3 22:21:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g53CKho22622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 22:20:43 +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 g53CKbH22618 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 22:20:37 +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 OAA09623; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 14:05:18 +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 OAA14763; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 14:07:46 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020603140653.00aaa1c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 14:14:52 +0200 To: "David Burn" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Fielding (was Ghestem, 826894th rerun) In-Reply-To: <001601c208ec$74bad2e0$1a6a7ad5@pbncomputer> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 22:45 31/05/2002 +0100, David Burn wrote: >And what use is that? Do I have to discuss with partner before the round >begins whether we are going to treat the opponents' two-suited bids as >having been remembered or as having been forgotten? There appears to be >a belief that it is enough to alert and tell the opponents that your >side often forgets convention X - but that is no help at all when a >sequence arises in which convention X may or may not be in use. Suppose >the auction begins (1D) 3C and I receive the West-Meads Patent >Non-Explanation. How will I or my partner know what my bid of 3H >(natural if 3C is clubs, clubs if 3C is majors) means? AG : it will at least have three advantages : a) it will avoid subtle decisions by the opponent, based on the explanation, when your hand tells you it is improbable. Here, on receiving the may-be-may-be-not explanation ("natural but ..."), the player with 6C and 5H will probably have enough horse sense to pass and let them stew, probably resulting in 3C minus a bunch. b) you are allowed to explain partner's 3H as "over a true 3C, it is natural NF, but over a 2-suited 3C it is a GF raise" (provided you play it that way), and decide you play it as the primary explanation anyway. This will add to the opponents' problems ; they deserve it. c) the player who had made the may-be-may-be-not bid will not know how his partner decided to interpret it ; this will reduce the amount of UI. Best regards, Alain. >Is it to be >considered that, in the face of the W-MPN-E, my own side may be guilty >of giving misinformation should partner describe my 3H as clubs when I >in fact have hearts? > >If you are in the habit of having either clubs or the majors for a 3C >overcall of 1D, then it certainly *is* true that you are by (implicit) >agreement playing a 3C overcall of 1D as clubs or the majors, and you >must certainly tell the opponents this. Of course, such a convention may >not be legal, in which case you must stop playing it. > >David Burn >London, England > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 4 00:19:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g53EIc722736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jun 2002 00:18:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g53EIVH22732 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2002 00:18:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id KAA19247 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 10:05:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA13994 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 10:05:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 10:05:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200206031405.KAA13994@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" > Law 16A2 which is > expressed clearly in terms not to call for bridge merit or > logic. L16A2 does not define "infraction of law," which is the subject of this little discussion. Instead it defines proper procedure for the players and the director when a certain type of infraction is suspected. Mind you, I don't think there is any real problem. L73C seems clear enough, and you go from there to 12A1 to 12C whenever there is an infraction. Nobody is (I think) arguing about what the Laws as a whole require; all we are discussing is the route to get there. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 4 04:02:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g53I1xY22860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jun 2002 04:01:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g53I1qH22856 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2002 04:01:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g53Hocx06741 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 18:50:38 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 18:33:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Fielding (was 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 , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >> >> 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). > >Disclosure is primarily a matter for the SO, whether it should be by means >of CC/Alert/answers to questions varies considerably. However it >certainly isn't true that you are playing a two-way convention (unless you >have built in a structure to cater to forgets). The fact that something >is (quite rightly) disclosable doesn't make it a matter of convention. >Just describe it as it is "We play it as X, but partner often forgets >after his second pint." > which in our case would be the third round. cheers john >Tim > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 4 10:55:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g540qI123004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jun 2002 10:52:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g540qDH23000 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2002 10:52:14 +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 g540fc523452 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 16:41:38 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 16:38:56 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Online Laws Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk There was an announcement here a few days ago that these would soon be published on the web. They now have been. (For anyone who hasn't found the link on his own already, you can read the new laws at http://bridge.ecats.co.uk/BiB/b7/online_laws/default.asp) I wanted to take a moment to thank Grattan and the rest of the online-laws committee of the WBF for what I think is a fine set of laws. In particular I am glad to see the WBF has taken a firm stand that all things like claims, changes of call, etc should be handled the same way online as in face-to-face bridge, and has called upon the developers to bring their software up to snuff. I know there were some online directors who were hoping to see a much stripped down and simplified version of the laws. I (speaking as a regular director of online tournaments) am glad to see it the way it is. Adding L80H, requiring sponsoring organizations to take security precautions and have a mechanism for investigating cheating, will be a particularly valuable addition (and may threaten the sanctions of a few sites if it is enforced!) Leaving the prohibition on referring to one's own convention card in place for online play must have been the topic of some discussion - it is difficult to enforce, but it's nice to see we are holding the line on what constitutes acceptable behaviour. About the only change they DIDN'T make which I thought they would, would be to withdraw the suggestion that a kibitzer observe only one player's hand. I will be interested in seeing what comments the Online Laws attract between now and their first annual review next year. I for one will be happy to follow them as they are (as long as law 25 will be fixed in the online laws the same time it is fixed in the face-to-face ones :))) ) 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 Jun 4 12:30:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g542Svp23069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jun 2002 12:28:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g542SkH23065 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2002 12:28:52 +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 TAA26278; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 19:15:36 -0700 Message-Id: <200206040215.TAA26278@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 03 Jun 2002 16:38:56 -0800." Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 19:20:46 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon wrote: > There was an announcement here a few days ago that these would soon be > published on the web. They now have been. (For anyone who hasn't found the > link on his own already, you can read the new laws at > http://bridge.ecats.co.uk/BiB/b7/online_laws/default.asp) > > I wanted to take a moment to thank Grattan and the rest of the online-laws > committee of the WBF for what I think is a fine set of laws. In particular > I am glad to see the WBF has taken a firm stand that all things like > claims, changes of call, etc should be handled the same way online as in > face-to-face bridge, and has called upon the developers to bring their > software up to snuff. > > I know there were some online directors who were hoping to see a > much stripped down and simplified version of the laws. I (speaking as a > regular director of online tournaments) am glad to see it the way it > is. Adding L80H, requiring sponsoring organizations to take security > precautions and have a mechanism for investigating cheating, will be a > particularly valuable addition (and may threaten the sanctions of a few > sites if it is enforced!) > > Leaving the prohibition on referring to one's own convention card in place > for online play must have been the topic of some discussion - it is > difficult to enforce, but it's nice to see we are holding the line on what > constitutes acceptable behaviour. > > About the only change they DIDN'T make which I thought they would, would > be to withdraw the suggestion that a kibitzer observe only one player's > hand. > > I will be interested in seeing what comments the Online Laws attract > between now and their first annual review next year. I for one will be > happy to follow them as they are (as long as law 25 will be fixed in the > online laws the same time it is fixed in the face-to-face ones :))) ) I've looked over the online laws briefly. It appears that the approach was to simply copy the regular Duplicate laws with the minimum amount of modification necessary to make online bridge work. At first, I was surprised at how much was left in---all the stuff about insufficient bids, calls/leads out of turn, revokes, etc. I was expecting that the Online laws would simply say that such irregularities must be prohibited by the software (is there any existing software that doesn't already do this?) and then all the stuff about how to deal with such irregularities could be eliminated. I did see the phrase in the Summary Statement that "Certain laws are ... rendered moot by normal software design". Still, it seems to me that no purpose is accomplished by leaving those laws in---and I'm concerned that doing so is going to make the effort look silly. Certain laws, I think, that are still in the Online Laws *must* be revised or eliminated to avoid making the effort look *really* silly. Prime among these are: LAW 6 - THE SHUFFLE AND DEAL A. The Shuffle Before play starts, each pack is thoroughly shuffled. There is a cut if either opponent so requests. B. The Deal The cards must be dealt face down, one card at time, into four hands of thirteen cards each; each hand is then placed face down in one of the four pockets of the board. The recommended procedure is that the cards be dealt in rotation, clockwise. [Yeah, I know that 6E4 applies, but still . . .] LAW 7 - CONTROL OF BOARD AND CARDS A. Placement of Board When a board is to be played it is placed in the centre of the table until play is completed. B. Removal of Cards from Board Each player takes a hand from the pocket corresponding to his compass position. [This might be hard to do in online bridge.] 1. Counting Cards in Hand before Play Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen; after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards. [The Online Laws still have Law 7B1 as a requirement; how exactly are players going to meet this requirement? Will they still be required to count the cards on their screen to make sure there are 13?] C. Returning Cards to Board Each player shall restore his original thirteen cards to the pocket corresponding to his compass position. [Might also be hard to do. OKbridge, for example, has a tendency to erase all my cards from the screen as soon as the hand is over, which makes it hard for me to "drag and drop" them back into the board. :) ] Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the board unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present. LAW 14 - MISSING CARD A. Hand Found Deficient before Play Commences When three hands are correct and the fourth is found to be deficient before the play period begins, the Director makes a search for any missing card, and: 1. Card Is Found If a card is found, it is restored to the deficient hand. 2. Card Cannot Be Found If a card cannot be found, the Director reconstructs the deal, as near to its original form as he can determine, by substituting another pack. [I guess this one is just amusing. I suppose that, in theory, the software *could* drop one of the virtual cards on the virtual floor, and an online director might be able to find it under a virtual chair . . .] LAW 41 - COMMENCEMENT OF PLAY A. Face-down Opening Lead After a bid, double or redouble has been followed by three passes in rotation, the defender on presumed declarer's left makes the opening lead face down. [Yes, I know the footnote says that SO's can require face-up leads. But it's still silly.] Summary: Any Law that makes sense only when dealing with physical cards, or physical boards, or face-down cards, needs to be reworked IMHO. -- 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 Jun 4 13:39:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g543bk023115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jun 2002 13:37:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g543beH23111 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2002 13:37:41 +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 g543R5527656 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 19:27:05 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 19:24:23 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws In-Reply-To: <200206040215.TAA26278@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > At first, I was surprised at how much was left in---all the stuff > about insufficient bids, calls/leads out of turn, revokes, etc. I was > expecting that the Online laws would simply say that such > irregularities must be prohibited by the software (is there any > existing software that doesn't already do this?) and then all the > stuff about how to deal with such irregularities could be eliminated. > I did see the phrase in the Summary Statement that "Certain laws are > ... rendered moot by normal software design". Still, it seems to me > that no purpose is accomplished by leaving those laws in---and I'm > concerned that doing so is going to make the effort look silly. One very important purpose is served by this: it means that the law about convention cards is stil the 40th one, and the law about claims the 68th, etc. I agree that some of these could have been explicitly "ghosted." > Certain laws, I think, that are still in the Online Laws *must* be > revised or eliminated to avoid making the effort look *really* silly. > Prime among these are: > > LAW 6 - THE SHUFFLE AND DEAL > A. The Shuffle > Before play starts, each pack is thoroughly shuffled. There is a cut > if either opponent so requests. We stil need thorough shuffling, to forbid sites from feeding nonrandom hands except in special (preannounced) events. I agree the part about cutting we could skip. > > [Yeah, I know that 6E4 applies, but still . . .] > > > 7B 1. Counting Cards in Hand before Play > Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly > thirteen; after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the > face of his cards. It does happen sometimes that software (or a sloppy director) will plop someone down at the wrong table or in the middle of a deal, either accidentally or while using them as a fill-in player. Perhaps we still need this law so that when someone comes saying "but I didnt NOTICE the first trick was already played, I want an adjustment" we can refuse them. I sure hope I never have to use the missing card and fouled board laws in an online game! > LAW 41 - COMMENCEMENT OF PLAY > A. Face-down Opening Lead > After a bid, double or redouble has been followed by three passes in > rotation, the defender on presumed declarer's left makes the opening > lead face down. > > [Yes, I know the footnote says that SO's can require face-up leads. > But it's still silly.] If you read the changes to Law 17, you'll notice that they actually have asked for face-down leads, and the option to retract them before they are faced, to be included in the software. > > Summary: Any Law that makes sense only when dealing with physical > cards, or physical boards, or face-down cards, needs to be reworked > IMHO. > I wouldn't mind seeing a list of which things they feel should be automatic, which they feel need to be implemented, etc. I don't see any great harm in letting laws sit there which likely won't be needed. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 5 18:22:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g558JB424010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 18:19:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bruce.ecats.co.uk ([194.205.153.130]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g558J4H24006 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 18:19:06 +1000 (EST) Subject: [BLML] RE: WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 09:06:07 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Message-ID: <575767135FD8E5499A1640167D54CFEC0FFD67@bruce.ecats.co.uk> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge Thread-Index: AcIItqgkpGNLjD2KTTaBizYS/ez3UADsObcw From: "anna" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Carol von Linstow" , "Bill Segraves" Cc: "bridge-laws" , "Antonio Riccardi" , "Bill Schoder" , "Grattan Endicott" , "John Wignall" , "Ralph Cohen" , "ton kooijman" , "Virgil Anderson" , "Gianarrigo Rona (E-mail)" , "Jean-Claude Beineix" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g558J7H24007 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk It is now live. I will email webmasters, press etc later today or tomorrow (I have the World Wide Bridge Contest happening this weekend, so it is a bit hectic here ...!) Go to: http://www.ecatsbridge.com/BiB/b7/htmldocs.asp And you will see the link to them. I will also ensure that they are linked through from the front pages - but probably not for a day or two ! All the best anna -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott [mailto:gester@lineone.net] Sent: 31 May 2002 15:35 To: Carol von Linstow; Bill Segraves Cc: bridge-laws; Antonio Riccardi; Bill Schoder; Grattan Endicott; Grattan Endicott; John Wignall; Ralph Cohen; ton kooijman; Virgil Anderson; Gianarrigo Rona (E-mail); Jean-Claude Beineix Subject: WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge Grattan Endicott; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 22:38:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-2.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.2] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17FZrU-0001xN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 05 Jun 2002 08:26:00 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020605082244.00ad4d10@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 08:28:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Fielding (was Ghestem, 826894th rerun) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020603140653.00aaa1c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <001601c208ec$74bad2e0$1a6a7ad5@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 08:14 AM 6/3/02, Alain wrote: >At 22:45 31/05/2002 +0100, David Burn wrote: > >>And what use is that? Do I have to discuss with partner before the round >>begins whether we are going to treat the opponents' two-suited bids as >>having been remembered or as having been forgotten? There appears to be >>a belief that it is enough to alert and tell the opponents that your >>side often forgets convention X - but that is no help at all when a >>sequence arises in which convention X may or may not be in use. Suppose >>the auction begins (1D) 3C and I receive the West-Meads Patent >>Non-Explanation. How will I or my partner know what my bid of 3H >>(natural if 3C is clubs, clubs if 3C is majors) means? > >AG : it will at least have three advantages : >a) it will avoid subtle decisions by the opponent, based on the >explanation, when your hand tells you it is improbable. Here, on >receiving the may-be-may-be-not explanation ("natural but ..."), the >player with 6C and 5H will probably have enough horse sense to pass >and let them stew, probably resulting in 3C minus a bunch. >b) you are allowed to explain partner's 3H as "over a true 3C, it is >natural NF, but over a 2-suited 3C it is a GF raise" (provided you >play it that way), and decide you play it as the primary explanation >anyway. This will add to the opponents' problems ; they deserve it. >c) the player who had made the may-be-may-be-not bid will not know how >his partner decided to interpret it ; this will reduce the amount of UI. And a fourth: (d) It will leave you with the satisfaction of knowing you have told the exact truth to the best of your ability. 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 Jun 5 23:18:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g55DHn224276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 23:17:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g55DHhH24272 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 23:17:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-36-8-199.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.36.8.199] helo=gordonrainsford.co.uk) by protactinium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17FaT5-0003Lx-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 05 Jun 2002 14:04:51 +0100 Message-ID: <3CFE0C5F.1050704@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 14:04:31 +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] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020529133948.031de700@acsys.anu.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Markus Buchhorn wrote: > 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 As a fairly recent subscriber, can someone explain to me why the mailing list is run in this way rather than as a usenet newsgroup? Gordon Rainsford -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 00:35:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g55EYOe24308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 00:34:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail50.fg.online.no (mail50-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g55EYIH24304 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 00:34:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3793.bb.online.no [80.212.222.209]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA26282 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:21:21 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000b01c20c9c$44312c60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020529133948.031de700@acsys.anu.edu.au> <3CFE0C5F.1050704@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:21:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Rainsford" > As a fairly recent subscriber, can someone explain to me why the mailing > list is run in this way rather than as a usenet newsgroup? > > > Gordon Rainsford I do not know if that was an intention, but I can give you one extremely good result (from my own experience): I do follow a number of usenet newsgroups, previously I used my real e-mail address when posting to those (I had another address until February this year). Still I receive a lot of SPAM's to that old address (the box has not been closed down yet). I use my current address when posting to BLML (have to of course!) but a fictious one when posting to usenet. So far I haven't received a single SPAM to my current address. If BLML is transferred to usenet protocols I shall of course use my fictious address also with BLML in the future. 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 Jun 6 00:43:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g55EhNr24325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 00:43:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g55EhGH24321 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 00:43:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mailing.poczta.interia.pl (mailing) with ESMTP id AEBF56011 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:30:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by rav.antivirus (Mailserver) with SMTP id 160205954 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:30:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 8CD2D5A35; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:11:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 0089B59F4 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:11:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <012701c20c9a$e9f1ccb0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <001601c208ec$74bad2e0$1a6a7ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020605082244.00ad4d10@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Fielding (was Ghestem, 826894th rerun) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:11:38 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "Eric Landau" > >b) you are allowed to explain partner's 3H as "over a true 3C, it is > >natural NF, but over a 2-suited 3C it is a GF raise" (provided you > >play it that way), and decide you play it as the primary explanation > >anyway. This will add to the opponents' problems ; they deserve it > Not exactly Alain. The mere fact that responder has the HCP strength to make a 3C/H bid makes the whole situation much worse for the opening side than for the opponents. The opponents will simply pass until the end of the auction to check if you can get of out the swamp. Say you open 1D with Qxx xx AKJxx QJx Your LHO overcalls 3C which is alerted. You receive the explanation along the may-be-or-may-be-not lines. Now partner bids 3H which you alert and, following Alain's advice, give them the explantion they deserve: "over a true 3C, it is natural NF, but over a 2-suited 3C it is a GF raise". This "really added to the opponents' problems", right? Unfortunately your RHO passes and your are in a heads-you-lose-tails-they-win situation. If you guess wrong you won't get redress because "you were told they often forget". OTOH if you guess right you will merely get even with the rest of the field. If this is not "unfair advantage" then what is? I so much prefer the de Wael School - explain "Ghestem" or "natural", whatever you think is more probable and if you guess wrong then suffer the consequences. But don't put the burden of sorting out the whole mess on the opponents - and this is exactly what you do when you offer them the may-be-or-may-not business. "I told'em we often forget, didn't I?"... Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Relacje z meczy na zywo, minuta po minucie!!! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f15e3 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 01:58:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g55Fw9J24370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 01:58:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (nuser.dybdal.dk [62.242.254.78]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g55Fw3H24366 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 01:58:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id DAFD8107508 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 17:45:10 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 17:45:10 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <51bsfu8igijk05ipqjfncbftq45225nspa@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020529133948.031de700@acsys.anu.edu.au> <3CFE0C5F.1050704@gordonrainsford.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <3CFE0C5F.1050704@gordonrainsford.co.uk> 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 g55Fw5H24367 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 05 Jun 2002 14:04:31 +0100, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >As a fairly recent subscriber, can someone explain to me why the mailing >list is run in this way rather than as a usenet newsgroup? In early 1996, just before the creation of BLML, we were a group of some 8-10 people who discussed law interpretation by e-mail. As I remember it, we did consider creating a newsgroup. But if we were to create a newsgroup, we wanted it to be a rec.games group (possibly rec.games.bridge.laws) in order to ensure that it would be available everywhere. We did not at that time believe that we could get the necessary number of votes to create such a newsgroup. If I remember correctly, you need not only some proportion of the votes being "yes" - which would be easy - but also 200 more "yes" votes than "no" votes. That judgment was probably correct - it took a long time before BLML reached 200 members. Today we could probably get the necessary 200+ votes. As I see it, the advantages of a mailing list over Usenet are: * It does not require the 200+ votes. * E-mail is more reliable - many ISP's have unreliable news servers. * Spammers usually do not harvest e-mail addresses from mailing lists. I use my primary address on BLML, and that address is completely spam-free because I keep it away from newsgroups and web pages; on Usenet, I use temporary addresses that I replace once in a while. * Many people have Internet connections and know how to use e-mail, but have never tried Usenet. For such people, having to learn to use Usenet (including finding out what your ISP's news server is called) may seem to not be worth the bother. And if they do it without the precaution of using a temporary or invalid address, as most Usenet beginners do, they will soon receive a lot of spam. Usenet has advantages too: * We would not need to find a host for a mailing list. * We would not need somebody to do the job that Markus does now, monitoring the working of BLML and handling bounces. * Groups.google.com would automatically archive the discussions for us. * People who are familiar with Usenet already would probably be able to find the newsgroup more easily than they can find the mailing list. -- 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 Jun 6 02:05:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g55G5gC24387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 02:05:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g55G5bH24383 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 02:05:37 +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 g55FqfA12773; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 17:52:41 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by penguin.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g55Fqfm09413; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 17:52:41 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: penguin.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 17:52:41 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Jesper Dybdal cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home In-Reply-To: <51bsfu8igijk05ipqjfncbftq45225nspa@nuser.dybdal.dk> 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, 5 Jun 2002, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > As I see it, the advantages of a mailing list over Usenet are: [...] * It is easier to control a mailing list and exclude people who are making off-topic postings. 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 Jun 6 02:06:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g55G64j24399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 02:06:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g55G5wH24395 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 02:05:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id LAA27607 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 11:53:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA27764 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 11:53:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 11:53:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200206051553.LAA27764@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Gordon Rainsford > As a fairly recent subscriber, can someone explain to me why the mailing > list is run in this way rather than as a usenet newsgroup? The original reason was that we expected to have too few subscribers to create a new newsgroup. BLML is now large enough, but there may be good reasons for keeping it a mailing list. Sven mentioned spam. Another is that not everyone may have access (or easy access) to Usenet. Another is that we would almost surely get a lot more junk messages in a newsgroup than we get now unless the newsgroup is moderated. But moderation slows down the exchange of ideas -- that may be good or bad depending on circumstances. On the plus side, newsgroups are "self-administering." Nobody has to keep track of subscribers. I think on the whole I might have a mild personal preference for a moderated Usenet newsgroup but only if that would not inconvenience other 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 Thu Jun 6 02:06:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g55G6MS24411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 02:06:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (nuser.dybdal.dk [62.242.254.78]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g55G6FH24407 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 02:06:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id EAE8D107508 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 17:53:23 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: [BLML] RE: WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 17:53:23 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <1pcsfus98r7dt9bbk506gnebuf118g529u@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: <575767135FD8E5499A1640167D54CFEC0FFD67@bruce.ecats.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <575767135FD8E5499A1640167D54CFEC0FFD67@bruce.ecats.co.uk> 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 g55G6IH24408 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 09:06:07 +0100, "anna" wrote: >It is now live. I will email webmasters, press etc later today or >tomorrow (I have the World Wide Bridge Contest happening this weekend, >so it is a bit hectic here ...!) > >Go to: >http://www.ecatsbridge.com/BiB/b7/htmldocs.asp >And you will see the link to them. What an excellent way to present the changes! I might be a very good idea for the WBFLC to try to get whoever is responsible for this (primarily Anna, I suppose) to also present the 2005 Laws when the time comes. -- 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 Jun 6 02:10:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g55G9xq24424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 02:09:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g55G9sH24420 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 02:09:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id LAA27890 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 11:57:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA27805 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 11:57:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 11:57:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200206051557.LAA27805@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk It seems Jesper's message and mine "crossed in the mail." > From: Jesper Dybdal > If I remember > correctly, you need not only some proportion of the votes being > "yes" - which would be easy - but also 200 more "yes" votes than > "no" votes. It was 100 at the time. As far as I know, that's still the number, but it could have been changed. Even the smaller number seemed far out of reach back in 1996, but I expect we could get 200 votes today if there is strong sentiment to do so. Otherwise, Jesper laid out the advantages and disadvantages much better than I did. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 02:16:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g55GFlj24446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 02:15:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (nuser.dybdal.dk [62.242.254.78]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g55GFeH24442 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 02:15:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 3E5D2107508 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 18:02:49 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 18:02:49 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <51bsfu8igijk05ipqjfncbftq45225nspa@nuser.dybdal.dk> In-Reply-To: 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 g55GFiH24443 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 17:52:41 +0200 (CEST), "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" wrote: >On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >> As I see it, the advantages of a mailing list over Usenet are: >[...] > >* It is easier to control a mailing list and exclude people who > are making off-topic postings. Yes, indeed. I think I forgot that one because I happen to enjoy the privilege of using a news server that my ISP filters seriously for spam. -- 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 Jun 6 02:23:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g55GMgs24461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 02:22:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (nuser.dybdal.dk [62.242.254.78]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g55GMbH24457 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 02:22:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id C092F107508 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 18:09:45 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 18:09:45 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <200206051557.LAA27805@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200206051557.LAA27805@cfa183.harvard.edu> 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 g55GMcH24458 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 11:57:01 -0400 (EDT), Steve Willner wrote: >It seems Jesper's message and mine "crossed in the mail." > >> From: Jesper Dybdal >> If I remember >> correctly, you need not only some proportion of the votes being >> "yes" - which would be easy - but also 200 more "yes" votes than >> "no" votes. > >It was 100 at the time. As far as I know, that's still the number, but >it could have been changed. You are right, and it is still 100. I remembered it wrongly. I have now checked it: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1/ says: >3) AFTER the waiting period, and if there were no serious objections > that might invalidate the vote, and if 100 more valid YES/create > votes are received than NO/don't create AND at least 2/3 of the > total number of valid votes received are in favor of creation, a > newgroup control message may be sent out. If the 100 vote margin > or 2/3 percentage is not met, the group should not be created. -- 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 Jun 6 02:27:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g55GQwc24489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 02:26:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g55GQnH24481 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 02:26:50 +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/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g55GDwD08444 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 12:13:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 12:05:44 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Fielding (was Ghestem, 826894th rerun) To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <012701c20c9a$e9f1ccb0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> 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 6/5/02, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >I so much prefer the de Wael School - >explain "Ghestem" or "natural", >whatever you think is more probable >and if you guess wrong then suffer >the consequences. But don't put the >burden of sorting out the whole mess >on the opponents - and this is exactly >what you do when you offer them the >may-be-or-may-not business. "I told'em >we often forget, didn't I?"... I have recently discovered that the ACBL has published "general conditions of contest" applicable to all ACBL tournaments (it's unclear to me whether they're meant to apply to club games at which ACBL masterpoints are awarded, but never mind that.) Among other things, they specify that players are expected to know their methods in, I think the term was "normally expected auctions". It would seem then that if a pair *know* that they "often forget" an agreement, they could be awarded a PP at least under this regulation. I'm not sure that an adjusted score would be justified, but if a pair were to start getting PPs every time they forgot, they'd soon either abandon the convention, or learn it, I would think. Of course, ACBL TDs don't seem to like to award PPs, so maybe it doesn't work in practice, even if it would in theory. 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 Jun 6 02:27:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g55GQuB24488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 02:26:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g55GQmH24479 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 02:26:49 +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 g55GDtD08400 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 12:13:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 12:12:37 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Seeking a new home To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <000b01c20c9c$44312c60$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 6/5/02, Sven Pran wrote: >If BLML is transferred to usenet protocols I shall of course use my >fictious address also with BLML in the future. Spam's probably the biggest downside to Usenet, but it's not the only one. If we were to go to a "big eight" newsgroup (eg, rec.games.bridge.blml) we'd have to go through the formal group creation process, which (a) takes a while and (b) might fail. A group in the alt hierarchy is possible (I'm not familiar with group creation in that hierarchy, but I understand it's much easier than in the big eight) but alt groups are, imo, a waste of bandwidth, and I've stopped reading them except for a couple. IMO, a decent mailing list is *much* better than a newsgroup for these discussions. 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 Jun 6 06:52:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g55Kps524676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 06:51:54 +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-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 g55KpmH24672 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 06:51:49 +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 17FhYT-000ADG-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 05 Jun 2002 21:38:55 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:42:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws References: <200206040215.TAA26278@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200206040215.TAA26278@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 >I've looked over the online laws briefly. It appears that the >approach was to simply copy the regular Duplicate laws with the >minimum amount of modification necessary to make online bridge work. > >At first, I was surprised at how much was left in---all the stuff >about insufficient bids, calls/leads out of turn, revokes, etc. I was >expecting that the Online laws would simply say that such >irregularities must be prohibited by the software (is there any >existing software that doesn't already do this?) and then all the >stuff about how to deal with such irregularities could be eliminated. >I did see the phrase in the Summary Statement that "Certain laws are >... rendered moot by normal software design". Still, it seems to me >that no purpose is accomplished by leaving those laws in---and I'm >concerned that doing so is going to make the effort look silly. Suppose you decide to take all such Laws out. Then, next week, a provider starts providing "Real Bridge" as they call it, and say that it has advantages over OKBridge and the Zone because it is much more lifelike. The software allows you to make leads out of turn, insufficient bids and so on. Why should that not happen? It does not seem totally unrealistic 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 Thu Jun 6 07:14:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g55LEaq24702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 07:14:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk ([62.242.254.78]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g55LESH24698 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 07:14:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id CDEAB107508 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 23:01:34 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 23:01:34 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <200206040215.TAA26278@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: 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 g55LEWH24699 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:42:20 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Adam Beneschan writes > >>At first, I was surprised at how much was left in---all the stuff >>about insufficient bids, calls/leads out of turn, revokes, etc. > > Suppose you decide to take all such Laws out. Then, next week, a >provider starts providing "Real Bridge" as they call it, and say that it >has advantages over OKBridge and the Zone because it is much more >lifelike. The software allows you to make leads out of turn, >insufficient bids and so on. > > Why should that not happen? It does not seem totally unrealistic to >me. Nor to me, if the laws allowed it. But it might make sense to have laws that specifically require the software to block attempts to perform those irregularities. E.g., L27: "The software must ensure that it is not possible to make an insufficient bid." -- 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 Jun 6 07:48:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g55LlvS24735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 07:47:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g55LlqH24731 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 07:47:53 +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 OAA08373; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 14:34:54 -0700 Message-Id: <200206052134.OAA08373@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Jun 2002 16:42:20 BST." Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 14:40:19 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan writes > > >I've looked over the online laws briefly. It appears that the > >approach was to simply copy the regular Duplicate laws with the > >minimum amount of modification necessary to make online bridge work. > > > >At first, I was surprised at how much was left in---all the stuff > >about insufficient bids, calls/leads out of turn, revokes, etc. I was > >expecting that the Online laws would simply say that such > >irregularities must be prohibited by the software (is there any > >existing software that doesn't already do this?) and then all the > >stuff about how to deal with such irregularities could be eliminated. > >I did see the phrase in the Summary Statement that "Certain laws are > >... rendered moot by normal software design". Still, it seems to me > >that no purpose is accomplished by leaving those laws in---and I'm > >concerned that doing so is going to make the effort look silly. > > Suppose you decide to take all such Laws out. Then, next week, a > provider starts providing "Real Bridge" as they call it, and say that it > has advantages over OKBridge and the Zone because it is much more > lifelike. The software allows you to make leads out of turn, > insufficient bids and so on. > > Why should that not happen? It does not seem totally unrealistic to > me. I think anyone would have to be a bit perverse to *want* to play with software like this. However, if the people responsible for the online laws considered whether to allow software programs that allowed for irregularities, or to prohibit them by stating that such programs do not conform to the Laws, and decided to allow them just in case someone is [insert your own adjective] enough to like playing this way, I guess their decision makes sense. I'm still a bit surprised, though. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 07:58:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g55LwQ724748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 07:58:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bean.epix.net (bean.epix.net [199.224.64.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g55LwKH24744 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 07:58:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (svcr-216-37-229-100.dsl.svcr.epix.net [216.37.229.100]) by bean.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g55LjRPD015082 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 17:45:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 17:45:42 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <200206040215.TAA26278@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:42:20 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Adam Beneschan writes > >>I've looked over the online laws briefly. It appears that the >>approach was to simply copy the regular Duplicate laws with the >>minimum amount of modification necessary to make online bridge work. >> >>At first, I was surprised at how much was left in---all the stuff >>about insufficient bids, calls/leads out of turn, revokes, etc. I was >>expecting that the Online laws would simply say that such >>irregularities must be prohibited by the software (is there any >>existing software that doesn't already do this?) and then all the >>stuff about how to deal with such irregularities could be eliminated. >>I did see the phrase in the Summary Statement that "Certain laws are >>... rendered moot by normal software design". Still, it seems to me >>that no purpose is accomplished by leaving those laws in---and I'm >>concerned that doing so is going to make the effort look silly. > > Suppose you decide to take all such Laws out. Then, next week, a >provider starts providing "Real Bridge" as they call it, and say that it >has advantages over OKBridge and the Zone because it is much more >lifelike. The software allows you to make leads out of turn, >insufficient bids and so on. > > Why should that not happen? It does not seem totally unrealistic to >me. > Well, I'll tell you my reason why it won't happen, David. There's enough aggro on OKBridge (the only online service I've used) at the moment with incomplete or mistaken explanations, I seem to remember you having some first hand experience of this in the tourneys, let alone the normal club play? If you were to have an online provider write the software in such a way as to allow leads/calls out of turn, for example, leaving aside the fact that it's more complicated to write it that way, can you imagine the increase in disputes that it would cause, given that there's no TD available in normal play to sort things out? How many online players do you think are sufficiently well versed in the Laws to be able to handle the sort of things you suggest "Real bridge" might put back in? If anyone was daft enough to introduce "Real Bridge" as per your suggestion, I would bet that their membership would have the fastest turnover of any of the other online services, and by a large margin too, because of all the disputes there would be. Yes, I know you could write the software that would deal with COOTs, LOOTs and so forth automatically. Now we're talking a *really* large increase in the complexity of the programming. No provider in their right mind is going to go to all this trouble. Far easier and (IMHO) better for all concerned, including the programming, to allow the software to block whatever errors it can. Brian. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 09:29:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g55NSp424800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 09:28:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g55NSjH24796 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 09:28:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1066.bb.online.no [80.212.212.42]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA05380 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 01:15:48 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001d01c20ce6$ed4f3e00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200206040215.TAA26278@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 01:15:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Meadows" ....... > > Suppose you decide to take all such Laws out. Then, next week, a > >provider starts providing "Real Bridge" as they call it, and say that it > >has advantages over OKBridge and the Zone because it is much more > >lifelike. The software allows you to make leads out of turn, > >insufficient bids and so on. > > > > Why should that not happen? It does not seem totally unrealistic to > >me. > > > > Well, I'll tell you my reason why it won't happen, David. There's > enough aggro on OKBridge (the only online service I've used) at > the moment with incomplete or mistaken explanations, I seem to > remember you having some first hand experience of this in the > tourneys, let alone the normal club play? David and Jesper have both made excellent points here, David by showing that as the software is a model of the real life (possibly allowing errors if that is what "we" want, the laws must cover also such situations) and Jesper by giving the only really acceptable suggestion that all the laws concerning errors should wherever possible be rewritten to: "The software should prevent this error". Written this way the proposal by Jesper can even be met in a way that does not disturb the numbering of the remaining laws. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 10:47:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g560lTC24837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 10:47:29 +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 g560lOH24833 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 10:47:24 +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 KAA19776 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 10:48:45 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 06 Jun 2002 10:30:58 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] RE: WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 10:34:03 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 06/06/2002 10:30:45 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >What an excellent way to present the changes! > >I might be a very good idea for the WBFLC to try to get whoever >is responsible for this (primarily Anna, I suppose) to also >present the 2005 Laws when the time comes. >-- >Jesper Dybdal At the moment, due to a 70-year old anomaly, the copyright of the Duplicate Laws in half the world belongs to the Portland Club (which is primarily a social club which plays some Rubber Bridge). In order for the Laws to become more easily known to TDs and players, I suggest that the WBF buys back the copyright. 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 Jun 6 11:02:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5611vC24854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 11:01:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from melon.epix.net (melon.epix.net [199.224.64.58]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5611pH24850 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 11:01:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (svcr-216-37-229-100.dsl.svcr.epix.net [216.37.229.100]) by melon.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g560mwDm020292 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 20:48:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 20:49:14 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <200206040215.TAA26278@mailhub.irvine.com> <001d01c20ce6$ed4f3e00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <001d01c20ce6$ed4f3e00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 01:15:44 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Brian Meadows" >....... >> > Suppose you decide to take all such Laws out. Then, next week, a >> >provider starts providing "Real Bridge" as they call it, and say that it >> >has advantages over OKBridge and the Zone because it is much more >> >lifelike. The software allows you to make leads out of turn, >> >insufficient bids and so on. >> > >> > Why should that not happen? It does not seem totally unrealistic to >> >me. >> > >> >> Well, I'll tell you my reason why it won't happen, David. There's >> enough aggro on OKBridge (the only online service I've used) at >> the moment with incomplete or mistaken explanations, I seem to >> remember you having some first hand experience of this in the >> tourneys, let alone the normal club play? > >David and Jesper have both made excellent points here, David by >showing that as the software is a model of the real life (possibly >allowing errors if that is what "we" want, the laws must cover also >such situations) and Jesper by giving the only really acceptable >suggestion that all the laws concerning errors should wherever >possible be rewritten to: "The software should prevent this error". > >Written this way the proposal by Jesper can even be met in a >way that does not disturb the numbering of the remaining laws. > I don't disagree with any of that. What my post addressed was David's question as to why the scenario he described shouldn't happen. No provider in their right mind is going to write what David describes as "Real Bridge", even if the laws give him the opportunity to do so. Brian. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 13:07:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5636iw25079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:06:44 +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-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 g5636YH25067 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:06:35 +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 17FnP9-0001UN-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 06 Jun 2002 03:53:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 03:42:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws References: <200206040215.TAA26278@mailhub.irvine.com> <001d01c20ce6$ed4f3e00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows writes >On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 01:15:44 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Brian Meadows" >>....... >>> > Suppose you decide to take all such Laws out. Then, next week, a >>> >provider starts providing "Real Bridge" as they call it, and say that it >>> >has advantages over OKBridge and the Zone because it is much more >>> >lifelike. The software allows you to make leads out of turn, >>> >insufficient bids and so on. >>> > >>> > Why should that not happen? It does not seem totally unrealistic to >>> >me. >>> > >>> >>> Well, I'll tell you my reason why it won't happen, David. There's >>> enough aggro on OKBridge (the only online service I've used) at >>> the moment with incomplete or mistaken explanations, I seem to >>> remember you having some first hand experience of this in the >>> tourneys, let alone the normal club play? >> >>David and Jesper have both made excellent points here, David by >>showing that as the software is a model of the real life (possibly >>allowing errors if that is what "we" want, the laws must cover also >>such situations) and Jesper by giving the only really acceptable >>suggestion that all the laws concerning errors should wherever >>possible be rewritten to: "The software should prevent this error". >> >>Written this way the proposal by Jesper can even be met in a >>way that does not disturb the numbering of the remaining laws. >> > >I don't disagree with any of that. What my post addressed was >David's question as to why the scenario he described shouldn't >happen. No provider in their right mind is going to write what >David describes as "Real Bridge", even if the laws give him the >opportunity to do so. Why should they be "in their right mind"? People do all sorts of experiments. Do not forget, I am not interested in telling providers what to do, just in what the Laws should say. It is very easy to consider the present situation and fail to look ahead. In some measure that might be partly what is wrong with the present Laws which are really written for spoken bidding without screens. As the internet explosion goes on I think it remarkably difficult to predict what will happen and I believe it is better to allow for things even if they look impractical or stupid at this moment. Brian has suggested in an earlier post that the amount of software needed becomes enormous. I think that is not thinking straight about the possibilities of the future: remember "No-one will ever require a computer with more than one megabyte of disk memory"? Or was it more than one kilobyte of actual memory? I am not sure of the exact wording, but that was certainly said by Bill Gates. I can easily believe that the software problem in providing all possible plays and calls, whether legal or not, while enormous now might be considered trivial in ten years. I also think that when simulating real life there is always a certain number of people that want it to be as close to real life as possible. I also think that if there are a lot more providers available in ten years time [quite possible] that some of them will wish to compete by providing a different service. I think you may be surprised: I shall have a nice little one Euro bet with anyone who likes that there will be a provider allowing illegal calls or plays within ten years. Any takers? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 13:07:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5636ix25078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:06:44 +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-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 g5636ZH25070 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:06:36 +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 17FnP9-0001UO-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 06 Jun 2002 03:53:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 03:45:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] RE: WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge 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 >At the moment, due to a 70-year old anomaly, the copyright of >the Duplicate Laws in half the world belongs to the Portland >Club (which is primarily a social club which plays some Rubber >Bridge). > >In order for the Laws to become more easily known to TDs and >players, I suggest that the WBF buys back the copyright. Whether this is practical or not, I do not see how it makes the Laws easier known. The Portland club has allowed a fairly free marketing of the laws and has given permission for them to be online. What would be different if the WBF had the copyright? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 13:32:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g563Vro25371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:31:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g563VmH25367 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:31:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g563Iof17551; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 23:18:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 23:15:51 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws 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 6/6/02, David Stevenson wrote: >remember "No-one will ever require a computer with more than one >megabyte of disk memory"? Or was it more than one kilobyte of actual >memory? I am not sure of the exact wording, but that was certainly >said by Bill Gates. IIRC, what Gates said is that no one would ever need a computer with more than 640 KB RAM. That would probably have been sometime in the early 80s. Some years earlier (ca. 1956), the CEO of IBM corporation told the US government that there were already three computers in the world, and no one would ever need any more. Predicting the future ain't easy. I suspect that's true even for psychics. :-) 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 Jun 6 14:24:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g564OFc25402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 14:24:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from falgate.fujitsu.com.au (falgate.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.211.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g564OBH25398 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 14:24:11 +1000 (EST) Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id OAA18371; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 14:11:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from unknown(137.172.19.140) by falhost.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V5.5) id xma018369; Thu, 6 Jun 02 14:11:14 +1000 Received: from Viruswall (mailhost.fujitsu.com.au) with ESMTP id g564BEL18907 Received: from doctech (doctech.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.72.22]) by mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id g564BDL18901 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 14:11:13 +1000 Received: from SERCDEMOnote ([137.172.15.68]) by doctech (4.1/SMI-4.1-MHS-7.0) id AA15472; Thu, 6 Jun 02 14:11:39 EST Message-Id: <2bb401c20d10$32ae3270$440fac89@au.fjanz.com> From: "Peter Newman" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 14:11:13 +1000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi All, I thought it would be interesting to get feedback from BLML participants on how they would approach the following situation. [I am deliberately omitting the hands because I don't really care what the final decision would be - just what are the correct questions that a director/appeals committee feel need to be addressed.] Scenario. EW are 2 experts who have played together maybe twice before. NS are experts (a relatively new partnership) Dealer N. Vul EW. N E S W 1C*1 2NT*2 X*3 3C X 3D P 3H X// *1 - could be 3 (playing acol) *2 - undiscussed - intended as reds *3 - asked West about 2NT was told: "I think it shows minors but we haven't discussed this auction" 3HX made 4 for +930 EW. Director ruled: Results stands. [on the grounds that it is obvious to everyone what is going on after Easts 3D bid] NS want to appeal on the grounds that South would bid 3C over 2NT if knew it was the reds. The actual bids as presented did occur in real life. There was no appeal as the result of the match wasn't affected by the result on this hand. How should an appeals committee approach this problem? If there are questions which need to be determined then pls. answer for the possible answers. Thx.... Cheers, Peter Newman http://www.nswba.com.au -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 16:10:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5668bo25455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 16:08:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5668WH25451 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 16:08:32 +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 g565tdS21584 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 22:55:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00c201c20d1e$b4f796a0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] RE: WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 22:51:11 -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" wrote: > richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > >At the moment, due to a 70-year old anomaly, the copyright of > >the Duplicate Laws in half the world belongs to the Portland > >Club (which is primarily a social club which plays some Rubber > >Bridge). That seems like an exaggeration. See below. > > > >In order for the Laws to become more easily known to TDs and > >players, I suggest that the WBF buys back the copyright. > > Whether this is practical or not, I do not see how it makes the Laws > easier known. The Portland club has allowed a fairly free marketing of > the laws and has given permission for them to be online. What would be > different if the WBF had the copyright? > Here is the current situation, rather complicated, which I copied from the WBF website: The Copyright of the 1997 Code in all non-English speaking countries in Europe (other than Spain and Portugal) is vested in the European Bridge League. The Copyright in the area of the British Commonwealth past and present (other than the Western Hemisphere), the Continent of Africa, Spain, Portugal and all English speaking countries in the Eastern Hemisphere is vested in the Portland Club. The Copyright in the Western Hemisphere and in the Republic of Philippines is vested in the American Contract Bridge League. Extracts from these Laws either verbatim or paraphrased are not permitted without the sanction of the Authority holding the Copyright. Within those areas where the Copyright is vested in the European Bridge League, the League sanctions, without charge, the translation and verbatim reproduction of the 1997 Code both in written and electronic forms, provided the European Bridge League's Copyright is acknowledged. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 16:32:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g566UbA25477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 16:30:37 +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 g566UWH25473 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 16:30:33 +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 QAA22738 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 16:31:48 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 06 Jun 2002 16:14:01 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 16:17:06 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 06/06/2002 16:13:47 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Newman wrote: [big snip] >asked West about 2NT was told: "I think it shows >minors but we haven't discussed this auction" [big snip] As West was an expert, West should be well aware that the explanation should simply be, "Undiscussed." *Any* expert should have known that giving pard UI that one was interpreting the undiscussed 2NT as the minors was highly improper. Eddie Kantar related the story of how Hamman and Soloway had a similar unusual-2NT mixup in a high stakes rubber game. No UI was transmitted, so Hamman-Soloway shelled out megabucks when doubled in their non-fit. In this case, as TD and AC, I would educate West with a PP. (If West were not an expert, I would opt for a mere explanation to West about UI.) 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 Jun 6 18:26:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g568P8B25571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 18:25:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g568P2H25567 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 18:25:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mailing.poczta.interia.pl (mailing) with ESMTP id 002785FEB for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 10:12:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by rav.antivirus (Mailserver) with SMTP id 2366358CF for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 10:11:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 9254F5A90; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 09:35:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id B459C5A8E for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 09:35:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <006001c20d2c$ac44fe40$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: References: <200206040215.TAA26278@mailhub.irvine.com> <001d01c20ce6$ed4f3e00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 09:35:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" > I think you may be surprised: I shall have a nice little one Euro bet > with anyone who likes that there will be a provider allowing illegal > calls or plays within ten years. Any takers? Me. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mistrzostwa na zywo w Internecie!!! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f15e2 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 19:29:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g569Sck25605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 19:28:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from new-media.gr ([212.205.99.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g569SVH25601 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 19:28:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from pournaras ([62.1.238.150]) by new-media.gr ( IA Mail Server Version: 4.1.7. Build: 1030 ) ; Thu, 06 Jun 2002 12:12:02 +0300 Message-ID: <000a01c20d3a$a1ea3420$5500a8c0@pournaras> From: "Takis Pournaras" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 12:14:58 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [David Stevenson] > I think you may be surprised: I shall have a nice little one Euro bet > with anyone who likes that there will be a provider allowing illegal > calls or plays within ten years. Any takers? For half the money I'll have it ready in less than five. Takis Pournaras -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 19:33:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g569Xje25617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 19:33:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g569XeH25613 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 19:33:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (svcr-216-37-229-100.dsl.svcr.epix.net [216.37.229.100]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g569KkKK027121 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 05:20:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 05:21:02 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <200206040215.TAA26278@mailhub.irvine.com> <001d01c20ce6$ed4f3e00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 03:42:54 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >> >>I don't disagree with any of that. What my post addressed was >>David's question as to why the scenario he described shouldn't >>happen. No provider in their right mind is going to write what >>David describes as "Real Bridge", even if the laws give him the >>opportunity to do so. > > Why should they be "in their right mind"? Well, all right, I suppose some multi-millionaire (so he doesn't have any worries about getting funding) who can't see the obvious flaws is theoretically possible. Don't hold your breath. >People do all sorts of >experiments. Yes. The sillier ones generally don't last very long. >Do not forget, I am not interested in telling providers >what to do, just in what the Laws should say. > I understand that - but unless you are saying that you think the laws should cover every possible eventuality, no matter how unlikely, I don't think that your idea of "Real bridge" is much of a justification for anything. YMMV. > It is very easy to consider the present situation and fail to look >ahead. In some measure that might be partly what is wrong with the >present Laws which are really written for spoken bidding without >screens. > > As the internet explosion goes on I think it remarkably difficult to >predict what will happen and I believe it is better to allow for things >even if they look impractical or stupid at this moment. > I'm well aware of the dangers of prediction, but I still think I'm on pretty solid ground on this one. > Brian has suggested in an earlier post that the amount of software >needed becomes enormous. Now for somebody as touchy as you are about being misquoted, this is really not good enough. ;-) What I actually said was that there would be an enormous increase in the *complexity* of the software, without any apparent benefits, and the two are not the same thing. Without wishing to get too technical, it is far easier to write code to handle an ordered sequence of events (whoever is on lead leads a card, next player, next player, next player. Calculate who won the trick. That hands leads a card, next player, next player, next player) than it is to handle a random sequence of events (someone other then the player on lead plays a card, his rho thinks this is an excuse for immediately playing two cards OOT to the same trick, etc). The software that would be needed to cope with all the idiocies possible in F2F bridge *would* be an order of magnitude more complex, and no-one is going to write it. >I think that is not thinking straight about >the possibilities of the future: remember "No-one will ever require a >computer with more than one megabyte of disk memory"? Or was it more >than one kilobyte of actual memory? I am not sure of the exact wording, >but that was certainly said by Bill Gates. > As Ed has pointed out, you have the quotes a little skewed, but whatever - the difference between this and your "Real Bridge" is that there were enormous benefits to be had from the advances that trashed these predictions. As I said in an earlier message, if you write software to allow these irregularities in online bridge, then either you need to employ enough TDs to cope with the variable demand that online bridge sees, or you need to write what's basically an expert system to do the directing - think about that one, David, you have to define all possible problems in terms of fixed rules, no judgement calls. All this just to increase the amount of aggravation that goes on at the table. > I can easily believe that the software problem in providing all >possible plays and calls, whether legal or not, while enormous now might >be considered trivial in ten years. > Trust me, it won't be. ;-) Based on the difference between the code I was writing for Marconi, 20 years ago, and the code I am writing now, then yes, the methods of programming have changed, three 32Kb task windows and the interface written by driving the VDU directly in 1982 against 4GB of flat space and RAD techniques today, *but* there has been no such advances in *designing* the programs. Yes, RAD is a wonderful thing (I've written Windows programs without using inheritance, every programmer should have to try it once, but no-one should have to do it twice), *but* you still have to do the grunt work to design and code the algorithms for what you want your program to do. That part hasn't changed. > I also think that when simulating real life there is always a certain >number of people that want it to be as close to real life as possible. Based on my 7+ years experience of online bridge, there seem to be enough hassles caused by the irregularities that online bridge will still let you commit that I think the chances of people opting to play in an environment constructed to permit even more irregularities is as near zero as makes no difference. >I also think that if there are a lot more providers available in ten >years time [quite possible] that some of them will wish to compete by >providing a different service. > Well, I obviously can't disprove a prediction like that until we have passed the 10 years. > I think you may be surprised: I shall have a nice little one Euro bet >with anyone who likes that there will be a provider allowing illegal >calls or plays within ten years. Any takers? > Certainly I'll take it. What's more, I'll give you 100-1 odds as well, provided you'll agree to add a stipulation that this must be a commercial service which has had the possibility of illegal plays deliberately implemented, and which is sufficiently functional to allow four players to play one rubber (or say six hands of duplicate if it doesn't support rubber) without crashing. This is to prevent your claiming on the basis of some half-baked bug-laden amateur effort that is only barely recognisable as bridge, and where the possibility of illegal plays is due to grossly incompetent programming rather than deliberate design. Brian. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 19:45:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g569ipK25640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 19:44:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g569ijH25636 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 19:44:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g569VpY17382 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 10:31:51 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 10:31 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: Richard Hills wrote: > > >asked West about 2NT was told: "I think it shows > >minors but we haven't discussed this auction" > > [big snip] > > As West was an expert, West should be well aware > that the explanation should simply be, "Undiscussed." If West had reason to believe that it would be the minors (perhaps he plays that way with a mutual partner, perhaps that is the common style at the local club) then he is obliged to include that in his explanation. > *Any* expert should have known that giving pard UI > that one was interpreting the undiscussed 2NT as > the minors was highly improper. Every time you explain partner's call it makes UI available to partner. The more fully you disclose the more UI you make available. That is never improper. It is up to partner to deal with the problems posed by UI. We (or least I hope we, perhaps it is just me) do *not* want people using the excuse "I didn't want to make UI available" to avoid their disclosure obligations. 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 Jun 6 20:03:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56A33W25673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 20:03:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g56A2vH25669 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 20:02:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0560.bb.online.no [80.212.210.48]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA09602 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 11:49:59 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00af01c20d3f$85823940$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200206040215.TAA26278@mailhub.irvine.com> <001d01c20ce6$ed4f3e00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 11:49:54 +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: "Brian Meadows" ...... > Now for somebody as touchy as you are about being misquoted, this > is really not good enough. ;-) What I actually said was that > there would be an enormous increase in the *complexity* of the > software, without any apparent benefits, and the two are not the > same thing. Without wishing to get too technical, it is far > easier to write code to handle an ordered sequence of events > (whoever is on lead leads a card, next player, next player, next > player. Calculate who won the trick. That hands leads a card, > next player, next player, next player) than it is to handle a > random sequence of events (someone other then the player on lead > plays a card, his rho thinks this is an excuse for immediately > playing two cards OOT to the same trick, etc). The software that > would be needed to cope with all the idiocies possible in F2F > bridge *would* be an order of magnitude more complex, and no-one > is going to write it. If you really say what I think you are saying, you scare me as representing this huge group (majority?) of system designers who apparently have not grasped the importance of designing systems to foresee every event that can possibly occur. If a player not in rotation attempts an action the software must handle that, the question is whether it shall simply inhibit such actions or treat them as possible, but illegal actions. If a player in rotation tries to make an invalid call or tries to play an illegal card (revoke) the program must be designed to either prevent such errors or to allow them. Etc. etc. And in all cases if the software allows illegal actions it must include routines to handle the follow-ups on such actions. Actually the software should become more complex by allowing the players to make errors (like they occationally do in "real bridge") because of the extra routines needed to handle those errors rather than just inhibit 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 Thu Jun 6 20:06:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56A6HV25691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 20:06:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g56A6CH25687 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 20:06:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0560.bb.online.no [80.212.210.48]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA04012 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 11:53:13 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00b301c20d3f$f93e36e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 11:53:12 +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: "Tim West-meads" > Richard Hills wrote: > > > > > >asked West about 2NT was told: "I think it shows > > >minors but we haven't discussed this auction" > > > > [big snip] > > > > As West was an expert, West should be well aware > > that the explanation should simply be, "Undiscussed." > > If West had reason to believe that it would be the minors (perhaps he > plays that way with a mutual partner, perhaps that is the common style at > the local club) then he is obliged to include that in his explanation. > > > *Any* expert should have known that giving pard UI > > that one was interpreting the undiscussed 2NT as > > the minors was highly improper. > > Every time you explain partner's call it makes UI available to partner. > The more fully you disclose the more UI you make available. That is never > improper. It is up to partner to deal with the problems posed by UI. > > We (or least I hope we, perhaps it is just me) do *not* want people using > the excuse "I didn't want to make UI available" to avoid their disclosure > obligations. > > Tim Hear - hear ! It is not just you, count me in with the same opinion! regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 21:13:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56BDE125745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 21:13:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bean.epix.net (bean.epix.net [199.224.64.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g56BD9H25741 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 21:13:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (svcr-216-37-229-100.dsl.svcr.epix.net [216.37.229.100]) by bean.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g56B0FPD004451 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 07:00:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 07:00:32 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <200206040215.TAA26278@mailhub.irvine.com> <001d01c20ce6$ed4f3e00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00af01c20d3f$85823940$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <00af01c20d3f$85823940$6700a8c0@nwtyb> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 11:49:54 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Brian Meadows" >...... >> Now for somebody as touchy as you are about being misquoted, this >> is really not good enough. ;-) What I actually said was that >> there would be an enormous increase in the *complexity* of the >> software, without any apparent benefits, and the two are not the >> same thing. Without wishing to get too technical, it is far >> easier to write code to handle an ordered sequence of events >> (whoever is on lead leads a card, next player, next player, next >> player. Calculate who won the trick. That hands leads a card, >> next player, next player, next player) than it is to handle a >> random sequence of events (someone other then the player on lead >> plays a card, his rho thinks this is an excuse for immediately >> playing two cards OOT to the same trick, etc). The software that >> would be needed to cope with all the idiocies possible in F2F >> bridge *would* be an order of magnitude more complex, and no-one >> is going to write it. > >If you really say what I think you are saying, you scare me as >representing this huge group (majority?) of system designers >who apparently have not grasped the importance of designing >systems to foresee every event that can possibly occur. > That depends on what the software is that you're writing. If you're doing control systems or something like that, I totally agree with you. In the commercial world, you have to recognise that commercial pressures may dictate that you CANNOT attempt to handle all possible events. I have certainly had to release software before now that I knew to be buggy, because the project manager told me not to bother handling some obscure and relatively unlikely occurrence, it was more important to try to get the software out the door by some unrealistic deadline. In theory, Sven, I agree with you. In practice, it doesn't happen, because clients/employers are unwilling to commit the resources needed to do that thorough a design. >If a player not in rotation attempts an action the software must >handle that, the question is whether it shall simply inhibit such >actions or treat them as possible, but illegal actions. > Yes, indeed. My view is very strongly that the benefits of treating them as possible but illegal actions are so small (if not actually negative) that the decision will always be to inhibit them. >If a player in rotation tries to make an invalid call or tries to play >an illegal card (revoke) the program must be designed to either >prevent such errors or to allow them. > I think you;ve covered all the alternatives with that statement... ;-) >Etc. etc. And in all cases if the software allows illegal actions it >must include routines to handle the follow-ups on such actions. > Exactly. This is why I have said it will greatly increase the complexity of the software. >Actually the software should become more complex by allowing the >players to make errors (like they occationally do in "real bridge") >because of the extra routines needed to handle those errors >rather than just inhibit them. > I think that's exactly what I said? Handling the extra irregularities is much more complex than simply inhibiting them. Brian. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 21:36:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56BYi925761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 21:34:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g56BYcH25757 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 21:34:39 +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 NAA00737; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:19:14 +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 NAA11267; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:21:42 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020606131813.00aba7a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 13:28:53 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] exact content of a claim ? 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, After reading many threads about insufficient claims, I was convinced that we covered every decision about "non-absurd lines of play". However ... In the middle of a deal, West is on lead and plays a heart. South, who was ready for that, says "play the Ace and then a master trump. They're all mine". If the TD is asked to assess the claim, he must look at what will ensue from the stated line of play. He first has to decide what South, who has no more heart, will play from his hand on the heart trick. a) he can't be deemed to ruff the trick, because he stated that the second trick would be initiated by the dummy b) he can't be deemed to discard an Ace, or otherwise equivalent high card, because that would be irrational c) I've a gut feeling that he might be deemed to discard a spot card, even if it is high, because it would be merely negligent not to have noticed it was high Is there any grounds on which to argue this, or am I plainly wrong ? 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 Jun 6 21:54:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56Brvb25785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 21:53:57 +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 (f98.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g56BrqH25781 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 21:53:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 04:40:54 -0700 Received: from 172.169.128.163 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 06 Jun 2002 11:40:54 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.169.128.163] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 04:40:54 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jun 2002 11:40:54.0878 (UTC) FILETIME=[047E9FE0:01C20D4F] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Sven Pran" >If you really say what I think you are saying, you scare me as >representing this huge group (majority?) of system designers >who apparently have not grasped the importance of designing >systems to foresee every event that can possibly occur. I think, rather, he has. Whatever your feelings about it (and I too have been frustrated by software that went too far), it is often a good idea to limit the number of events that can occur to make the system simpler. >If a player not in rotation attempts an action the software must >handle that, the question is whether it shall simply inhibit such >actions or treat them as possible, but illegal actions. It is trivial to prohibit actions. Bridge without out-of-turn events is a simple state machine. Bridge with asynchronous, out-of-turn events is a different beast, perhaps still codeable as a state machine, but ugly. Personally, I don't want to be the guy dealing with an auction that goes, P - P - 1H - lead of the 2C trump with the 7H - P - 2S - trump with the 4S, etc. At some point, you have to prohibit actions from users and clean up the mess. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 22:20:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56CJpd25877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 22:19:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g56CJkH25873 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 22:19:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-11.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.11] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17Fw2X-0001mT-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 06 Jun 2002 08:06:54 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020606080233.00ad48d0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 08:09:10 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws In-Reply-To: References: <200206040215.TAA26278@mailhub.irvine.com> <200206040215.TAA26278@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:42 AM 6/5/02, David wrote: >Adam Beneschan writes > > >I've looked over the online laws briefly. It appears that the > >approach was to simply copy the regular Duplicate laws with the > >minimum amount of modification necessary to make online bridge work. > > > >At first, I was surprised at how much was left in---all the stuff > >about insufficient bids, calls/leads out of turn, revokes, etc. I was > >expecting that the Online laws would simply say that such > >irregularities must be prohibited by the software (is there any > >existing software that doesn't already do this?) and then all the > >stuff about how to deal with such irregularities could be eliminated. > >I did see the phrase in the Summary Statement that "Certain laws are > >... rendered moot by normal software design". Still, it seems to me > >that no purpose is accomplished by leaving those laws in---and I'm > >concerned that doing so is going to make the effort look silly. > > Suppose you decide to take all such Laws out. Then, next week, a >provider starts providing "Real Bridge" as they call it, and say that it >has advantages over OKBridge and the Zone because it is much more >lifelike. The software allows you to make leads out of turn, >insufficient bids and so on. > > Why should that not happen? It does not seem totally unrealistic to >me. Ultimately, I think we will need (and have) laws for on-line bridge incorporated into two essentially independent "lawbooks", one providing rules for players, the other providing rules for software. If the on-line community feels that it is a good thing for the software they use to prevent such things as leads out of turn or insufficient bids (as I belive they do), the laws of on-line bridge should (and, I believe, eventually will) require it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 22:25:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56CPZk25890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 22:25:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g56CPVH25886 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 22:25:31 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 12509 invoked by uid 504); 6 Jun 2002 12:12:34 -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 2.01125 secs); 06 Jun 2002 12:12:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.213) by 0 with SMTP; 6 Jun 2002 12:12:32 -0000 Message-ID: <008d01c20d53$2b855440$da16b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <001601c208ec$74bad2e0$1a6a7ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020605082244.00ad4d10@pop.starpower.net> <012701c20c9a$e9f1ccb0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Fielding (was Ghestem, 826894th rerun) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 00:09:54 +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: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 2:11 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fielding (was Ghestem, 826894th rerun) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > > > >b) you are allowed to explain partner's 3H as "over a true 3C, it is > > >natural NF, but over a 2-suited 3C it is a GF raise" (provided you > > >play it that way), and decide you play it as the primary explanation > > >anyway. This will add to the opponents' problems ; they deserve it > > > > > Not exactly Alain. > > The mere fact that responder has the HCP strength to make > a 3C/H bid makes the whole situation much worse for > the opening side than for the opponents. The opponents > will simply pass until the end of the auction to check > if you can get of out the swamp. > > Say you open 1D with > > Qxx > xx > AKJxx > QJx > > Your LHO overcalls 3C which is alerted. > You receive the explanation along the > may-be-or-may-be-not lines. Now partner > bids 3H which you alert and, following Alain's > advice, give them the explantion they deserve: > "over a true 3C, it is natural NF, but over a > 2-suited 3C it is a GF raise". This > "really added to the opponents' problems", right? Perhaps this isn't an optimal method and if that is what you play then you deserve all of the problems that you get. > Unfortunately your RHO passes and your are > in a heads-you-lose-tails-they-win situation. > If you guess wrong you won't get redress > because "you were told they often forget". > OTOH if you guess right you will merely > get even with the rest of the field. > If this is not "unfair advantage" then > what is? > > I so much prefer the de Wael School - > explain "Ghestem" or "natural", > whatever you think is more probable > and if you guess wrong then suffer > the consequences. But don't put the > burden of sorting out the whole mess > on the opponents - and this is exactly > what you do when you offer them the > may-be-or-may-not business. "I told'em > we often forget, didn't I?"... > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland If we often forget then the opponents are entitled to know that. So I can't see any problem with telling them that and an obvious problem if we fail to disclose. Repeated forgets of course may create an implicit agreement which could be subject to system regulations and may render our 'forgetful' system illegal. But in most cases I would think that the players will learn before that becomes a problem. I really don't see the problem. 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 Jun 6 22:36:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56CaTR25938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 22:36:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g56CaLH25934 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 22:36:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-11.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.11] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17FwIa-0003i5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 06 Jun 2002 08:23:28 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020606081601.00a8c270@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 08:25:44 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <2bb401c20d10$32ae3270$440fac89@au.fjanz.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:11 AM 6/6/02, Peter wrote: >Scenario. EW are 2 experts who have played together maybe twice before. NS >are experts (a relatively new partnership) >Dealer N. Vul EW. >N E S W >1C*1 2NT*2 X*3 3C >X 3D P 3H >X// > >*1 - could be 3 (playing acol) >*2 - undiscussed - intended as reds >*3 - asked West about 2NT >was told: "I think it shows minors but we haven't discussed this auction" > >3HX made 4 for +930 EW. >Director ruled: Results stands. [on the grounds that it is obvious to >everyone what is going on after Easts 3D bid] Sounds right to me. >NS want to appeal on the grounds that South would bid 3C over 2NT if >knew it >was the reds. But it wasn't "the reds". It was "undiscussed", which is what West correctly told South. West's "I think it shows minors" was gratutitous (but truthful) information given to N-S (and UI to East, of course), but "we haven't discussed this auction" doesn't sound ambiguous or misleading to me. Indeed, E-W's bidding after the undiscussed 2NT is what I would consider normal intermediate-to-expert-level bidding: W preferences between the minors, and E's 3D over 3C says he actually has the reds, W has a heart preference. The TD was right; it should have been obvious to everyone what was going on. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 23:36:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56DZaF25999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 23:35:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f32.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g56DZSH25995 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 23:35:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 06:22:30 -0700 Received: from 172.169.128.163 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 06 Jun 2002 13:22:30 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.169.128.163] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 06:22:30 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jun 2002 13:22:30.0616 (UTC) FILETIME=[35D66D80:01C20D5D] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > > Why should they be "in their right mind"? People do all sorts of >experiments. Do not forget, I am not interested in telling providers >what to do, just in what the Laws should say. This is awkward as I've heard you profess before that you're interested only in what the Laws do say and how to rule, not what they should say, and that discussion of the latter is deleterious to the list. Once again, I'm confused by the motivations of the laws. The online 80E offers SOs the option of enforcing correct proceedure, but doesn't require it. The online 66C removes the mention of verifying a possible revoke. If poor proceedure is allowed, I don't see why just this mention in 66C is struck and not so many other laws. (Then again, I'm not complaining much. I never understood why you'd verify the claim of a revoke before the hand has been played out in full anyways.) In the Laws as is, there are a lot of instances where the Law exists to restore order and equity after an infraction. I'm puzzled why the online version for the laws do not prohibit incorrect proceedure as a matter of simplifing both the rules and the Director's job, which should be seeing new, unfamiliar duties. An important item I feel missing from the online laws is any mention of a contestant getting booted. It is a new problem that F2F bridge does not have. What time limits should be enforced? It is an interesting problem in that the "OS" is likely entirely innocent and should not suffer any penalty but has nevertheless caused a problem that must be dealt with. Probably not as important, at least a few sites handle claims by exposing all the hands to the people who acquiesce/object. If the claim is not accepted, play does indeed continue. One of the objections to letting play continue after a claim is that declarer will play the person who objects for a crucial missing card. Online it's possible to have an objected claim without knowing who objected. The software should therefore not tell claimer which opponent objected. Where there other considerations, and if not, should online play be allowed to proceed after a contested claim? If so, a specific mention that any cards exposed to the non-claimer are AI, and no additional cards may be exposed to the claimer unless the claim is accepted. If not, some other recomendation should be made to the software developers. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 23:50:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56Dobt26019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 23:50:37 +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 g56DoTH26015 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 23:50:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-11.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.11] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17FxSK-0000Li-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 06 Jun 2002 09:37:36 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020606093756.00adbaa0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 09:39:53 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Fielding (was Ghestem, 826894th rerun) In-Reply-To: <008d01c20d53$2b855440$da16b9d2@laptop> References: <001601c208ec$74bad2e0$1a6a7ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.0.20020605082244.00ad4d10@pop.starpower.net> <012701c20c9a$e9f1ccb0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:09 AM 6/6/02, Wayne wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Konrad Ciborowski" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 2:11 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Fielding (was Ghestem, 826894th rerun) > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Eric Landau" JFTR, none of the words cited below were written by me. > > > >b) you are allowed to explain partner's 3H as "over a true 3C, it is > > > >natural NF, but over a 2-suited 3C it is a GF raise" (provided you > > > >play it that way), and decide you play it as the primary explanation > > > >anyway. This will add to the opponents' problems ; they deserve it > > > > > > > > > Not exactly Alain. > > > > The mere fact that responder has the HCP strength to make > > a 3C/H bid makes the whole situation much worse for > > the opening side than for the opponents. The opponents > > will simply pass until the end of the auction to check > > if you can get of out the swamp. > > > > Say you open 1D with > > > > Qxx > > xx > > AKJxx > > QJx > > > > Your LHO overcalls 3C which is alerted. > > You receive the explanation along the > > may-be-or-may-be-not lines. Now partner > > bids 3H which you alert and, following Alain's > > advice, give them the explantion they deserve: > > "over a true 3C, it is natural NF, but over a > > 2-suited 3C it is a GF raise". This > > "really added to the opponents' problems", right? > > >Perhaps this isn't an optimal method and if that is what you play then you >deserve all of the problems that you get. > > > Unfortunately your RHO passes and your are > > in a heads-you-lose-tails-they-win situation. > > If you guess wrong you won't get redress > > because "you were told they often forget". > > OTOH if you guess right you will merely > > get even with the rest of the field. > > If this is not "unfair advantage" then > > what is? > > > > I so much prefer the de Wael School - > > explain "Ghestem" or "natural", > > whatever you think is more probable > > and if you guess wrong then suffer > > the consequences. But don't put the > > burden of sorting out the whole mess > > on the opponents - and this is exactly > > what you do when you offer them the > > may-be-or-may-not business. "I told'em > > we often forget, didn't I?"... > > > > > > Konrad Ciborowski > > Krakow, Poland > >If we often forget then the opponents are entitled to know that. So I >can't >see any problem with telling them that and an obvious problem if we >fail to >disclose. > >Repeated forgets of course may create an implicit agreement which could be >subject to system regulations and may render our 'forgetful' system >illegal. >But in most cases I would think that the players will learn before that >becomes a problem. > >I really don't see the problem. > >Wayne 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 Jun 7 02:20:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56GJip26089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 02:19:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g56GJdH26085 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 02:19:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2244.bb.online.no [80.212.216.196]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA17828 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 18:06:39 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000f01c20d74$24810d80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020606131813.00aba7a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] exact content of a claim ? Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 18:06:39 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > Dear blmlists, > > After reading many threads about insufficient claims, I was convinced that > we covered every decision about "non-absurd lines of play". However ... > > In the middle of a deal, West is on lead and plays a heart. South, who was > ready for that, says "play the Ace and then a master trump. They're all mine". > If the TD is asked to assess the claim, he must look at what will ensue > from the stated line of play. > He first has to decide what South, who has no more heart, will play from > his hand on the heart trick. > > a) he can't be deemed to ruff the trick, because he stated that the second > trick would be initiated by the dummy > b) he can't be deemed to discard an Ace, or otherwise equivalent high card, > because that would be irrational > c) I've a gut feeling that he might be deemed to discard a spot card, even > if it is high, because it would be merely negligent not to have noticed it > was high > > Is there any grounds on which to argue this, or am I plainly wrong ? If I were to be called to that table I would first of all check if South really had all the remaining tricks given that he played the cards "correctly". Included in this check would be that there was no more than one outstanding trump (if any) because of the way he mentioned the trump suit. This check being satisfied I would rule that South cannot be forced to discard any one of his high cards (even a spot card) instead of a card that is not high, his claim indicates beyond much doubt that he has control of a sufficient number of high cards to substantiate his claim. If challenged I would ask him to point out his winners. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 7 02:39:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56Gcs626105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 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 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 g56GcnH26101 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 02:38:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2244.bb.online.no [80.212.216.196]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA19987 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 18:25:50 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002b01c20d76$d2246de0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200206040215.TAA26278@mailhub.irvine.com> <001d01c20ce6$ed4f3e00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00af01c20d3f$85823940$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 18:25:49 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Brian Meadows" > Sven Pran wrote: > > >From: "Brian Meadows" ....... > >If you really say what I think you are saying, you scare me as > >representing this huge group (majority?) of system designers > >who apparently have not grasped the importance of designing > >systems to foresee every event that can possibly occur. > > > > That depends on what the software is that you're writing. If > you're doing control systems or something like that, I totally > agree with you. In the commercial world, you have to recognise > that commercial pressures may dictate that you CANNOT attempt to > handle all possible events. I have certainly had to release > software before now that I knew to be buggy, because the project > manager told me not to bother handling some obscure and > relatively unlikely occurrence, it was more important to try to > get the software out the door by some unrealistic deadline. I know, and I do not request that each and every event is explicitly handled, but I do require that there is sufficient input data control to prevent "wild" results. (If you ask a user to enter a number to be used as divisor it is an unacceptable design if your program does not check for this number being different from zero). > > In theory, Sven, I agree with you. In practice, it doesn't > happen, because clients/employers are unwilling to commit the > resources needed to do that thorough a design. So by the same logic General Motors had a point when they said that modern cars would display a message "Do you really want the airbags to be released?" when collision impact is detected? > > > >If a player not in rotation attempts an action the software must > >handle that, the question is whether it shall simply inhibit such > >actions or treat them as possible, but illegal actions. > > > > Yes, indeed. My view is very strongly that the benefits of > treating them as possible but illegal actions are so small (if > not actually negative) that the decision will always be to > inhibit them. > > > >If a player in rotation tries to make an invalid call or tries to play > >an illegal card (revoke) the program must be designed to either > >prevent such errors or to allow them. > > > > I think you;ve covered all the alternatives with that > statement... ;-) > > >Etc. etc. And in all cases if the software allows illegal actions it > >must include routines to handle the follow-ups on such actions. > > > > Exactly. This is why I have said it will greatly increase the > complexity of the software. On the contrary, it will simplify the software to just disable user input except for the user who is in turn instead of handling "what if the other users attempt anything?" > > > >Actually the software should become more complex by allowing the > >players to make errors (like they occationally do in "real bridge") > >because of the extra routines needed to handle those errors > >rather than just inhibit them. > > > > I think that's exactly what I said? Handling the extra > irregularities is much more complex than simply inhibiting them. Or is that what you meant all the 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 Fri Jun 7 02:43:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56GhiF26124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 02:43:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g56GhcH26120 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 02:43:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2244.bb.online.no [80.212.216.196]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA28380 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 18:30:40 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003101c20d77$7f207ca0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 18:30:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Todd Zimnoch" > >From: "Sven Pran" > >If you really say what I think you are saying, you scare me as > >representing this huge group (majority?) of system designers > >who apparently have not grasped the importance of designing > >systems to foresee every event that can possibly occur. > > I think, rather, he has. Whatever your feelings about it (and I too > have been frustrated by software that went too far), it is often a good idea > to limit the number of events that can occur to make the system simpler. No possible event should ever be ignored, but it is perfectly OK to collect various unidentified error situations in a common "Some unknown error has occurred" exit if the program designer is short of resources for building the "perfect" program. > > >If a player not in rotation attempts an action the software must > >handle that, the question is whether it shall simply inhibit such > >actions or treat them as possible, but illegal actions. > > It is trivial to prohibit actions. Bridge without out-of-turn events > is a simple state machine. Bridge with asynchronous, out-of-turn events is > a different beast, perhaps still codeable as a state machine, but ugly. > Personally, I don't want to be the guy dealing with an auction that goes, > > P - P - 1H - lead of the 2C > trump with the 7H - P - 2S - trump with the 4S, etc. > You just do not enable input from any user except the one in turn, and you validate the input from the enabled user as part of the processing. Could anything be simpler? Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 7 03:24:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56HNbc26227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 03:23:37 +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-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 g56HNVH26221 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 03:23:31 +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 17G0mN-000HYQ-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 06 Jun 2002 18:10:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 14:07:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads writes >Every time you explain partner's call it makes UI available to partner. >The more fully you disclose the more UI you make available. That is never >improper. It is up to partner to deal with the problems posed by UI. > >We (or least I hope we, perhaps it is just me) do *not* want people using >the excuse "I didn't want to make UI available" to avoid their disclosure >obligations. We think so, ie you and I and a lot of others. However, some posts here and on RGB make me realise that we does not include everyone. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 7 03:24:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56HNZ026226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 03:23:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g56HNSH26217 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 03:23:28 +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 17G0mM-000HYP-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 06 Jun 2002 18:10:34 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 14:02:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws References: <200206040215.TAA26278@mailhub.irvine.com> <001d01c20ce6$ed4f3e00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows writes >On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 03:42:54 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >> I think you may be surprised: I shall have a nice little one Euro bet >>with anyone who likes that there will be a provider allowing illegal >>calls or plays within ten years. Any takers? >Certainly I'll take it. What's more, I'll give you 100-1 odds as >well, provided you'll agree to add a stipulation that this must >be a commercial service which has had the possibility of illegal >plays deliberately implemented, and which is sufficiently >functional to allow four players to play one rubber (or say six >hands of duplicate if it doesn't support rubber) without >crashing. This is to prevent your claiming on the basis of some >half-baked bug-laden amateur effort that is only barely >recognisable as bridge, and where the possibility of illegal >plays is due to grossly incompetent programming rather than >deliberate design. 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 Fri Jun 7 04:01:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56I0oZ26273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 04:00:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g56I0WH26269 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 04:00:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (svcr-216-37-229-100.dsl.svcr.epix.net [216.37.229.100]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g56HlYKK012173 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:47:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 13:47:52 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: <9h7vfuo33lo9ndaof1805rb9knaeat3ull@4ax.com> References: <200206040215.TAA26278@mailhub.irvine.com> <001d01c20ce6$ed4f3e00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00af01c20d3f$85823940$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002b01c20d76$d2246de0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <002b01c20d76$d2246de0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 18:25:49 +0200, you wrote: >From: "Brian Meadows" >> Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >From: "Brian Meadows" >....... >> >If you really say what I think you are saying, you scare me as >> >representing this huge group (majority?) of system designers >> >who apparently have not grasped the importance of designing >> >systems to foresee every event that can possibly occur. >> > >> >> That depends on what the software is that you're writing. If >> you're doing control systems or something like that, I totally >> agree with you. In the commercial world, you have to recognise >> that commercial pressures may dictate that you CANNOT attempt to >> handle all possible events. I have certainly had to release >> software before now that I knew to be buggy, because the project >> manager told me not to bother handling some obscure and >> relatively unlikely occurrence, it was more important to try to >> get the software out the door by some unrealistic deadline. > >I know, and I do not request that each and every event is >explicitly handled, but I do require that there is sufficient >input data control to prevent "wild" results. (If you ask a user >to enter a number to be used as divisor it is an unacceptable >design if your program does not check for this number being >different from zero). > Yes, I agree with you. Maybe it is a language problem, but these are two separate questions. Any decent programmer puts a generic event handler in his code. What I am talking about is handling a large number of events *specifically* rather than via a general event handler. >> >> In theory, Sven, I agree with you. In practice, it doesn't >> happen, because clients/employers are unwilling to commit the >> resources needed to do that thorough a design. > >So by the same logic General Motors had a point when they >said that modern cars would display a message "Do you >really want the airbags to be released?" when collision impact >is detected? > I think that sort of code is quite clearly covered by the first two sentences in my previous quoted paragraph - I'll paste them here for you >> That depends on what the software is that you're writing. If >> you're doing control systems or something like that, I totally >> agree with you. > >On the contrary, it will simplify the software to just disable user input >except for the user who is in turn instead of handling "what if the >other users attempt anything?" > But Sven, this is exactly the point I was making!! I was saying that David's scenario of a provider deliberately adding the code to allow the users to make LOOTs, COOTs, etc was extremely unlikely. >> >> I think that's exactly what I said? Handling the extra >> irregularities is much more complex than simply inhibiting them. > >Or is that what you meant all the time? > Yes. I think you've somehow managed to totally reverse what I was saying. 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 Fri Jun 7 05:52:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56JpaK26333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 05:51:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g56JpVH26329 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 05:51:31 +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 17G35d-00024J-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 06 Jun 2002 20:38:34 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 19:46:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch writes >>From: David Stevenson >> >> Why should they be "in their right mind"? People do all sorts of >>experiments. Do not forget, I am not interested in telling providers >>what to do, just in what the Laws should say. > > This is awkward as I've heard you profess before that you're interested >only in what the Laws do say and how to rule, not what they should say, and >that discussion of the latter is deleterious to the list. I think you have misunderstood: BLML is an excellent place to discuss what should be in the laws. What I have said, and certainly believe, is that individual threads get very complex and difficult to read when people confuse what should be and what is. All I have really asked for is for people to split the two things. A typical example is where someone asks what does Law XX mean, and the first three answers say Law XX would be better if it was changed. Even if true, that hardly helps the poor guy who wants to know what Law XX means. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 7 06:07:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56K7O426359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 06:07:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g56K7IH26355 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 06:07:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.6.227] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17G3Jh-0002qk-00; Thu, 06 Jun 2002 20:53:06 +0100 Message-ID: <006101c20d94$3e2f3fc0$e306e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Cc: "Anna Gudge" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] RE: WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 20:43:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 1:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] RE: WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge > > >What an excellent way to present the changes! > > > >I might be a very good idea for the WBFLC to try to get > >whoever is responsible for this (primarily Anna, I suppose) > >to also present the 2005 Laws when the time comes. > >-- > >Jesper Dybdal > > At the moment, due to a 70-year old anomaly, the copyright of > the Duplicate Laws in half the world belongs to the Portland > Club > +=+ You may take it we are not oblivious to the advantages. I believe our very friendly relationships with the copyright holders here in England will overcome any obstacle. ~ 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 Jun 7 07:40:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56Le3g26413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 07:40:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g56LdvH26409 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 07:39:58 +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 g56LShx15354 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 22:28:43 +0100 Message-ID: <5w35AcE6J9$8EwF9@asimere.com> Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 22:22:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws References: <200206040215.TAA26278@mailhub.irvine.com> <001d01c20ce6$ed4f3e00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Brian Meadows writes >>On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 01:15:44 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "Brian Meadows" >>>....... >>>> > Suppose you decide to take all such Laws out. Then, next week, a >>>> >provider starts providing "Real Bridge" as they call it, and say that it >>>> >has advantages over OKBridge and the Zone because it is much more >>>> >lifelike. The software allows you to make leads out of turn, >>>> >insufficient bids and so on. >>>> > >>>> > Why should that not happen? It does not seem totally unrealistic to >>>> >me. >>>> > >>>> >>>> Well, I'll tell you my reason why it won't happen, David. There's >>>> enough aggro on OKBridge (the only online service I've used) at >>>> the moment with incomplete or mistaken explanations, I seem to >>>> remember you having some first hand experience of this in the >>>> tourneys, let alone the normal club play? >>> >>>David and Jesper have both made excellent points here, David by >>>showing that as the software is a model of the real life (possibly >>>allowing errors if that is what "we" want, the laws must cover also >>>such situations) and Jesper by giving the only really acceptable >>>suggestion that all the laws concerning errors should wherever >>>possible be rewritten to: "The software should prevent this error". >>> >>>Written this way the proposal by Jesper can even be met in a >>>way that does not disturb the numbering of the remaining laws. >>> >> >>I don't disagree with any of that. What my post addressed was >>David's question as to why the scenario he described shouldn't >>happen. No provider in their right mind is going to write what >>David describes as "Real Bridge", even if the laws give him the >>opportunity to do so. > > Why should they be "in their right mind"? People do all sorts of >experiments. Do not forget, I am not interested in telling providers >what to do, just in what the Laws should say. > > It is very easy to consider the present situation and fail to look >ahead. In some measure that might be partly what is wrong with the >present Laws which are really written for spoken bidding without >screens. > > As the internet explosion goes on I think it remarkably difficult to >predict what will happen and I believe it is better to allow for things >even if they look impractical or stupid at this moment. > > Brian has suggested in an earlier post that the amount of software >needed becomes enormous. I think that is not thinking straight about >the possibilities of the future: remember "No-one will ever require a >computer with more than one megabyte of disk memory"? Or was it more >than one kilobyte of actual memory? I am not sure of the exact wording, >but that was certainly said by Bill Gates. > > I can easily believe that the software problem in providing all >possible plays and calls, whether legal or not, while enormous now might >be considered trivial in ten years. > > I also think that when simulating real life there is always a certain >number of people that want it to be as close to real life as possible. >I also think that if there are a lot more providers available in ten >years time [quite possible] that some of them will wish to compete by >providing a different service. > > I think you may be surprised: I shall have a nice little one Euro bet >with anyone who likes that there will be a provider allowing illegal >calls or plays within ten years. Any takers? > Richard accepts the bet. 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 Jun 7 07:42:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56Lgho26429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 07:42:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g56LgbH26425 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 07:42:37 +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 g56LVOx15382 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 22:31:24 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 22:24:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws References: <200206040215.TAA26278@mailhub.irvine.com> <001d01c20ce6$ed4f3e00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00af01c20d3f$85823940$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <00af01c20d3f$85823940$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 <00af01c20d3f$85823940$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran writes >From: "Brian Meadows" >...... >> Now for somebody as touchy as you are about being misquoted, this >> is really not good enough. ;-) What I actually said was that >> there would be an enormous increase in the *complexity* of the >> software, without any apparent benefits, and the two are not the >> same thing. Without wishing to get too technical, it is far >> easier to write code to handle an ordered sequence of events >> (whoever is on lead leads a card, next player, next player, next >> player. Calculate who won the trick. That hands leads a card, >> next player, next player, next player) than it is to handle a >> random sequence of events (someone other then the player on lead >> plays a card, his rho thinks this is an excuse for immediately >> playing two cards OOT to the same trick, etc). The software that >> would be needed to cope with all the idiocies possible in F2F >> bridge *would* be an order of magnitude more complex, and no-one >> is going to write it. > >If you really say what I think you are saying, you scare me as >representing this huge group (majority?) of system designers >who apparently have not grasped the importance of designing >systems to foresee every event that can possibly occur. > I personally think that such software will exist, I can see Geeks with brains like mine thinking "Wouldn't it be interesting to permit insufficient bids *and* handle them within the software according to the laws" >If a player not in rotation attempts an action the software must >handle that, the question is whether it shall simply inhibit such >actions or treat them as possible, but illegal actions. > >If a player in rotation tries to make an invalid call or tries to play >an illegal card (revoke) the program must be designed to either >prevent such errors or to allow them. > >Etc. etc. And in all cases if the software allows illegal actions it >must include routines to handle the follow-ups on such actions. > >Actually the software should become more complex by allowing the >players to make errors (like they occationally do in "real bridge") >because of the extra routines needed to handle those errors >rather than just inhibit 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/ -- 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 Jun 7 07:47:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56LlOv26447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 07:47:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g56LlIH26443 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 07:47:18 +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 g56La5x15386 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 22:36:05 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 22:29:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] RE: WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge References: <006101c20d94$3e2f3fc0$e306e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <006101c20d94$3e2f3fc0$e306e150@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 <006101c20d94$3e2f3fc0$e306e150@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Iphicrates was possibly the greatest of the >Athenian Generals. He held it unforgivable >that any military commander might say: > "I should not have expected it." >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 1:34 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] RE: WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge > > >> >> >What an excellent way to present the changes! >> > >> >I might be a very good idea for the WBFLC to try to get >> >whoever is responsible for this (primarily Anna, I suppose) >> >to also present the 2005 Laws when the time comes. >> >-- >> >Jesper Dybdal >> >> At the moment, due to a 70-year old anomaly, the copyright of >> the Duplicate Laws in half the world belongs to the Portland >> Club >> >+=+ You may take it we are not oblivious to the advantages. > I believe our very friendly relationships with the copyright >holders here in England will overcome any obstacle. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Enough of the guys at the Portland Club are ok, that I really don't think we'll ever have a problem. I am certain that for them, being invested with the copyright is a source of pride - they certainly don't need to make revenue from it. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 7 07:58:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56Lw9u26463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 07:58:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g56Lw4H26459 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 07:58:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g56Lkpx15412 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 22:46:51 +0100 Message-ID: <9Ax4sBFha9$8Ewmp@asimere.com> Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 22:39:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >Richard Hills wrote: > >> >> >asked West about 2NT was told: "I think it shows >> >minors but we haven't discussed this auction" >> >> [big snip] >> >> As West was an expert, West should be well aware >> that the explanation should simply be, "Undiscussed." > For heavens sake, these guys are experts. The reply "I think it's the minors, but we haven't discussed it" is *exactly* what he should say. Even my cat knows that 2N is likely to be the minors, or both reds, and he's not even a beginner. The explanation therefore contains UI, which is permitted, and the fact that it is wrong is irrelevant. Without such explanation do you really think the auction would go differently? 1C 2N ? "Haven't a friggin clue, your guess is as good as mine" is what you've been told, partner has also been told (UI) that I believe it to be minors. That's his problem to deal with >If West had reason to believe that it would be the minors (perhaps he >plays that way with a mutual partner, perhaps that is the common style at >the local club) then he is obliged to include that in his explanation. > >> *Any* expert should have known that giving pard UI >> that one was interpreting the undiscussed 2NT as >> the minors was highly improper. > >Every time you explain partner's call it makes UI available to partner. >The more fully you disclose the more UI you make available. That is never >improper. It is up to partner to deal with the problems posed by UI. Tim, I so much agree with you. Tim and I are falling about laughing when we get told not to answer questions relating to our own bids particularly in on-line bridge, when 1) We know we have an agreement; and 2) partner has made a hash of the explanation. > >We (or least I hope we, perhaps it is just me) do *not* want people using >the excuse "I didn't want to make UI available" to avoid their disclosure >obligations. > >Tim > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 7 08:27:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56MRAG26515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 08:27:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g56MR5H26511 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 08:27:05 +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 PAA17427; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 15:14:04 -0700 Message-Id: <200206062214.PAA17427@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Jun 2002 22:24:18 BST." Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 15:19:38 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > I personally think that such software will exist, I can see Geeks with > brains like mine thinking "Wouldn't it be interesting to permit > insufficient bids *and* handle them within the software according to the > laws" And I can certainly see other Geeks with brains like mine being eager to test the program to make sure it really does get the Laws right. Let's see . . . West passes; East bids 1S; North doubles; South redoubles; North passes; West responds 1H; East passes; South redoubles; North doubles. If the program correctly figures out how to apply the Laws here and do the right thing, I'll be impressed. Unless, of course, your idea of "handle them within the software according to the laws" means "automatically send a message to a human Director asking him to come to the table and make a ruling" . . . -- 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 Jun 7 09:01:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56N0sn26549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 09:00:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g56N0mH26545 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 09:00:49 +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 SAA09625 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 18:47:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA06995 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 18:47:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 18:47:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200206062247.SAA06995@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > The reply "I think it's the > minors, but we haven't discussed it" is *exactly* what he should say. I don't think so. "No doubt artificial and two-suited, but we haven't discussed it," seems quite a bit better. Or maybe "It would be red suits over a natural 1C, but we haven't discussed whether your short club makes any 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 Fri Jun 7 09:24:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56NNpm26576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 09:23:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g56NNgH26572 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 09:23:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA05988 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 09:25:01 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 07 Jun 2002 09:07:13 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 09:10:20 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 07/06/2002 09:06:59 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: [snip] >But it wasn't "the reds". It was "undiscussed", which >is what West correctly told South. West's "I think it >shows minors" was gratuitous (but truthful) information >given to N-S (and UI to East, of course), but "we >haven't discussed this auction" doesn't sound ambiguous >or misleading to me. > >Indeed, E-W's bidding after the undiscussed 2NT is what >I would consider normal intermediate-to-expert-level >bidding: W preferences between the minors, and E's 3D >over 3C says he actually has the reds, [snip] No! No! No! West has given East UI that the 2NT is being taken as minors. East *must* therefore assume that West has correctly interpreted the 2NT call as the reds, but wants to play in clubs anyway with a seven-card club suit. East should therefore Pass West's 3C call. 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 Jun 7 09:50:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g56NoYq26616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 09:50:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g56NoSH26612 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 09:50:29 +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 g56NbXD04231 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 19:37:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 19:31:10 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <200206062214.PAA17427@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.1 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/6/02, Adam Beneschan wrote: >Unless, of course, your idea of "handle them within the software >according to the laws" means "automatically send a message to a human >Director asking him to come to the table and make a ruling" . . . I read your first paragraph, and this thought immediately occurred to me. :-) Possibly the laws generally should be organized slightly differently to the current system: Preliminaries, Correct Procedure (subsections for Auction, Play, Scoring), Irregularities, perhaps another Miscellaneous section. Servers could then be written to implement the Preliminaries and the correct procedure, where possible precluding irregularities - in which case the laws regarding those precluded irregularities could be ignored by the software and its users. You could even set it up so that those providing the service would be permitted and encouraged to post their modifications to the laws through SO elections. One problem with this might be that it precludes taking advantage of opponents' procedural errors, and it might mean that "you are not required to draw attention to your own side's irregularity (in most cases)" goes out the window, but would that necessarily be detrimental to the game? Another potential problem, although perhaps a small one: there are SOs and then there are SOs. The ACBL asserts that *it* is SO whenever ACBL masterpoints are awarded. Presumably this applies to online bridge as well as f2f. I can see possible disagreement between the ACBL and say, OKBridge, as to what elections should be made. I'm not sure how to deal with that. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp 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 Jun 7 11:50:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g571nEm26666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:49:14 +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 g571nAH26662 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:49:10 +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 LAA03502 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:50:31 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 07 Jun 2002 11:32:41 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:35:48 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 07/06/2002 11:32:27 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Tim West-meads writes > >>Every time you explain partner's call it makes UI >>available to partner. The more fully you disclose >>the more UI you make available. That is never >>improper. It is up to partner to deal with the >>problems posed by UI. >> >>We (or least I hope we, perhaps it is just me) do >>*not* want people using the excuse "I didn't want >>to make UI available" to avoid their disclosure >>obligations. > > We think so, ie you and I and a lot of others. >However, some posts here and on RGB make me realise >that we does not include everyone. > >-- >David Stevenson I support 100% the concept that explanations of *explicit or implicit agreements* are never improper. However, I do not resile from my assertion that an explanation along the lines of, "We have no explicit or implicit partnership agreement, but my personal interpretation is..." *is* improper. L75 requires only explanation of (explicit or implicit) *partnership* agreements, so UI should not be generated unnecessarily by information about how an *individual* will interpret a non-agreement. 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 Jun 7 12:35:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g572YZ926701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 12:34:35 +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-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 g572YQH26692 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 12:34:26 +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 17G9NY-000AaF-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 07 Jun 2002 03:21:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 00:43:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws References: <200206040215.TAA26278@mailhub.irvine.com> <001d01c20ce6$ed4f3e00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <5w35AcE6J9$8EwF9@asimere.com> In-Reply-To: <5w35AcE6J9$8EwF9@asimere.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article , David Stevenson > writes >> I also think that when simulating real life there is always a certain >>number of people that want it to be as close to real life as possible. >>I also think that if there are a lot more providers available in ten >>years time [quite possible] that some of them will wish to compete by >>providing a different service. >> >> I think you may be surprised: I shall have a nice little one Euro bet >>with anyone who likes that there will be a provider allowing illegal >>calls or plays within ten years. Any takers? >Richard accepts the bet. cheers John OK, that's one Euro from Richard, and 100 from Brian - or one Euro to each of 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 Fri Jun 7 12:35:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g572YZF26700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 12:34:35 +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-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 g572YQH26693 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 12:34:26 +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 17G9NY-000AaE-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 07 Jun 2002 03:21:32 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 00:41:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws References: <200206062214.PAA17427@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200206062214.PAA17427@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 > >John Probst wrote: > >> I personally think that such software will exist, I can see Geeks with >> brains like mine thinking "Wouldn't it be interesting to permit >> insufficient bids *and* handle them within the software according to the >> laws" > >And I can certainly see other Geeks with brains like mine being eager >to test the program to make sure it really does get the Laws right. >Let's see . . . West passes; East bids 1S; North doubles; South >redoubles; North passes; West responds 1H; East passes; South >redoubles; North doubles. If the program correctly figures out how to >apply the Laws here and do the right thing, I'll be impressed. The program will stop and sort out the misdemeanours as they happen, surely. So once West responds 1H the program will deal with it then, before anyone does anything more. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 7 13:05:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5735D126749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:05:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g57357H26745 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:05:08 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g572qDu22830 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 03:52:13 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 03:52 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis 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: > > Eric Landau wrote: > > [snip] > > >But it wasn't "the reds". It was "undiscussed", which > >is what West correctly told South. West's "I think it > >shows minors" was gratuitous (but truthful) information > >given to N-S (and UI to East, of course), but "we > >haven't discussed this auction" doesn't sound ambiguous > >or misleading to me. > > > >Indeed, E-W's bidding after the undiscussed 2NT is what > >I would consider normal intermediate-to-expert-level > >bidding: W preferences between the minors, and E's 3D > >over 3C says he actually has the reds, > > [snip] > > No! No! No! > > West has given East UI that the 2NT is being taken as > minors. East *must* therefore assume that West has > correctly interpreted the 2NT call as the reds, but > wants to play in clubs anyway with a seven-card club > suit. East should therefore Pass West's 3C call. While it is faintly possible that some people play 3C that way over a red 2-suiter I think it is almost universal to play a bid of opps suit as showing no preference. Acol 1C openers are 5 carders much more often than 3. Best wishes, Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 7 13:17:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g573H0O26769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:17:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx09.cluster1.charter.net (dc-mx09.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.8.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g573GtH26765 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:16:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.196.230.145] (HELO oemcomputer) by mx09.cluster1.charter.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.9) with SMTP id 23531096 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 06 Jun 2002 23:03:55 -0400 Message-ID: <01f201c20dd1$1c27ede0$91e6c418@charter.net> From: "Bill Bickford" To: References: <200206062214.PAA17427@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 23:12:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws > Adam Beneschan writes > > > >John Probst wrote: > > > >> I personally think that such software will exist, I can see Geeks with > >> brains like mine thinking "Wouldn't it be interesting to permit > >> insufficient bids *and* handle them within the software according to the > >> laws" > > > >And I can certainly see other Geeks with brains like mine being eager > >to test the program to make sure it really does get the Laws right. > >Let's see . . . West passes; East bids 1S; North doubles; South > >redoubles; North passes; West responds 1H; East passes; South > >redoubles; North doubles. If the program correctly figures out how to > >apply the Laws here and do the right thing, I'll be impressed. > > The program will stop and sort out the misdemeanours as they happen, > surely. So once West responds 1H the program will deal with it then, > before anyone does anything more. But how about East's 1S when it was North's turn to call???? Cheers.........../Bill Bickford > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 7 13:30:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g573UNP26782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:30:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g573UHH26778 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:30:17 +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 g573J4x16324 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 04:19:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 04:07:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws References: <200206062214.PAA17427@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200206062214.PAA17427@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200206062214.PAA17427@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >John Probst wrote: > >> I personally think that such software will exist, I can see Geeks with >> brains like mine thinking "Wouldn't it be interesting to permit >> insufficient bids *and* handle them within the software according to the >> laws" > >And I can certainly see other Geeks with brains like mine being eager >to test the program to make sure it really does get the Laws right. >Let's see . . . West passes; East bids 1S; North doubles; South >redoubles; North passes; West responds 1H; East passes; South >redoubles; North doubles. If the program correctly figures out how to >apply the Laws here and do the right thing, I'll be impressed. > It gets more interesting if you allow 2 consecutive infractions. I think we'd need a TD button, at which time everything is suspended and the program sorts out the mess, addressing each player in turn as necessary to present options in order. I think it would be a very interesting model to build, as it would have to encompass many things. I'm not worried about judgement rulings, solely mechanical ones, btw. The software driver for the TD module would be quite simple but the rules database could be very complex. I've written such stuff in the past with conditional actions - it's quite fun. >Unless, of course, your idea of "handle them within the software >according to the laws" means "automatically send a message to a human >Director asking him to come to the table and make a ruling" . . . > > -- Adam >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 7 13:32:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g573WND26794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:32:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g573WHH26790 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:32:18 +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 g573L5x16328 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 04:21:05 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 04:09:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws References: <200206062214.PAA17427@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Adam Beneschan writes >> >>John Probst wrote: >> >>> I personally think that such software will exist, I can see Geeks with >>> brains like mine thinking "Wouldn't it be interesting to permit >>> insufficient bids *and* handle them within the software according to the >>> laws" >> >>And I can certainly see other Geeks with brains like mine being eager >>to test the program to make sure it really does get the Laws right. >>Let's see . . . West passes; East bids 1S; North doubles; South >>redoubles; North passes; West responds 1H; East passes; South >>redoubles; North doubles. If the program correctly figures out how to >>apply the Laws here and do the right thing, I'll be impressed. > > The program will stop and sort out the misdemeanours as they happen, >surely. So once West responds 1H the program will deal with it then, >before anyone does anything more. Not necessarily David. I have the idea of a TD button. Anyone can suspend play by pressing it after any number of infractions, and at that point only does the TD module kick in. > -- 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 Jun 7 13:33:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g573XiC26806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:33:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g573XcH26802 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:33:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g573MPx16332 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 04:22:25 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 04:10:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <200206062247.SAA06995@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200206062247.SAA06995@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200206062247.SAA06995@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> The reply "I think it's the >> minors, but we haven't discussed it" is *exactly* what he should say. > >I don't think so. "No doubt artificial and two-suited, but we haven't >discussed it," seems quite a bit better. Or maybe "It would be red >suits over a natural 1C, but we haven't discussed whether your short >club makes any difference." >-- may be so, but local knowledge has a lot of bearing on this one. I doubt I'd ever even consider a PP for this 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/ -- 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 Jun 7 13:34:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g573YOC26818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:34:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g573YIH26814 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:34:19 +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 g573N5x16336 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 04:23:05 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 04:11:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis 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 > >Eric Landau wrote: > >[snip] > >>But it wasn't "the reds". It was "undiscussed", which >>is what West correctly told South. West's "I think it >>shows minors" was gratuitous (but truthful) information >>given to N-S (and UI to East, of course), but "we >>haven't discussed this auction" doesn't sound ambiguous >>or misleading to me. >> >>Indeed, E-W's bidding after the undiscussed 2NT is what >>I would consider normal intermediate-to-expert-level >>bidding: W preferences between the minors, and E's 3D >>over 3C says he actually has the reds, > >[snip] > >No! No! No! > >West has given East UI that the 2NT is being taken as >minors. East *must* therefore assume that West has >correctly interpreted the 2NT call as the reds, but >wants to play in clubs anyway with a seven-card club >suit. East should therefore Pass West's 3C call. > I'm not absolutely sure here, if both players know it hasn't been discussed. Were it an agreement I'd agree. >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 Jun 7 17:32:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g577Vr826912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 17:31:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g577VlH26908 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 17:31:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-70536.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.147.136]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g577IjZ21615 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 09:18:45 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D005EB3.3060503@skynet.be> Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 09:20:19 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis 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.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >>Tim West-meads writes >> >> > > I support 100% the concept that explanations of > *explicit or implicit agreements* are never improper. > > However, I do not resile from my assertion that an > explanation along the lines of, "We have no explicit or > implicit partnership agreement, but my personal > interpretation is..." *is* improper. > > L75 requires only explanation of (explicit or implicit) > *partnership* agreements, so UI should not be generated > unnecessarily by information about how an *individual* > will interpret a non-agreement. > But the problem with that view is that it cannot be proved. The TD is bound by the footnote to assume that there is an agreement. After all, someone who bids NT and has two suits really expects partner to understand that, does he not ? So any explanation other than "shows the reds" will be treated as MI. > 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/ > > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 7 19:28:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g579QnX26956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 19:26:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g579QgH26952 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 19:26:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mailing.poczta.interia.pl (mailing) with ESMTP id D5CC0664F for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:13:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by rav.antivirus (Mailserver) with SMTP id 86C1F58E8 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:13:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 34E0158F8; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:13:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 7262858EC for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:13:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <008a01c20e03$9ed846e0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: References: <200206040215.TAA26278@mailhub.irvine.com> <001d01c20ce6$ed4f3e00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <5w35AcE6J9$8EwF9@asimere.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:09:59 +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 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: "David Stevenson" > OK, that's one Euro from Richard, and 100 from Brian - or one Euro to > each of them. Now I have a proof that David doesn't read my posts :-)) I took the bet. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------+ > I think you may be surprised: I shall have a nice little one Euro bet > with anyone who likes that there will be a provider allowing illegal > calls or plays within ten years. Any takers? Me. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland +--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------+ Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Na pewno wiesz, o co w pilce noznej chodzi? Sprawdz swoja wiedze i... umiejetnosc przewidywania! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f15e0 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 7 19:41:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g579fRW26973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 19:41:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com ([207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g579fMH26969 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 19:41:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id ACBAB04F0152; Fri, 07 Jun 2002 02:28:26 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Message-Id: <070602158.8906@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 02:28:30 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >But the problem with that view is that it cannot be proved. The TD is bound by the footnote to assume that there is an agreement. After all, someone who bids NT and has two suits really expects partner to understand that, does he not ? >So any explanation other than "shows the reds" will be treated as MI. It may be worse than that. What does "based on" mean in the passage below? A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation. Now, if I bid 2NT to show two suits, that has its basis in the notion that my partner will understand that I do not have a balanced hand with a lot of points. If I bid 2NT to show the red suits and my partner explains it as the minors, then (a) my opponents cannot reasonably be expected to understand its meaning; (b) it has not been disclosed in accordance with the regulations. It follows that for a pair to make a bid that is, by implicit or explicit agreement, conventional and then to (a) misexplain it while (b) not having properly disclosed it (as by entering it on the convention card) is a breach of Law 40. I suppose one might argue that playing 2NT as a two-suiter is not based on a "special partnership understanding" (and I do not especially want to start Marvin off again on the meaning of the word "special"), but a matter of "general bridge knowledge". But I do not think this is right at all. My guess would be that no more than 10% of the world's bridge players know that a 2NT overcall of one of a suit can be based on a weak distributional hand; if I as one of those 10% of players happen to be partnering another such, then even if what we do is based on knowledge that is common to our select group, it is still pretty "special" as far as the rest of the world is concerned. 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 Jun 7 21:25:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g57BNBA27012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 21:23:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f39.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g57BN6H27008 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 21:23:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 04:10:07 -0700 Received: from 172.164.235.205 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 07 Jun 2002 11:10:07 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.164.235.205] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 04:10:07 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jun 2002 11:10:07.0624 (UTC) FILETIME=[E1DBC880:01C20E13] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" > > > I think you may be surprised: I shall have a nice little one Euro bet > > with anyone who likes that there will be a provider allowing illegal > > calls or plays within ten years. Any takers? What is the time limit for there to be a provider? I will take the bet on the condition that payoff will occur before the end of the first month after Britain adopts the Euro as its currency. I still may not ever be able collect on it, but at least it feels as though there's a time limit. Alternately, I'll take 1 Euro now and pay 2 back if/when a provider is found. -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 Jun 7 21:37:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g57BZWV27024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 21:35:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f104.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.104]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g57BZRH27020 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 21:35:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 04:22:28 -0700 Received: from 172.164.235.205 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 07 Jun 2002 11:22:28 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.164.235.205] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] rather than waiting... Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 04:22:28 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jun 2002 11:22:28.0522 (UTC) FILETIME=[9B77D8A0:01C20E15] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ... for my previous mail to go through, copy and add the correction, add the word "realistic" before the phrase "time limit." I was aware of the 10-year time frame, but I know I'll forget by then. -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 Jun 7 22:45:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g57CgQ527149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 22:42:26 +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 g57CgHH27145 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 22:42:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-11.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.11] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17GIrp-0004B6-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 07 Jun 2002 08:29:22 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020607081615.00ade100@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 08:31:40 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:10 PM 6/6/02, richard wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > >But it wasn't "the reds". It was "undiscussed", which > >is what West correctly told South. West's "I think it > >shows minors" was gratuitous (but truthful) information > >given to N-S (and UI to East, of course), but "we > >haven't discussed this auction" doesn't sound ambiguous > >or misleading to me. > > > >Indeed, E-W's bidding after the undiscussed 2NT is what > >I would consider normal intermediate-to-expert-level > >bidding: W preferences between the minors, and E's 3D > >over 3C says he actually has the reds, > >No! No! No! > >West has given East UI that the 2NT is being taken as >minors. East *must* therefore assume that West has >correctly interpreted the 2NT call as the reds, but >wants to play in clubs anyway with a seven-card club >suit. East should therefore Pass West's 3C call. Just because E has UI doesn't mean he must shoot himself in the foot. His obligation is to continue the auction as though W had said nothing. Assuming standard agreements, he bid 2NT expecting it to be ambiguous, expecting W to (correctly) show a minor-suit preference, and expecting W to read the C-to-D conversion as showing reds. He was presumably simply carrying through his original intention, just as though W had said nothing, as he is required to do. N-S were experienced players, were told unambiguously by W that the auction was undiscussed, and, as the TD at the table ruled, should have known what was going on. For N-S to look for a top score just because W added some gratuitous but irrelevant information sounds like pure bridge-lawyering to me. The standard meaning of an undiscussed 2NT on this sequence is neither "the minors" nor "the reds"; it is "either the minors or the reds". If that's what E assumed when he bid 2NT (as it appears to me), his 3D bid was consistent and legal. 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 Jun 7 23:25:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g57DMfR27171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 23:22:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g57DMbH27167 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 23:22:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A09627200A4; Fri, 07 Jun 2002 06:09:42 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Message-Id: <070602158.22182@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 06:09:44 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: >The standard meaning of an undiscussed 2NT on this sequence is neither "the minors" nor "the reds"; it is "either the minors or the reds". No, it most certainly is not. One of the dangers that we all fall into on BLML is this: because we are expert players who read the Bridge World and occasionally finish above average at the Little-Festering-under-Lyme Thursday evening duplicate, we assume that the only "standard" is what is standard for us. The "standard" (that is, by far the most widely used) meaning of an undiscussed 2NT on this sequence is that it shows a balanced hand too strong to overcall 1NT. You may protest that you don't know anyone who plays that way, but that's because you know roughly 0.000001% of the world's bridge players, and you assume that they all bid like you do. "You" in this context means what Baudelaire meant by "tu" when he wrote: Tu le connais, lecteur, ce monstre délicat, Hypocrite lecteur, - mon semblable, - mon frère! But even if one grants that there is a group of players among whom it is "standard" to overcall 2NT with some kind of two-suiter, a vanishingly small minority of these will play [1S] 2NT as either the minors or the red suits. And almost no one at all plays [1C] 2NT as anything but the red suits, however few clubs the 1C opening might contain. I don't have the original post to hand, so I don't know whether the actual opening bid was 1C or 1S - but in either case, assumptions are being made about what is "standard" that are a very long way from being accurate. 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 Jun 8 00:30:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g57ERUg27204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 00:27:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g57EROH27200 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 00:27:25 +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 KAA02499 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 10:14:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA12608 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 10:14:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 10:14:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200206071414.KAA12608@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > ...local knowledge has a lot of bearing on this one. I > doubt I'd ever even consider a PP for this one. I agree with both comments. Local knowledge affects both whether the opponents were damaged by MI (probably not, given the clear statement of "undiscussed") and also what are the LA's and "suggested over another" for the UI question. Still, explainer could have avoided a lot of problems if he had refrained from stating how he was interpreting partner's bid. No reason for a PP, but it won't hurt to advise him for next time. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 8 00:40:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g57EbCS27216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 00:37:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g57Eb6H27212 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 00:37:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-70536.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.147.136]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g57ENfZ28369 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 16:23:41 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D00C24A.2010900@skynet.be> Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 16:25:14 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020607081615.00ade100@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 07:10 PM 6/6/02, richard wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> >But it wasn't "the reds". It was "undiscussed", which >> >is what West correctly told South. West's "I think it >> >shows minors" was gratuitous (but truthful) information >> >given to N-S (and UI to East, of course), but "we >> >haven't discussed this auction" doesn't sound ambiguous >> >or misleading to me. >> > >> >Indeed, E-W's bidding after the undiscussed 2NT is what >> >I would consider normal intermediate-to-expert-level >> >bidding: W preferences between the minors, and E's 3D >> >over 3C says he actually has the reds, >> >> No! No! No! >> >> West has given East UI that the 2NT is being taken as >> minors. East *must* therefore assume that West has >> correctly interpreted the 2NT call as the reds, but >> wants to play in clubs anyway with a seven-card club >> suit. East should therefore Pass West's 3C call. > > > Just because E has UI doesn't mean he must shoot himself in the foot. > His obligation is to continue the auction as though W had said nothing. > Assuming standard agreements, he bid 2NT expecting it to be ambiguous, > expecting W to (correctly) show a minor-suit preference, and expecting W > to read the C-to-D conversion as showing reds. He was presumably simply > carrying through his original intention, just as though W had said > nothing, as he is required to do. N-S were experienced players, were > told unambiguously by W that the auction was undiscussed, and, as the TD > at the table ruled, should have known what was going on. For N-S to > look for a top score just because W added some gratuitous but irrelevant > information sounds like pure bridge-lawyering to me. > > The standard meaning of an undiscussed 2NT on this sequence is neither > "the minors" nor "the reds"; it is "either the minors or the reds". If > that's what E assumed when he bid 2NT (as it appears to me), his 3D bid > was consistent and legal. > I agree completely with Eric's analysis regarding the UI. I do not agree with his analysis regarding the MI. On the UI issue, the TD has some leeway. He can "believe" the players and allow the correction to 3Di. On the MI issue, the TD has less leeway. The footnote tells him that absent evidence to the contrary (and there is not much of that) he should rule as if the agreement fits the hand that bids it. So NS were IMO (and maybe only legally so) misinformed. Not that this matters in the actual case. > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 8 00:55:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g57Epp027233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 00:51:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g57EpkH27229 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 00:51:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-11.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.11] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17GKt9-0002ip-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 07 Jun 2002 10:38:51 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020607102800.00a99bc0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 10:41:10 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <070602158.22182@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 09:09 AM 6/7/02, David wrote: >Eric wrote: > > >The standard meaning of an undiscussed 2NT on this sequence >is neither "the minors" nor "the reds"; it is "either the minors >or the reds". > >No, it most certainly is not. One of the dangers that we all >fall into on BLML is this: because we are expert players who >read the Bridge World and occasionally finish above average at >the Little-Festering-under-Lyme Thursday evening duplicate, we >assume that the only "standard" is what is standard for us. > >The "standard" (that is, by far the most widely used) meaning >of an undiscussed 2NT on this sequence is that it shows a balanced >hand too strong to overcall 1NT. You may protest that you don't >know anyone who plays that way, but that's because you know roughly >0.000001% of the world's bridge players, and you assume that >they all bid like you do. All true, except for the last ("you assume that they all..."). But in the message which started the thread, Peter tells us that "NS are experts" -- IMO, that matters. And while even expert practice can vary widely from locale to locale, so that my notion of what's "standard" for experts might be entirely inapplicable to a particular case, Peter also tells us that the actual TD at the table ruled that it should have been "obvious to everyone what is going on after Easts 3D bid", which does seem to suggest that his notion of what constituted local expert practice as it applied in this case was similar to mine. 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 Jun 8 01:07:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g57F1oX27281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 01:01:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g57F1dH27267 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 01:01:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17GL2c-000CWK-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 07 Jun 2002 15:48:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:25:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch writes >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "David Stevenson" >> >> > I think you may be surprised: I shall have a nice little one Euro bet >> > with anyone who likes that there will be a provider allowing illegal >> > calls or plays within ten years. Any takers? > > What is the time limit for there to be a provider? I will take the bet >on the condition that payoff will occur before the end of the first month >after Britain adopts the Euro as its currency. I still may not ever be able >collect on it, but at least it feels as though there's a time limit. >Alternately, I'll take 1 Euro now and pay 2 back if/when a provider is >found. I don't really understand. The time limit for the bet is ten years from the posting. Payment is due once the result of the bet is known. Britain's adoption of the currency is irrelevant - I have a Euro account and a stock of Euros in cash, and could pay now if I lost. But it is a bet between gentleman [or a lady and a gentleman] so surely no stakeholder is required? ----------- Todd Zimnoch writes >... for my previous mail to go through, copy and add the correction, add the >word "realistic" before the phrase "time limit." I was aware of the 10-year >time frame, but I know I'll forget by then. Ah, that's different. Look, I have offered a bet: you don't want it, don't take it. The point is that for much the reasons that Brian has said I agree there will not be such a provider in the next year or two. I was stressing the point that I do expect providers to produce "Real Bridge", not to mention other variants, in the years to come. There is no point in my offering the bet for [say] three years because then my money would be on the other side. I believe that Brian has under-rated the explosion of the internet effect, and a consequence of this is that providers will be looking for something different. And, of course, the relevance to BLML is that I expect therefore that there is a requirement for Online Laws to deal with illegalities. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 8 01:08:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g57F1sX27287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 01:01:54 +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-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 g57F1eH27268 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 01:01:46 +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 17GL2b-000CWJ-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 07 Jun 2002 15:48:41 +0100 Message-ID: <60y$cHBUUKA9EwpR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:20:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <3D005EB3.3060503@skynet.be> In-Reply-To: <3D005EB3.3060503@skynet.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 >But the problem with that view is that it cannot be proved. TDs are not expected to prove things: they work on adequate evidence for them to take a particular view, >The TD is bound by the footnote to assume that there is an agreement. Only if there is not adequate evidence to decide otherwise: proof is too high a threshold, and is not required. >After all, someone who bids NT and has two suits really expects >partner to understand that, does he not ? > >So any explanation other than "shows the reds" will be treated as MI. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 8 01:08:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g57F1hb27272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 01:01:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g57F1ZH27262 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 01:01:36 +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 17GL2b-000CWI-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 07 Jun 2002 15:48:39 +0100 Message-ID: <608$8IAsHKA9EwJe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:07:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Online Laws References: <200206040215.TAA26278@mailhub.irvine.com> <001d01c20ce6$ed4f3e00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <5w35AcE6J9$8EwF9@asimere.com> <008a01c20e03$9ed846e0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> In-Reply-To: <008a01c20e03$9ed846e0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" > >> OK, that's one Euro from Richard, and 100 from Brian - or one Euro to >> each of them. > >Now I have a proof that David doesn't read my posts :-)) >I took the bet. Shows the effect of quick reading - a one-word post and I misread it! I read it as No. OK, that's one Euro from Richard, one from Konrad, and 100 from Brian - or one Euro to each of them. >+--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-----------------+ >> I think you may be surprised: I shall have a nice little one Euro bet >> with anyone who likes that there will be a provider allowing illegal >> calls or plays within ten years. Any takers? > > >Me. > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland >+--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-----------------+ > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Na pewno wiesz, o co w pilce noznej chodzi? Sprawdz swoja wiedze i... >umiejetnosc przewidywania! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f15e0 > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 8 02:22:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g57GJYR27425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 02:19:34 +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 g57GJSH27421 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 02:19:29 +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 g57G8Fx17676 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 17:08:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 16:50:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <3D005EB3.3060503@skynet.be> In-Reply-To: <3D005EB3.3060503@skynet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <3D005EB3.3060503@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >>>Tim West-meads writes >>> >>> >> >> I support 100% the concept that explanations of >> *explicit or implicit agreements* are never improper. >> >> However, I do not resile from my assertion that an >> explanation along the lines of, "We have no explicit or >> implicit partnership agreement, but my personal >> interpretation is..." *is* improper. >> >> L75 requires only explanation of (explicit or implicit) >> *partnership* agreements, so UI should not be generated >> unnecessarily by information about how an *individual* >> will interpret a non-agreement. >> > > >But the problem with that view is that it cannot be proved. >The TD is bound by the footnote to assume that there is an agreement. >After all, someone who bids NT and has two suits really expects >partner to understand that, does he not ? > >So any explanation other than "shows the reds" will be treated as MI. > I am inclined to believe the players have no agreement. Thus no damage. > >> 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 Sat Jun 8 02:25:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g57GMvm27440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 02:22:57 +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 g57GMoH27432 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 02:22:50 +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 g57GBbx17684 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 17:11:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 16:54:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <200206071414.KAA12608@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200206071414.KAA12608@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200206071414.KAA12608@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> ...local knowledge has a lot of bearing on this one. I >> doubt I'd ever even consider a PP for this one. > >I agree with both comments. Local knowledge affects both whether the >opponents were damaged by MI (probably not, given the clear statement >of "undiscussed") and also what are the LA's and "suggested over >another" for the UI question. > >Still, explainer could have avoided a lot of problems if he had >refrained from stating how he was interpreting partner's bid. No >reason for a PP, but it won't hurt to advise him for next time. >-- As ever, Steve, I agree. "You stupid geek, you knew what would happen if your explanation was wrong. Just stay shtum, next time eh?" >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 8 06:44:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g57KhSI27672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 06:43:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g57KhNH27668 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 06:43:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g57KUOf15544 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 16:30:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 16:20:46 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3D00C24A.2010900@skynet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/7/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >On the MI issue, the TD has less leeway. The footnote tells him that >absent evidence to the contrary (and there is not much of that) he >should rule as if the agreement fits the hand that bids it. So NS were >IMO (and maybe only legally so) misinformed. >Not that this matters in the actual case. The law says that in the absence of evidence that the explanation matches the partnership agreement, the director is to assume misexplanation rather than misbid. This is not at all the same thing as "rule as if the agreement fits the hand that bids it". Given what the law actually says, I don't see how you can rule "misexplanation" in this particular case. The explanation was "not discussed". The "I'm taking it as the minors" is an extraneous comment (see law 16). I don't know how *anyone* could *ever* come up with evidence that would show the bid was not discussed (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). In that case, must we rule misexplanation *whenever* caller's partner claims the call was undiscussed? I don't think we want to go there, but that seems to be where this argument leads. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp 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 Sat Jun 8 06:44:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g57Khn427678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 06:43:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g57KhhH27674 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 06:43:43 +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 g57KUjf15960 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 16:30:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 16:07:43 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <070602158.22182@webbox.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/7/02, David Burn wrote: > >Eric wrote: > >>The standard meaning of an undiscussed 2NT on this sequence >is neither "the minors" nor "the reds"; it is "either the minors >or the reds". > >No, it most certainly is not. One of the dangers that we all >fall into on BLML is this: because we are expert players who >read the Bridge World and occasionally finish above average at >the Little-Festering-under-Lyme Thursday evening duplicate, we >assume that the only "standard" is what is standard for us. I am gratified that you would include me in the class of expert players. I'm not, you know - as my performance at last Monday's game will clearly demonstrate (we finished dead last, and ten percent behind the next lowest pair. It was a disaster. :) >The "standard" (that is, by far the most widely used) meaning >of an undiscussed 2NT on this sequence is that it shows a balanced >hand too strong to overcall 1NT. The only thing I've been able to conclude about what's "standard" is "nothing". The usual response of many, if not most, players I know to "what does 2NT mean?" in this case would be "I have no idea". I think that concern over what is "standard" may be misplaced. The question is, what is "general bridge knowledge" about this 2NT overcall. I don't think that's quite the same thing. The level of "general bridge knowledge" among some of the people with whom I play is practically non-existant. For some others, it includes the knowledge that the "Unusual NT overcall" exists, but they have no clue when it applies. And for yet others, they know it exists, and they know it applies, and they "know" it means "both minors". The point to all this is that context is important. I think you have to evaluate (or try to evaluate) the "general bridge knowledge" of these two particular players, not refer to some arbitrary, theoretical, and probably non-existant "standard". I could be wrong. If I am, perhaps someone can explain to me why I am. :-) 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 Sat Jun 8 06:44:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g57KhJ427666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 06:43:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g57KhDH27662 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 06:43:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g57KUIX29476 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:30:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002b01c20e62$0f0ba340$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <070602158.8906@webbox.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:28:34 -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 Burn" > > > I suppose one might argue that playing 2NT as a two-suiter is > not based on a "special partnership understanding" (and I do > not especially want to start Marvin off again on the meaning > of the word "special"), but a matter of "general bridge knowledge". > But I do not think this is right at all. My guess would be that > no more than 10% of the world's bridge players know that a 2NT > overcall of one of a suit can be based on a weak distributional > hand; if I as one of those 10% of players happen to be partnering > another such, then even if what we do is based on knowledge that > is common to our select group, it is still pretty "special" as > far as the rest of the world is concerned. > I've been waiting for a suitable opportunity to input an example from my own experience. Alice and I play unusual notrumps only after the 2NT bidder has passed at least once. (That is what made the 2NT bid *unusual* when it was first born-- how could a passed hand bid 2NT?). Our 1S-2NT shows an 8-trick hand with a long solid minor and a spade stopper. Since the bid means what it says, we have to Alert it. :-)) The ACBL CC has a place for marking the meaning of an unusual notrump, with two boxes one for minors and one for lower two unbid suits. Ours showed lower two, with "by a PH." added. The occasion for our unusual notrump is so infrequent that we had never discussed it. Along came a two-suited hand with which I had to reopen, but I held the red suits against 1S-P-2S-P-P. What to do? My Jxxxx hearts were too weak for 3H. Somewhere in my reading a player with the same dilemma had used unusual notrump, trusting that his partner would understand what a correction of clubs to diamonds would mean. So, I thought, why not try it? Maybe Alice, although an inexperienced player, would catch the meaning. (Why didn't I use Michaels over 1S? Because we play Michaels only by a passed hand, and even if playing it I would not have bid 2S with my weakish 5-5, vulnerable.) So I bid 2NT, Alice bid 3C, and I bid 3D. Of course next hand asked for the meaning. Alice said something like, "Well, we play unusual notrump, but we have no agreement about his 3D bid." She then thought, intelligently, "Maybe he has hearts and diamonds," and bid 3H with her 3=3=2=5 hand, landing us in the right place, good for her. Of course the opponents called the TD because we had reached 3H through Alice's fielding of 3D.. The TD verified that we had no special parrtnership agreement (sorry, David Burn) about 3D, and let the result stand, telling us however to indicate on the CC henceforth that our 2NT could be lower two or higher two. That we have done, except that I have made it "any two unbid, usually lower two." Is anyone saying that we were guilty of some infraction? Or that the TD didn't do his job correctly? If so, I disagree. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 8 07:43:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g57LgXU27721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 07:42:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g57LgRH27717 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 07:42:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1046.bb.online.no [80.212.212.22]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA02946 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 23:29:25 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003501c20e6a$65aaa680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <070602158.8906@webbox.com> <002b01c20e62$0f0ba340$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 23:29:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Marvin L. French" ...... > I've been waiting for a suitable opportunity to input an example from my own > experience. > > Alice and I play unusual notrumps only after the 2NT bidder has passed at > least once. (That is what made the 2NT bid *unusual* when it was first > born-- how could a passed hand bid 2NT?). Our 1S-2NT shows an 8-trick hand > with a long solid minor and a spade stopper. Since the bid means what it > says, we have to Alert it. :-)) > > The ACBL CC has a place for marking the meaning of an unusual notrump, with > two boxes one for minors and one for lower two unbid suits. Ours showed > lower two, with "by a PH." added. The occasion for our unusual notrump is so > infrequent that we had never discussed it. > > Along came a two-suited hand with which I had to reopen, but I held the red > suits against 1S-P-2S-P-P. What to do? My Jxxxx hearts were too weak for 3H. > Somewhere in my reading a player with the same dilemma had used unusual > notrump, trusting that his partner would understand what a correction of > clubs to diamonds would mean. So, I thought, why not try it? Maybe Alice, > although an inexperienced player, would catch the meaning. > > (Why didn't I use Michaels over 1S? Because we play Michaels only by a > passed hand, and even if playing it I would not have bid 2S with my weakish > 5-5, vulnerable.) > > So I bid 2NT, Alice bid 3C, and I bid 3D. Of course next hand asked for the > meaning. Alice said something like, "Well, we play unusual notrump, but we > have no agreement about his 3D bid." She then thought, intelligently, "Maybe > he has hearts and diamonds," and bid 3H with her 3=3=2=5 hand, landing us in > the right place, good for her. > > Of course the opponents called the TD because we had reached 3H through > Alice's fielding of 3D.. The TD verified that we had no special parrtnership > agreement (sorry, David Burn) about 3D, and let the result stand, telling us > however to indicate on the CC henceforth that our 2NT could be lower two or > higher two. That we have done, except that I have made it "any two unbid, > usually lower two." > > Is anyone saying that we were guilty of some infraction? Or that the TD > didn't do his job correctly? If so, I disagree. On the contrary I would say that you have given an excellent example of "inferences drawn from his [sic] general knowledge and experience" Alice is to be complemented by her understanding of the situation. And - as you have now had this experience it has become a part of your special "partnership experience" which you have correctly included in your declaration. Commendable. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 8 07:59:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g57LwuV27734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 07:58:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g57LwoH27730 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 07:58:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1046.bb.online.no [80.212.212.22]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA16168 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 23:45:49 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 23:45:49 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" ....... > The explanation was "not discussed". The "I'm taking it > as the minors" is an extraneous comment (see law 16). That depends. If the player has reason to believe, from knowing the partner, from knowing books (on bridge) that the partner has read, from knowing the environment with which partner is familiar or for any other reason, that partner is likely to have been using that call with a particular meaning, this is "partnership experience" even when it has not been explicitly discussed or agreed upon. Although the words "I'm taking it as ....." are questionable, the fact is that the "understanding" is part of what should be disclosed to opponents. "Not discussed" conveys a warning to opponents that the explanation has less than optimum confidence, a fact that can be very important for opponents to be aware of (and to which they are entitled). However, if the player really has no foundation for assuming one interpretation over another then as you say, these added words are just an extraneous comment which he should have avoided. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 8 08:14:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g57ME5l27755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 08:14:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g57MDxH27751 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 08:13:59 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g57M11O00622 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 23:01:01 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 23:01 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis 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: <3D00C24A.2010900@skynet.be> Herman wrote: > On the MI issue, the TD has less leeway. The footnote tells him that > absent evidence to the contrary (and there is not much of that) he > should rule as if the agreement fits the hand that bids it. So NS were > IMO (and maybe only legally so) misinformed. > Not that this matters in the actual case. Please note that testimony from the players (even if uncorroborated) is also "evidence". The TD is obliged to consider such evidence (and give it whatever weight he judges reasonable). Perhaps I am completely bizarre (OK John I know I am too). But when a player says "I think it shows minors" I will suspect he has a reason for thinking that way and investigate. If he then tells me "We have agreed it is minors over artificial 1C bids, and I know from past experience we treat 2 card club suits as artificial but we haven't actually discussed or had experience with this sequence over a 3 card club suit" there is no way I am going to even consider MI. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 8 12:23:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g582MEI27839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 12:22:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g582M9H27835 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 12:22:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-148-144.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.123.148.144] helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17GVfD-0000s0-00; Sat, 08 Jun 2002 03:09:11 +0100 Message-ID: <002a01c20e91$62b87de0$90947bd5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Sven Pran" , References: <070602158.8906@webbox.com> <002b01c20e62$0f0ba340$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <003501c20e6a$65aaa680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 03:08:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven wrote: [MLF] > So I bid 2NT, Alice bid 3C, and I bid 3D. Of course next hand asked for > the meaning. Alice said something like, "Well, we play unusual notrump, but we > have no agreement about his 3D bid." She then thought, intelligently, > "Maybe he has hearts and diamonds," and bid 3H with her 3=3=2=5 hand, landing us > in the right place, good for her. Indeed. But my contention is this: if you bid 2NT in the hope that your partner would work out in the later going that you had the reds and not the minors, that 2NT was based on the anticipation that partner would, or might, later understand it. That anticipation was in turn based on your expectation of partner's experience and / or intelligence, as well as on the fact that you are (and your partner knows that you are) an expert player. To that extent, your 2NT was based on a degree of understanding that I would describe as "special" insofar as that word means anything. If so, it was not (per Law 40) legal, for your opponents could not reasonably be expected to understand it, nor could it have been in any way adequately pre-disclosed. [MLF] > Of course the opponents called the TD because we had reached 3H through > Alice's fielding of 3D.. The TD verified that we had no special > parrtnership agreement (sorry, David Burn) Oh, no need to apologise. But I do not think that "special partnership agreement" means only "that which has specifically been discussed". I think that a great many things are considered, by players and tournament directors alike, to be "just bridge" when in fact they are anything but. > Is anyone saying that we were guilty of some infraction? Yes. One of you made a bid of 2NT that did not express a desire to play in 2NT. The other understood that this bid of 2NT did not express a desire to play in 2NT. Now, to the readers of BLML this may seem like the most natural thing in the world, but it is not. If I bid 2NT with a poor hand and 5-5 in a couple of suits, then this is based on the notion that my partner will understand that I do not want to play in 2NT. That understanding is "special". Your opponents did not understand it, and could not reasonably have been expected to do so. Your partner did not tell them what it meant (for she could not). Law 40 says what it says. > Or that the TD didn't do his job correctly? If so, I disagree. Oh, well. [SP] > On the contrary I would say that you have given an excellent example of > "inferences drawn from his [sic] general knowledge and experience" Yes, I expect you probably would. You see, we forget what it was like not to know how to play bridge at the level to which we all currently play it. But the Laws are not written for experts. > Alice is to be complemented by her understanding of the situation. Now, this really is self-defeating. If her understanding of the situation is worthy of a compliment, then it must have been a special understanding. > And - as you have now had this experience it has become a part of your > special "partnership experience" which you have correctly included in > your declaration. Jolly splendid. The poor opponents against whom Law 40 was broken will no doubt be glad to learn that they are the only pair who will suffer this particular injustice. > Commendable. I would agree with the last three letters of that. I would substitute "reprehensi" for the first eight. 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 Jun 8 12:33:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g582XeS27852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 12:33:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g582XZH27848 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 12:33:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-148-144.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.123.148.144] helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17GVqJ-00016Z-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 08 Jun 2002 03:20:39 +0100 Message-ID: <003001c20e92$fcbc2d00$90947bd5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <070602158.8906@webbox.com> <002b01c20e62$0f0ba340$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 03:19:58 +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 Marvin wrote: > Alice and I play unusual notrumps only after the 2NT bidder has passed at > least once. (That is what made the 2NT bid *unusual* when it was first > born-- how could a passed hand bid 2NT?). Funny you should say that. Only three days ago, I had this, playing with a true beginner: AQ3 K2 AJ64 10973 They opened a spade to my right, they bid two spades to my left, and that came back. I bid 2NT, not really caring what he thought it meant. He raised to 3NT, and he put down a rather suitable: 84 A53 K10985 J54 Of course a passed hand can bid a natural 2NT. You may not think that it's a very good idea, but that does not stop it from being a very real possibility. You see, we did not have any special understanding; he thought it was natural, so he raised it. The Laws are for people like him, not for people like Marvin and Alice. 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 Jun 8 12:36:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g582a5n27864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 12:36:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g582a0H27860 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 12:36:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-148-144.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.123.148.144] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17GVsd-0005In-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 08 Jun 2002 03:23:03 +0100 Message-ID: <003601c20e93$52ef6fc0$90947bd5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 03:22:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed wrote: > I think you have to evaluate (or try to evaluate) the > "general bridge knowledge" of these two particular players, not refer to > some arbitrary, theoretical, and probably non-existant "standard". I > could be wrong. If I am, perhaps someone can explain to me why I am. I will attempt to start by pointing out that the word "general" is usually considered to be the opposite of the word "particular". David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 8 15:04:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5854M127928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 15:04:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5854HH27924 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 15:04:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g584pLX17720 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 21:51:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006801c20ea8$0df8d0e0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <070602158.8906@webbox.com> <002b01c20e62$0f0ba340$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <003001c20e92$fcbc2d00$90947bd5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 21:46:26 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Burn" > Marvin wrote: > > > Alice and I play unusual notrumps only after the 2NT bidder has passed > at > > least once. (That is what made the 2NT bid *unusual* when it was first > > born-- how could a passed hand bid 2NT?). > > Funny you should say that. Only three days ago, I had this, playing with > a true beginner: > > AQ3 K2 AJ64 10973 > > They opened a spade to my right, they bid two spades to my left, and > that came back. I bid 2NT, not really caring what he thought it meant. > He raised to 3NT, and he put down a rather suitable: > > 84 A53 K10985 J54 > > Of course a passed hand can bid a natural 2NT. You may not think that > it's a very good idea, but that does not stop it from being a very real > possibility. You see, we did not have any special understanding; he > thought it was natural, so he raised it. The Laws are for people like > him, not for people like Marvin and Alice. > I used to play that 2NT as natural, back in the 50s. Like nearly everyone else, I came to believe that the bid is more valuable as showing the minors. Sometimes I regret that decision, as when I have to bid 2NT, then 3NT, with the hand you give. I really don't see your point here. Even your partner would have to agree that 2NT after passing is an uncommon bid, quite unusual. I hope you're not saying that the Laws require 2NT to be played as natural when we have it shown as "unusual" on our CC. Now I'll go on to your next message, which seems to have a point. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 8 21:35:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g58BXwX28054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 21:33:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g58BXqH28050 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 21:33:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-95807.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.246.63]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g58BKjZ02817 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 13:20:45 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D01E8EC.4040907@skynet.be> Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 13:22:20 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry Ed, but you're wrong. Ed Reppert wrote: > On 6/7/02, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>On the MI issue, the TD has less leeway. The footnote tells him that >>absent evidence to the contrary (and there is not much of that) he >>should rule as if the agreement fits the hand that bids it. So NS were >>IMO (and maybe only legally so) misinformed. >>Not that this matters in the actual case. >> > > The law says that in the absence of evidence that the explanation > matches the partnership agreement, the director is to assume > misexplanation rather than misbid. This is not at all the same thing as > "rule as if the agreement fits the hand that bids it". Given what the > law actually says, I don't see how you can rule "misexplanation" in this > particular case. The explanation was "not discussed". The "I'm taking it > as the minors" is an extraneous comment (see law 16). I don't know how > *anyone* could *ever* come up with evidence that would show the bid was > not discussed (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). In that > case, must we rule misexplanation *whenever* caller's partner claims the > call was undiscussed? I don't think we want to go there, but that seems > to be where this argument leads. > But that is exactly where the laws want us to lead. A call which is clearly intended to be conventional (and I'm not talking about a direct cue-bid or such) cannot be "undiscussed". Or if it is, that is no excuse. When I bid 2NT with a two-suiter, I should not be allowed to have partner misexplain it with "undiscussed" as an excuse. I'm hoping partner is on the same wavelength, and I should not be allowed to damage opponents with an -unprovable- allegation of undiscussed. > 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/ > > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 8 21:35:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g58BZ5F28060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 21:35:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g58BZ0H28056 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 21:35:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-95807.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.246.63]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g58BLrH15328 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 13:21:53 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D01E92F.3070703@skynet.be> Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 13:23:27 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Ed Reppert" > ....... > >> The explanation was "not discussed". The "I'm taking it >>as the minors" is an extraneous comment (see law 16). >> > > That depends. If the player has reason to believe, from knowing > the partner, from knowing books (on bridge) that the partner has > read, from knowing the environment with which partner is familiar > or for any other reason, that partner is likely to have been using > that call with a particular meaning, this is "partnership experience" > even when it has not been explicitly discussed or agreed upon. > correct. > Although the words "I'm taking it as ....." are questionable, the > fact is that the "understanding" is part of what should be > disclosed to opponents. > > "Not discussed" conveys a warning to opponents that the > explanation has less than optimum confidence, a fact that > can be very important for opponents to be aware of (and to > which they are entitled). > no they are NOT entitled to this. > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 8 21:40:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g58Be6J28085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 21:40:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g58Be1H28081 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 21:40:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-95807.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.246.63]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g58BQx909205 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 13:26:59 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D01EA61.1080202@skynet.be> Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 13:28:33 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <070602158.8906@webbox.com> <002b01c20e62$0f0ba340$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv, good story. But answer me one thing: Suppose Alice had chosen diamonds as her minor. Would you have informed that your other suit was hearts, not clubs? Don't you agree that opponents might be damaged by partner's explanation that you hold clubs ? You have changed your CC since then - why does this one case differ from all others? Marvin L. French wrote: > From: "David Burn" > >> >>I suppose one might argue that playing 2NT as a two-suiter is >>not based on a "special partnership understanding" (and I do >>not especially want to start Marvin off again on the meaning >>of the word "special"), but a matter of "general bridge knowledge". >>But I do not think this is right at all. My guess would be that >>no more than 10% of the world's bridge players know that a 2NT >>overcall of one of a suit can be based on a weak distributional >>hand; if I as one of those 10% of players happen to be partnering >>another such, then even if what we do is based on knowledge that >>is common to our select group, it is still pretty "special" as >>far as the rest of the world is concerned. >> >> > I've been waiting for a suitable opportunity to input an example from my own > experience. > > Alice and I play unusual notrumps only after the 2NT bidder has passed at > least once. (That is what made the 2NT bid *unusual* when it was first > born-- how could a passed hand bid 2NT?). Our 1S-2NT shows an 8-trick hand > with a long solid minor and a spade stopper. Since the bid means what it > says, we have to Alert it. :-)) > > The ACBL CC has a place for marking the meaning of an unusual notrump, with > two boxes one for minors and one for lower two unbid suits. Ours showed > lower two, with "by a PH." added. The occasion for our unusual notrump is so > infrequent that we had never discussed it. > > Along came a two-suited hand with which I had to reopen, but I held the red > suits against 1S-P-2S-P-P. What to do? My Jxxxx hearts were too weak for 3H. > Somewhere in my reading a player with the same dilemma had used unusual > notrump, trusting that his partner would understand what a correction of > clubs to diamonds would mean. So, I thought, why not try it? Maybe Alice, > although an inexperienced player, would catch the meaning. > > (Why didn't I use Michaels over 1S? Because we play Michaels only by a > passed hand, and even if playing it I would not have bid 2S with my weakish > 5-5, vulnerable.) > > So I bid 2NT, Alice bid 3C, and I bid 3D. Of course next hand asked for the > meaning. Alice said something like, "Well, we play unusual notrump, but we > have no agreement about his 3D bid." She then thought, intelligently, "Maybe > he has hearts and diamonds," and bid 3H with her 3=3=2=5 hand, landing us in > the right place, good for her. > > Of course the opponents called the TD because we had reached 3H through > Alice's fielding of 3D.. The TD verified that we had no special parrtnership > agreement (sorry, David Burn) about 3D, and let the result stand, telling us > however to indicate on the CC henceforth that our 2NT could be lower two or > higher two. That we have done, except that I have made it "any two unbid, > usually lower two." > > Is anyone saying that we were guilty of some infraction? Or that the TD > didn't do his job correctly? If so, I disagree. > > 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/ > > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 9 00:10:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g58EA4j28153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 00:10:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smarthost2.mail.uk.easynet.net (smarthost2.mail.uk.easynet.net [212.135.6.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g58E9xH28149 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 00:09:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from tnt-14-107.easynet.co.uk ([212.134.24.107] helo=k6b8p4) by smarthost2.mail.uk.easynet.net with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17GgiC-000B1V-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 08 Jun 2002 14:57:00 +0100 From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Usenet Bridge abbreviations Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 14:55:09 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Richard Hills writes: > Below are usenet bridge abbreviations supplied > by David Stevenson. JFTR & FWIW, ISTM that some commonly used ones are missing from David's list. There may well be others. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 9 01:36:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g58FZGp28190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 01:35:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g58FZBH28186 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 01:35:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id LAA23669 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 11:22:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA20183 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 11:22:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 11:22:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200206081522.LAA20183@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > To that extent, your 2NT was based on a degree of > understanding Fair enough. > that I would describe as "special" insofar as that word > means anything. Probably. > If so, it was not (per Law 40) legal, for your opponents > could not reasonably be expected to understand it, Why not? It seems likely that the opponents were at least as experienced as Marv's partner. Why should they have any more difficulty understanding it than she did? > nor could it have > been in any way adequately pre-disclosed. The question is not whether pre-disclosure is "adequate" but rather whether it is in accordance with the regulations of the SO. As far as I can tell, the latter was done, but the ACBL regulations are complex, and there could be something I'm missing. Note that _either_ of the above conditions is sufficient to eliminate a L40B problem. As in so many other cases, the right ruling depends on local knowledge and on the experience level of the players at the table. I think David B. and I would agree that that is not a desirable situation. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 9 03:44:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g58HiAb28317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 03:44:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g58HhxH28304 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 03:43:59 +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 g58HUxf05761; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 13:30:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 13:11:39 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: David Burn cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <003001c20e92$fcbc2d00$90947bd5@pbncomputer> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/8/02, David Burn wrote: >The Laws are for people like >him, not for people like Marvin and Alice. The Laws are for everybody who plays bridge. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 9 03:44:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g58Hi9P28316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 03:44:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g58HhwH28303 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 03:43:59 +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 g58HUvf05739; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 13:30:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 13:14:38 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: David Burn cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <003601c20e93$52ef6fc0$90947bd5@pbncomputer> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/8/02, David Burn wrote: >Ed wrote: > >>I think you have to evaluate (or try to evaluate) the "general bridge >>knowledge" of these two particular players, not refer to some >>arbitrary, theoretical, and probably non-existant "standard". I could >>be wrong. If I am, perhaps someone can explain to me why I am. > >I will attempt to start by pointing out that the word "general" is >usually considered to be the opposite of the word "particular". Well, you're off to a bad start, 'cause I have no clue what point you're trying to make. :-( Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 9 03:44:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g58HiBN28318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 03:44:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g58Hi1H28308 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 03:44:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g58HV0f05776; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 13:31:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 13:20:08 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: Herman De Wael cc: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3D01E8EC.4040907@skynet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/8/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >But that is exactly where the laws want us to lead. A call which is >clearly intended to be conventional (and I'm not talking about a >direct cue-bid or such) cannot be "undiscussed". Or if it is, that is >no excuse. When I bid 2NT with a two-suiter, I should not be allowed >to have partner misexplain it with "undiscussed" as an excuse. I'm >hoping partner is on the same wavelength, and I should not be allowed >to damage opponents with an -unprovable- allegation of undiscussed. I keep looking at this, trying to find a way to respond, but all I can hear in my head is the Red Queen: "First the sentence, then the trial. Off with his head!" If you think a conventional call can't be undiscussed, you've never played with some of my partners. The auction goes (1C)-X. Have you discussed the meaning of double with your partner? if not, then it must be penalty. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 9 18:58:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g598vkF28705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 18:57:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g598veH28701 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 18:57:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-75544.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.167.24]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g598hh903334 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 10:43:43 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D03159D.7070701@skynet.be> Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 10:45:17 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Ed, Ed Reppert wrote: > On 6/8/02, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>But that is exactly where the laws want us to lead. A call which is >>clearly intended to be conventional (and I'm not talking about a >>direct cue-bid or such) cannot be "undiscussed". Or if it is, that is >>no excuse. When I bid 2NT with a two-suiter, I should not be allowed >>to have partner misexplain it with "undiscussed" as an excuse. I'm >>hoping partner is on the same wavelength, and I should not be allowed >>to damage opponents with an -unprovable- allegation of undiscussed. >> > > I keep looking at this, trying to find a way to respond, but all I can > hear in my head is the Red Queen: "First the sentence, then the trial. > Off with his head!" > > If you think a conventional call can't be undiscussed, you've never > played with some of my partners. > > The auction goes (1C)-X. Have you discussed the meaning of double with > your partner? if not, then it must be penalty. > No it's not. Where I play, that is take-out. Everyone plays it, and no-one ever discusses this before a game. It's not even alertable. Now if I play against two Korean visitors, and they ask me what it is, "undiscussed" may well be true, but certainly constitutes MI. Agreed? OK, so much for your argument. Now if you play and I'm directing, and you bid 2NT holding 2 red suits, and your partner answers "undiscussed", that too may be true, but then why did you bid it like that? Don't you see that the footnote is there precisely to stop you using the excuse "undiscussed" to cover up misinformation ? I'm not saying that I shall never accept the explanation, but you seem to say that I should always accept 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 > > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 10 01:04:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g59F35428947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 01:03:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g59F2xH28943 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 01:03:00 +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 g59Enwf28077 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 10:49:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 10:46:39 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3D03159D.7070701@skynet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/9/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >No it's not. Where I play, that is take-out. Everyone plays it, and >no-one ever discusses this before a game. It's not even alertable. >Now if I play against two Korean visitors, and they ask me what it is, >"undiscussed" may well be true, but certainly constitutes MI. Agreed? > >OK, so much for your argument. Pfui. You asserted that if a call is undiscussed, its meaning cannot be conventional. The natural meaning of double is penalty, not takeout. That "everyone plays it" as takeout is (a) irrelevant and (b) demonstrably untrue. In 1990, playing at HMS Centurion over lunch with a pickup partner, we had this precise auction. Partner meant X as penalty, because, as he said later, "that's how my mother taught me." If you know that a call has a meaning other than might be expected, then to fail to disclose that knowledge is MI, yes. But if a particular call has not come up, and you have not discussed it, and you have no clue what partner means by it, other, perhaps, than "everybody plays it", what then? Should have I alerted my partner's double above? >Now if you play and I'm directing, and you bid 2NT holding 2 red >suits, and your partner answers "undiscussed", that too may be true, >but then why did you bid it like that? Because either (a) I expect that anyone should be able to work out what's going on, or (b) I'm an idiot. Or both. >Don't you see that the footnote is there precisely to stop you using >the excuse "undiscussed" to cover up misinformation ? No. >I'm not saying that I shall never accept the explanation, but you seem >to say that I should always accept it. You said, iirc, that having bid 2NT, the fact my hand has two red suits is conclusive evidence, or must be taken as conclusive evidence, when partner explains it as "undiscussed", of MI. That sounds like "never accept it" to me. I don't say you should always accept it, I say that you should not treat what's in the hand as conclusive evidence of MI, because it ain't. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp 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 Jun 10 01:56:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g59FuKP28977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 01:56:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g59FuEH28973 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 01:56:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-75544.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.167.24]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g59FhA927249 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 17:43:10 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D0377EB.9050605@skynet.be> Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 17:44:43 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry Ed, we're just mincing words here - I don't think we're that far apart: Ed Reppert wrote: > On 6/9/02, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>No it's not. Where I play, that is take-out. Everyone plays it, and >>no-one ever discusses this before a game. It's not even alertable. >>Now if I play against two Korean visitors, and they ask me what it is, >>"undiscussed" may well be true, but certainly constitutes MI. Agreed? >> >>OK, so much for your argument. >> > > Pfui. You asserted that if a call is undiscussed, its meaning cannot be > conventional. The natural meaning of double is penalty, not takeout. > That "everyone plays it" as takeout is (a) irrelevant and (b) > demonstrably untrue. In 1990, playing at HMS Centurion over lunch with a > pickup partner, we had this precise auction. Partner meant X as penalty, > because, as he said later, "that's how my mother taught me." > (a) is very relevant - because it means that we don't have to discuss it to have an (implicit) agreement. (b) it IS true. I was talking of "where I play" here and now, not in 1990 on some ship (HMS ?) > If you know that a call has a meaning other than might be expected, then > to fail to disclose that knowledge is MI, yes. But if a particular call > has not come up, and you have not discussed it, and you have no clue > what partner means by it, other, perhaps, than "everybody plays it", > what then? Should have I alerted my partner's double above? > Well - maybe. I was just debunking your assertion that undiscussed is not MI if it is true. Undiscussed can be literally true, and yet constitute MI, because both partners are still on the same wavelength. > >>Now if you play and I'm directing, and you bid 2NT holding 2 red >>suits, and your partner answers "undiscussed", that too may be true, >>but then why did you bid it like that? >> > > Because either (a) I expect that anyone should be able to work out > what's going on, or (b) I'm an idiot. Or both. > But if your partner (I'm not saying anyone - in that case there is no MI); if your partner can work out what is going on then he should tell opponents. If you're an idiot then OK. > >>Don't you see that the footnote is there precisely to stop you using >>the excuse "undiscussed" to cover up misinformation ? >> > > No. > "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the director is to presume ME rather than mistaken bid". "Undiscussed" van be either true or not - it's evidence, but not a terribly good one. > >>I'm not saying that I shall never accept the explanation, but you seem >>to say that I should always accept it. >> > > You said, iirc, that having bid 2NT, the fact my hand has two red suits > is conclusive evidence, or must be taken as conclusive evidence, when > partner explains it as "undiscussed", of MI. That sounds like "never > accept it" to me. > I did not say any such thing. It's evidence. Whether it's conclusive is a matter of personal taste and circumstances. You say that "undiscussed" is also evidence. I agree. But even without going into details of "self-serving" I believe that it surely is not conclusive. What do you think of the following auction pass pass 2Cl pass (always strong) 2Di pass 2Sp 3He (2Di relay/2Sp semi-GF spades) 5Di My partner explained it as showing a spade fit. I intended it as weak, preferring diamonds as trumps. She did add "but don't shoot me if I'm wrong". The she went to 6Sp and shot me. Of course it was "undiscussed". Does that make her explanation correct all of a sudden? > I don't say you should always accept it, I say that you should not treat > what's in the hand as conclusive evidence of MI, because it ain't. > But neither should you accept the word "undiscussed" at face value. There's always some background that helps the partner understand, and this background needs to be disclosed. > 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/ > > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 10 06:16:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g59KFdW29160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 06:15:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g59KFXH29156 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 06:15:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mailing.poczta.interia.pl (mailing) with ESMTP id 5FD2C5F21 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 22:02:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by rav.antivirus (Mailserver) with SMTP id 207F95928 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 22:02:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id A57AB596C; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 22:02:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from miauczur-gbq01f (ph9.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl [217.99.208.9]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id C8D0A595E for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 22:02:25 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 22:01:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Konrad Ciborowski Subject: [BLML] I am a TD! X-Mailer: Opera 5.01 build 840 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <20020609200225.C8D0A595E@poczta.interia.pl> X-EMID: bc740acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, I have just come back from the Polish Bridge Union TD Course. After three exhaustive days filled with practical exercises and, finally, an exam - it really happened. I am now a real TD! Finishing in the top ten (6th out of about 50 participants) means I am a national TD - I can direct in all events sponsored by the Polish Bridge Union; as the Chief TD in local events and as a sectional TD in national events. Now I have yet to direct my first event. :-) I would like to greet all BLMLers - the list offers a splendid learning opportunity. Thanks everyone. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Juz 11 czerwca kolejna edycja konkursu LOT na stronach INTERIA.PL! Wygraj bilet na dowolne polaczenie objete promocja i pakuj sie! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f15e5 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 10 09:35:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g59NZ1l29230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 09:35:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g59NYsH29226 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 09:34:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g59NNfx24128 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 00:23:41 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 23:02:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! References: <20020609200225.C8D0A595E@poczta.interia.pl> In-Reply-To: <20020609200225.C8D0A595E@poczta.interia.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <20020609200225.C8D0A595E@poczta.interia.pl>, Konrad Ciborowski writes > >Hi all, > > I have just come back from the Polish Bridge Union TD Course. >After three exhaustive days filled with practical >exercises and, finally, an exam - it really happened. >I am now a real TD! Finishing in the top ten (6th >out of about 50 participants) means I am a national >TD - I can direct in all events sponsored by the Polish Bridge Union; >as the Chief TD in local events and as a sectional >TD in national events. Now I have yet to direct >my first event. :-) Congratulations! I think I've learnt as much here as I've learnt on the floor over the last 10 years. Although the problems we discuss here are often not practically related to floor directing, one's appreciation and interpretation of the Law becomes much more fluent as a result of blml, and one is more certain of the accuracy of one's ruling. that for me is the biggest benefit. cheers john > I would like to greet all BLMLers - the list offers >a splendid learning opportunity. Thanks everyone. > > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Juz 11 czerwca kolejna edycja konkursu LOT na stronach INTERIA.PL! >Wygraj bilet na dowolne polaczenie objete promocja i pakuj sie! >>>> http://link.interia.pl/f15e5 > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 10 10:34:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5A0Xuv29287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:33:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5A0XmH29283 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:33:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup248-a.ts551.cwt.esat.net ([193.203.140.248] helo=oemcomputer) by mail1.mail.iol.ie with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17HCqs-0007id-00; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 01:16:07 +0100 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 01:20:57 +0100 Message-ID: <01C2101D.12BF0600.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'Konrad Ciborowski'" Cc: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] I am a TD! Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 01:20:56 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Congratulations Konrad! I too can vouch for BLML as an excellent learning tool - provided you learn to spot 'misinformation'. Best regards, Fearghal. -----Original Message----- From: Konrad Ciborowski [SMTP:cibor@poczta.fm] Sent: 09 June 2002 22:02 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] I am a TD! Hi all, I have just come back from the Polish Bridge Union TD Course. After three exhaustive days filled with practical exercises and, finally, an exam - it really happened. I am now a real TD! Finishing in the top ten (6th out of about 50 participants) means I am a national TD - I can direct in all events sponsored by the Polish Bridge Union; as the Chief TD in local events and as a sectional TD in national events. Now I have yet to direct my first event. :-) I would like to greet all BLMLers - the list offers a splendid learning opportunity. Thanks everyone. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Juz 11 czerwca kolejna edycja konkursu LOT na stronach INTERIA.PL! Wygraj bilet na dowolne polaczenie objete promocja i pakuj sie! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f15e5 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 10 10:49:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5A0mmc29315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:48:48 +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-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 g5A0mgH29311 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:48:43 +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 17HD9l-000736-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 01:35:41 +0100 Message-ID: <+DzOBDCQh9A9Ew6M@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 23:36:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! References: <20020609200225.C8D0A595E@poczta.interia.pl> In-Reply-To: <20020609200225.C8D0A595E@poczta.interia.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski writes > I have just come back from the Polish Bridge Union TD Course. >After three exhaustive days filled with practical >exercises and, finally, an exam - it really happened. >I am now a real TD! Finishing in the top ten (6th >out of about 50 participants) means I am a national >TD - I can direct in all events sponsored by the Polish Bridge Union; >as the Chief TD in local events and as a sectional >TD in national events. Now I have yet to direct >my first event. :-) Congratulations! Ok, let me ask you a problem, which I think I solved incorrectly over the weekend. One of your colleagues gives a ruling in an event with complicated hybrid scoring, and the Chief TD who is also the Chief Scorer calculates its effect. The pair concerned has now moved into your section, so you are now asked to tell them that the result of their match is now 5.5 - 5.5 VPs on a 10 scale, ie an unbalanced score. They tell you this is ridiculous. One of the players gets a bit annoyed and asks how the opponents can get 5.5 after they gave them a "thrashing". I say I shall ask the Chief Scorer and get back to them. He says it is a bit complex so easiest is if the players go and see him when they get a chance and he will go through it with them. I also see their opponents who point out that it was a close match not a "thrashing" and was going to score 6 - 4 without the adjustment. The Chief Scorer agrees with that. So I return to the player and tell him it was not a "thrashing" which seems part of the explanation for the score of 5.5 - 5.5. Now he shouts [so the whole room hears] "You are lying: I never said a 'thrashing': this ruling is totally unfair: you are just ruling this way in favour of your chums." I was somewhat annoyed. What do you think I should have done at that moment with the player in front of me, shouting, calling me a liar, and so on? I think I got it wrong. As far as the facts are concerned [if they are relevant] I gave no ruling of any sort originally: I was just the messenger. I did not really like their opponents much! The two opponents at the table when I first spoke to them came to me and said they would be happy to give evidence that he had used the word "thrashing". -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 10 11:42:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5A1g4D29370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:42:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5A1fxH29366 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:42:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from annescomputer ([62.255.16.140]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020610012857.IVFF2755.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@annescomputer> for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 02:28:57 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c2101e$20ca7e40$8c10ff3e@annescomputer> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: <20020609200225.C8D0A595E@poczta.interia.pl> <+DzOBDCQh9A9Ew6M@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 02:28:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 11:36 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! > Konrad Ciborowski writes > > > I have just come back from the Polish Bridge Union TD Course. > >After three exhaustive days filled with practical > >exercises and, finally, an exam - it really happened. > >I am now a real TD! Finishing in the top ten (6th > >out of about 50 participants) means I am a national > >TD - I can direct in all events sponsored by the Polish Bridge Union; > >as the Chief TD in local events and as a sectional > >TD in national events. Now I have yet to direct > >my first event. :-) > > Congratulations! > > Ok, let me ask you a problem, which I think I solved incorrectly over > the weekend. > > One of your colleagues gives a ruling in an event with complicated > hybrid scoring, and the Chief TD who is also the Chief Scorer calculates > its effect. The pair concerned has now moved into your section, so you > are now asked to tell them that the result of their match is now 5.5 - > 5.5 VPs on a 10 scale, ie an unbalanced score. > > They tell you this is ridiculous. One of the players gets a bit > annoyed and asks how the opponents can get 5.5 after they gave them a > "thrashing". I say I shall ask the Chief Scorer and get back to them. > > He says it is a bit complex so easiest is if the players go and see > him when they get a chance and he will go through it with them. I also > see their opponents who point out that it was a close match not a > "thrashing" and was going to score 6 - 4 without the adjustment. The > Chief Scorer agrees with that. > > So I return to the player and tell him it was not a "thrashing" which > seems part of the explanation for the score of 5.5 - 5.5. > > Now he shouts [so the whole room hears] "You are lying: I never said a > 'thrashing': this ruling is totally unfair: you are just ruling this way > in favour of your chums." > > I was somewhat annoyed. What do you think I should have done at that > moment with the player in front of me, shouting, calling me a liar, and > so on? I think I got it wrong. > I think you should have called the CTD., and said no more. > > > As far as the facts are concerned [if they are relevant] I gave no > ruling of any sort originally: I was just the messenger. I did not > really like their opponents much! The two opponents at the table when I > first spoke to them came to me and said they would be happy to give > evidence that he had used the word "thrashing". > Oh dear - why did you get yourself in this mess? Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 10 12:45:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5A2igo29403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 12:44:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5A2ibH29399 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 12:44:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from user-2ivfoi6.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.247.226.70] helo=mindspring.com) by granger.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17HEy0-0000Vp-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 09 Jun 2002 22:31:37 -0400 Message-ID: <3D040F0F.3080809@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 19:29:35 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! References: <20020609200225.C8D0A595E@poczta.interia.pl> <+DzOBDCQh9A9Ew6M@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: [Snip Konrad's good news; good wishes to you, Konrad!] > > Congratulations! > > Ok, let me ask you a problem, which I think I solved incorrectly over > the weekend. > > One of your colleagues gives a ruling in an event with complicated > hybrid scoring, and the Chief TD who is also the Chief Scorer calculates > its effect. The pair concerned has now moved into your section, so you > are now asked to tell them that the result of their match is now 5.5 - > 5.5 VPs on a 10 scale, ie an unbalanced score. > > They tell you this is ridiculous. One of the players gets a bit > annoyed and asks how the opponents can get 5.5 after they gave them a > "thrashing". I say I shall ask the Chief Scorer and get back to them. > > He says it is a bit complex so easiest is if the players go and see > him when they get a chance and he will go through it with them. I also > see their opponents who point out that it was a close match not a > "thrashing" and was going to score 6 - 4 without the adjustment. The > Chief Scorer agrees with that. > > So I return to the player and tell him it was not a "thrashing" which > seems part of the explanation for the score of 5.5 - 5.5. > > Now he shouts [so the whole room hears] "You are lying: I never said a > 'thrashing': this ruling is totally unfair: you are just ruling this way > in favour of your chums." > > I was somewhat annoyed. What do you think I should have done at that > moment with the player in front of me, shouting, calling me a liar, and > so on? I think I got it wrong. [In strong director voice] "Sir, you have the absolute right to appeal the ruling. The appeals process is [whatever.] If you use that tone or those words to me or any other director again in this tournament, you will be summarily disqualified from this event." Then, outline whatever penalty he'll receive for the outburst, which depends on local rules and customs and the record of the miscreant. If it's an otherwise good citizen, you might consider a mere reprimand, which should be administered after the event with appropriate stress on prevention of recurrence. Or, it may be a VP penalty, suspension from the remainder of the tournament, or suspension from all events held by the sponsoring organization over some period of time. I'll bet you handled it fine, David. You're not writing from a jail address, so it's probably OK.... --JRM > > > > As far as the facts are concerned [if they are relevant] I gave no > ruling of any sort originally: I was just the messenger. I did not > really like their opponents much! The two opponents at the table when I > first spoke to them came to me and said they would be happy to give > evidence that he had used the word "thrashing". > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 10 18:22:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5A8M6I29591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:22:06 +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 g5A8M0H29587 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:22:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.77.171]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 0.3 (built May 13 2002)) with SMTP id <0GXH00G0JD72Y6@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:06:40 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:06:46 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Anne Jones Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <001601c21055$c4eb1340$ab4d003e@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: <20020609200225.C8D0A595E@poczta.interia.pl> <+DzOBDCQh9A9Ew6M@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000b01c2101e$20ca7e40$8c10ff3e@annescomputer> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 3:28 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Stevenson" > To: > Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 11:36 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! > > > > Konrad Ciborowski writes > > > > > I have just come back from the Polish Bridge Union TD Course. > > >After three exhaustive days filled with practical > > >exercises and, finally, an exam - it really happened. > > >I am now a real TD! Finishing in the top ten (6th > > >out of about 50 participants) means I am a national > > >TD - I can direct in all events sponsored by the Polish Bridge Union; > > >as the Chief TD in local events and as a sectional > > >TD in national events. Now I have yet to direct > > >my first event. :-) > > > > Congratulations! > > > > Ok, let me ask you a problem, which I think I solved incorrectly > over > > the weekend. > > > > One of your colleagues gives a ruling in an event with complicated > > hybrid scoring, and the Chief TD who is also the Chief Scorer > calculates > > its effect. The pair concerned has now moved into your section, so > you > > are now asked to tell them that the result of their match is now 5.5 - > > 5.5 VPs on a 10 scale, ie an unbalanced score. > > > > They tell you this is ridiculous. One of the players gets a bit > > annoyed and asks how the opponents can get 5.5 after they gave them a > > "thrashing". I say I shall ask the Chief Scorer and get back to them. > > > > He says it is a bit complex so easiest is if the players go and see > > him when they get a chance and he will go through it with them. I > also > > see their opponents who point out that it was a close match not a > > "thrashing" and was going to score 6 - 4 without the adjustment. The > > Chief Scorer agrees with that. > > > > So I return to the player and tell him it was not a "thrashing" > which > > seems part of the explanation for the score of 5.5 - 5.5. > > > > Now he shouts [so the whole room hears] "You are lying: I never said > a > > 'thrashing': this ruling is totally unfair: you are just ruling this > way > > in favour of your chums." > > > > I was somewhat annoyed. What do you think I should have done at > that > > moment with the player in front of me, shouting, calling me a liar, > and > > so on? I think I got it wrong. > > > I think you should have called the CTD., and said no more. > > > > > > As far as the facts are concerned [if they are relevant] I gave no > > ruling of any sort originally: I was just the messenger. I did not > > really like their opponents much! The two opponents at the table when > I > > first spoke to them came to me and said they would be happy to give > > evidence that he had used the word "thrashing". > > > Oh dear - why did you get yourself in this mess? > Because HE WAS ON THE FLOOR All the best Israel Anne > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 10 18:37:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5A8bNS29625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:37:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5A8bHH29621 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:37:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.77.171]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 0.3 (built May 13 2002)) with SMTP id <0GXH00G31DYTX0@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:23:19 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:23:25 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Herman De Wael Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <002101c21058$18754420$ab4d003e@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: <3D0377EB.9050605@skynet.be> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 5:44 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > Sorry Ed, we're just > > > I did not say any such thing. It's evidence. Whether it's conclusive > is a matter of personal taste and circumstances. You say that > "undiscussed" is also evidence. I agree. But even without going into > details of "self-serving" I believe that it surely is not conclusive. > > What do you think of the following auction > > pass > pass > 2Cl > pass > (always strong) > 2Di > pass > 2Sp > 3He > (2Di relay/2Sp semi-GF spades) > 5Di > > My partner explained it as showing a spade fit. I intended it as > weak, preferring diamonds as trumps. > She did add "but don't shoot me if I'm wrong". The she went to 6Sp > and shot me. > Of course it was "undiscussed". Does that make her explanation > correct all of a sudden? > > > > I don't say you should always accept it, I say that you should not treat > > what's in the hand as conclusive evidence of MI, because it ain't. > > > > > But neither should you accept the word "undiscussed" at face value. > There's always some background that helps the partner understand, and > this background needs to be disclosed. > ' There's always some background ' But in MOST CASES neither of the players is AWARE of it. Do you REALLY want to DISCLOSE it to them. Best regards Israel > > > > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > > -- > please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 10 20:44:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AAiSY29692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:44:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@xgate.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AAiNH29688 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:44:23 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5AAV9c19333; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:31:09 +0100 Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:31:09 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5AAV9Y22161; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:31:09 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:31:09 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA01763; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:31:08 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA08468; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:31:07 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:31:07 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200206101031.LAA08468@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, bramble@ukonline.co.uk Subject: RE: [BLML] Usenet Bridge abbreviations X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Brambledown" > To: "BLML" > Subject: RE: [BLML] Usenet Bridge abbreviations > Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 14:55:09 +0100 > > > Richard Hills writes: > > > Below are usenet bridge abbreviations supplied by David Stevenson. ^^^^^^ > > JFTR & FWIW, ISTM that some commonly used ones are missing from David's > list. > > There may well be others. > > Chas Fellows (Brambledown) David's is a list of bridge abbreviations, Chas's claimed omissions are general usenet abbreviations and IMHO belong on a different list. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 10 21:15:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5ABFgp29717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:15:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5ABFbH29713 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:15:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48055.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.183]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5AB2U917837 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:02:30 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D0487A5.7070402@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:04:05 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <3D0377EB.9050605@skynet.be> <002101c21058$18754420$ab4d003e@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: >> >>But neither should you accept the word "undiscussed" at face value. >>There's always some background that helps the partner understand, and >>this background needs to be disclosed. >> >> > ' There's always some background ' But in MOST CASES neither of the > players is AWARE of it. > Do you REALLY want to DISCLOSE it to them. > Best regards > Israel You HAVE to ! When I come and play with another belgian in Israel, even someone I've never seen before - I will have some knowledge of our common roots, and those have to be told to the opponents ! > >>> >>>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/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>-- >>please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://users.skynet.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/ >> > > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 10 21:24:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5ABOU429742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:24:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5ABOPH29738 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:24:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (hbge-216-222-232-142.dsl.hbge.epix.net [216.222.232.142]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g5ABBIKK011160 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 07:11:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 07:11:41 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: <5909gugk2icepbuoa8uko3gd72j124mqh3@4ax.com> References: <20020609200225.C8D0A595E@poczta.interia.pl> <+DzOBDCQh9A9Ew6M@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <+DzOBDCQh9A9Ew6M@blakjak.demon.co.uk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 9 Jun 2002 23:36:00 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > I was somewhat annoyed. What do you think I should have done at that >moment with the player in front of me, shouting, calling me a liar, and >so on? I think I got it wrong. > The resolution of such an accusation needs to be as public as the accusation itself. You can hardly require the player to yell a retraction and apology to the whole room. That means there is only one penalty that fits the bill, and it would certainly be applied for the same sort of behaviour in most of the other sports with which I'm familiar. I think you should have disqualified him. 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 Jun 10 22:20:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5ACKTT29828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:20:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5ACKOH29824 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:20:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-4.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.4] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17HNxC-0000wu-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:07:23 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:07:36 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <3D01E92F.3070703@skynet.be> References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:23 AM 6/8/02, Herman wrote: >Sven Pran wrote: > >>Although the words "I'm taking it as ....." are questionable, the >>fact is that the "understanding" is part of what should be >>disclosed to opponents. >>"Not discussed" conveys a warning to opponents that the explanation >>has less than optimum confidence, a fact that >>can be very important for opponents to be aware of (and to >>which they are entitled). >no they are NOT entitled to this. Why not? It is the truth. It describes the "nature" of the agreement you have. It might be relevant to the opponents in selecting their next and subsequent calls, or in playing the hand. As I read the laws, you would be misinforming them to fail to tell them that you have no specific agreement, deliberately misleading them into believing that your agreement is firm and into assuming that there is little or no possiblity of a misunderstanding. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 10 22:34:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5ACYFY29866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:34:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5ACY6H29862 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:34:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-4.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.4] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17HOAU-0002Lk-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:21:06 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020610082022.00ad2c00@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:21:19 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [mis-sent and forwarded; ignore first level of indent] >From: Eric Landau >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > >At 07:28 AM 6/8/02, Herman wrote: > >>Marv, >> >>good story. >> >>But answer me one thing: >> >>Suppose Alice had chosen diamonds as her minor. >> >>Would you have informed that your other suit was hearts, not clubs? >> >>Don't you agree that opponents might be damaged by partner's >>explanation that you hold clubs ? >> >>You have changed your CC since then - why does this one case differ >>from all others? > >Because in this one case, they had no agreement. Subsequent to this >case they have an implicit agreement based on previous experience, >namely that first case. To deny that there is a difference is to deny >that there is such a thing as "an implicit agreement based on previous >experience". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 10 22:43:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AChEG29915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:43:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5ACh9H29911 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:43:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-4.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.4] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17HOJF-0003Yd-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:30:09 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020610082001.00aa2100@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:30:22 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! In-Reply-To: <+DzOBDCQh9A9Ew6M@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <20020609200225.C8D0A595E@poczta.interia.pl> <20020609200225.C8D0A595E@poczta.interia.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:36 PM 6/9/02, David wrote: > One of your colleagues gives a ruling in an event with complicated >hybrid scoring, and the Chief TD who is also the Chief Scorer calculates >its effect. The pair concerned has now moved into your section, so you >are now asked to tell them that the result of their match is now 5.5 - >5.5 VPs on a 10 scale, ie an unbalanced score. > > They tell you this is ridiculous. One of the players gets a bit >annoyed and asks how the opponents can get 5.5 after they gave them a >"thrashing". I say I shall ask the Chief Scorer and get back to them. > > He says it is a bit complex so easiest is if the players go and see >him when they get a chance and he will go through it with them. I also >see their opponents who point out that it was a close match not a >"thrashing" and was going to score 6 - 4 without the adjustment. The >Chief Scorer agrees with that. > > So I return to the player and tell him it was not a "thrashing" which >seems part of the explanation for the score of 5.5 - 5.5. > > Now he shouts [so the whole room hears] "You are lying: I never said a >'thrashing': this ruling is totally unfair: you are just ruling this way >in favour of your chums." > > I was somewhat annoyed. What do you think I should have done at that >moment with the player in front of me, shouting, calling me a liar, and >so on? I think I got it wrong. Unless the player was one for whom you know this to be an extraordinarily rare sort of occurence, or unless he becomes immediately contrite and apologizes for his outburst, a matchpoint penalty (along the lines of 1/4 or 1/2 a board) under L91 would be in order, with a warning that the next uncivil word would incur a second penalty of twice the first. If there are mitigating circumstances, a warning, noting that the next uncivil word would incur a matchpoint penalty, would probably be sufficient. 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 Jun 11 00:00:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5ADxZZ29985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 23:59:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from actinium.btinternet.com (actinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.66]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5ADxUH29981 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 23:59:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from cerium ([194.75.226.98]) by actinium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17HPV6-0003yn-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:46:28 +0100 Received: from 213.166.16.2 by cerium ([194.75.226.98]); Mon, 10 Jun 02 14:46:28 BST Message-ID: <6190034.1023716788520.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:46:28 +0100 (BST) From: dalburn@btopenworld.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis 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 Eric wrote: >Because in this one case, they had no agreement. Subsequent to this case they have an implicit agreement based on previous experience, namely that first case. Not "implicit" at all; it had better be on the convention card from now on! >To deny that there is a difference is to deny that there is such a thing as "an implicit ageement based on previous experience". No, it isn't. It is not the case that the Laws permit you to invent your system at the table - you are supposed to have done that before you sit down to play. If your system does not include a bid to show the red suits after 1S-pass-2S-pass-pass, you do not (as Marvin and others seem to think) have carte blanche to use 2NT for this purpose just because you have never so used it before with this partner. This may seem arbitrary, but it is not; there are sound practical reasons for it. You see, there is nothing to stop me having this sequence with a given partner "for the first time" on at least sixty separate occasions. Oh, I know you will all tell me that Big Brother is watching me, and that Interpol has a record of the day and the hour when Callaghan and I actually used this sequence with the red suits, so we now have an explicit agreement and we can't do it again. But (a) this is not true; (b) even if it were true, it would involve the most ludicrous way to determine the Laws and establish the running of a game that even a bunch of Tournament Directors (well done Konrad, by the way) could devise. An "implicit agreement based on previous experience" is legalese for "a matter of style". You don't put those on your convention cards, but you have to tell the opponents something about them. Marvin will have to (and indeed has) put on his convention card with Alice that in certain sequences, 2NT shows any two unbid suits (where previously it said "minors"), but this has nothing to do with implicit agreements; it was a non-agreement in the first place and is an explicit agreement now. Its use in the first instance was not, in my opinion, legal. It has been said that this view would render psyches illegal, for one is permitted to depart from an announced agreement provided that such departure is not based on partnership understanding (that is not what the Law actually says, but it is what the Law actually ought to say and what the Law is understood to mean). But my view would not render such a departure (whether accidental or deliberate) illegal in the least. It would, however, ensure that in order for the departure to be regarded as legal, it would have to be shown that: it was a departure from announced agreements; and the nature or timing of the departure was not, and could not have been, anticipated by virtue of a partnership understanding. In order to show the first, one needs to show one's announced agreements (and, strictly, to show that the departure is not among one's announced agreements). In order to show the second, one needs to show that partner's actions were not based on an understanding of the position that could have arisen a priori. Provided that one can do both of those things, one can act within the constraints of Law 40A in violating one's announced agreements, deliberately or otherwise. But one cannot argue: "I was allowed to bid 2NT with the red suits, even though our announced agreement was that it showed minors, because we'd never done it before, so partner would not understand." The bid of 2NT is based on the understanding that it shows two suits. In view of the existing disclosure, those two suits are supposed to be the minors, and could not reasonably be expected to be otherwise by the opponents. Thus, per Law 40B, you *are not permitted to make that call with the red suits*. It is not the case, as Marvin and others seem to think, that Law 40A gives you the right to do anything, regardless of what Law 40B says. Law 40A gives you some general rights; Law 40B imposes some particular constraints; you must act in accordance with both Laws. Now, I may have given the impression that I think Marvin is a villain who ought to be taken from hence to a place of execution, and hanged by the neck until he is dead. I don't. I just think that he and large numbers of others are labouring under a serious misapprehension as to the actual words in Law 40 and the actual meaning thereof. I also think that Law 40 does not in fact say what the administration would like it to say, and that it should be revisited in order that it may determine the answers to the questions that have been raised in this thread; at present, it is full of holes. 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 Jun 11 00:13:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AEDV400013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 00:13:31 +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-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 g5AEDQH00009 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 00:13:26 +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 17HPhG-000C81-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:59:03 +0100 Message-ID: <+ybRMgAWcJB9EwQJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:09:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! References: <20020609200225.C8D0A595E@poczta.interia.pl> <+DzOBDCQh9A9Ew6M@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000b01c2101e$20ca7e40$8c10ff3e@annescomputer> In-Reply-To: <000b01c2101e$20ca7e40$8c10ff3e@annescomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anne Jones writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> As far as the facts are concerned [if they are relevant] I gave no >> ruling of any sort originally: I was just the messenger. I did not >> really like their opponents much! The two opponents at the table when >I >> first spoke to them came to me and said they would be happy to give >> evidence that he had used the word "thrashing". >> >Oh dear - why did you get yourself in this mess? Well, Anne dear, if your CTD says "Go and tell this pair this is the score they are getting" what would you do? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 00:45:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AEjeu00034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 00:45:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AEjYH00030 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 00:45:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48055.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.183]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5AEWTZ15431 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 16:32:29 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D04B8DB.2010306@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 16:34:03 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk We've had this discussion before. Eric Landau wrote: > At 07:23 AM 6/8/02, Herman wrote: > >> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> Although the words "I'm taking it as ....." are questionable, the >>> fact is that the "understanding" is part of what should be >>> disclosed to opponents. >>> "Not discussed" conveys a warning to opponents that the explanation >>> has less than optimum confidence, a fact that >>> can be very important for opponents to be aware of (and to >>> which they are entitled). >> >> no they are NOT entitled to this. > > > Why not? It is the truth. It describes the "nature" of the agreement > you have. It might be relevant to the opponents in selecting their next > and subsequent calls, or in playing the hand. As I read the laws, you > would be misinforming them to fail to tell them that you have no > specific agreement, deliberately misleading them into believing that > your agreement is firm and into assuming that there is little or no > possiblity of a misunderstanding. > The opponents do not have the right to know that there might be a misunderstanding. When I am not certain if we have yes or no made a particular agreement, I will decide which way I think it is, and explain it to my opponents as fully and clearly as is necessary. If it turns out I was not on the same track as my partner, then I shall accept any redress for damage caused and attribute it to sloppy preparation. What I will not accept is the fact that I could be guilty of anything when partner does have the hand that I am describing about him. Check the laws again : they do not say that I have to tell the truth, and everything but the truth, just that I have to correctly describe the agreements. > > 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/ > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 11 00:53:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AErHr00047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 00:53:17 +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 [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AErBH00043 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 00:53:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48055.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.183]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5AEdw902329 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 16:39:58 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D04BA99.7030201@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 16:41:29 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <070602158.8906@webbox.com> <002b01c20e62$0f0ba340$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080851.00aa25a0@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 07:28 AM 6/8/02, Herman wrote: > >> Marv, >> >> good story. >> >> But answer me one thing: >> >> Suppose Alice had chosen diamonds as her minor. >> >> Would you have informed that your other suit was hearts, not clubs? >> >> Don't you agree that opponents might be damaged by partner's >> explanation that you hold clubs ? >> >> You have changed your CC since then - why does this one case differ >> from all others? > > > Because in this one case, they had no agreement. Subsequent to this > case they have an implicit agreement based on previous experience, > namely that first case. To deny that there is a difference is to deny > that there is such a thing as "an implicit agreement based on previous > experience". > And yet they managed to fall on their feet. The next time it happened, they had the extra knowledge of it happening again, but even the first time, they got it right. I don't think anything has changed. After all, 2NT was unusual, and they both knew it. They also both knew (or hoped they would realise) that a 3Di rebid after 3Cl was not some super-hand but rather an indication of some other 2-suiter. They probably knew that 2NT could not be some huge hand since they have other ways to describe that. They also knew that they had no systemic way of showing a red two-suiter. All this they knew, and from all this they both deduced that 2NT was either minors or reds. All this knowledge is partnership agreement, and should have been told to opponents. That is why I am saying that there is no real difference between the first occasion and the second. The only difference is that on the second occasion they did not need 2 minutes each to realise what was happening. When they changed their CC accordingly, this was not because they had now changed their system, but rather because they had now discovered the full extent of the system they were playing. Sometimes there are inferences from bids not made that have always been there, but the partners have just never realised that they were there. Those inferences are part of the system and should be revealed to opponents, even before they are important and even before they arrive for the very first time. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 11 01:14:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AFD5d00074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 01:13:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AFD0H00070 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 01:13:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-4.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.4] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17HQeE-0005ij-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:59:59 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020610105042.00adb2a0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:00:12 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <6190034.1023716788520.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:46 AM 6/10/02, dalburn wrote: >Eric wrote: > > >Because in this one case, they had no agreement. Subsequent to this > case they have an implicit agreement based on previous experience, > namely that first case. > >Not "implicit" at all; it had better be on the convention card from >now on! > > >To deny that there is a difference is to deny that there is such a > thing as "an implicit ageement based on previous experience". > >No, it isn't. It is not the case that the Laws permit you to invent >your system at the table - you are supposed to have done that before >you sit down to play. If your system does not include a bid to show >the red suits after 1S-pass-2S-pass-pass, you do not (as Marvin and >others seem to think) have carte blanche to use 2NT for this purpose >just because you have never so used it before with this partner. > >This may seem arbitrary, but it is not; there are sound practical >reasons for it. You see, there is nothing to stop me having this >sequence with a given partner "for the first time" on at least sixty >separate occasions. Oh, I know you will all tell me that Big Brother >is watching me, and that Interpol has a record of the day and the hour >when Callaghan and I actually used this sequence with the red suits, >so we now have an explicit agreement and we can't do it again. But (a) >this is not true; (b) even if it were true, it would involve the most >ludicrous way to determine the Laws and establish the running of a >game that even a bunch of Tournament Directors (well done Konrad, by >the way) could devise. > >An "implicit agreement based on previous experience" is legalese for >"a matter of style". You don't put those on your convention cards, but >you have to tell the opponents something about them. Marvin will have >to (and indeed has) put on his convention card with Alice that in >certain sequences, 2NT shows any two unbid suits (where previously it >said "minors"), but this has nothing to do with implicit agreements; >it was a non-agreement in the first place and is an explicit agreement now. > >Its use in the first instance was not, in my opinion, legal. It has >been said that this view would render psyches illegal, for one is >permitted to depart from an announced agreement provided that such >departure is not based on partnership understanding (that is not what >the Law actually says, but it is what the Law actually ought to say >and what the Law is understood to mean). But my view would not render >such a departure (whether accidental or deliberate) illegal in the >least. It would, however, ensure that in order for the departure to be >regarded as legal, it would have to be shown that: > >it was a departure from announced agreements; and >the nature or timing of the departure was not, and could not have >been, anticipated by virtue of a partnership understanding. > >In order to show the first, one needs to show one's announced >agreements (and, strictly, to show that the departure is not among >one's announced agreements). In order to show the second, one needs to >show that partner's actions were not based on an understanding of the >position that could have arisen a priori. Provided that one can do >both of those things, one can act within the constraints of Law 40A in >violating one's announced agreements, deliberately or otherwise. > >But one cannot argue: "I was allowed to bid 2NT with the red suits, >even though our announced agreement was that it showed minors, because >we'd never done it before, so partner would not understand." The bid >of 2NT is based on the understanding that it shows two suits. In view >of the existing disclosure, those two suits are supposed to be the >minors, and could not reasonably be expected to be otherwise by the >opponents. Thus, per Law 40B, you *are not permitted to make that call >with the red suits*. It is not the case, as Marvin and others seem to >think, that Law 40A gives you the right to do anything, regardless of >what Law 40B says. Law 40A gives you some general rights; Law 40B >imposes some particular constraints; you must act in accordance with >both Laws. > >Now, I may have given the impression that I think Marvin is a villain >who ought to be taken from hence to a place of execution, and hanged >by the neck until he is dead. I don't. I just think that he and large >numbers of others are labouring under a serious misapprehension as to >the actual words in Law 40 and the actual meaning thereof. I also >think that Law 40 does not in fact say what the administration would >like it to say, and that it should be revisited in order that it may >determine the answers to the questions that have been raised in this >thread; at present, it is full of holes. Well, David knows a lot more about the laws than I do, so he may well be right, but, if so, it would be a pity. It would deprive of us of one of the more challenging aspects of the game, and one which represents a sound test of one's (and one's partner's) skill. When you hold a hand which cannot be directly described using any of your existing agreements, and which you have not previously encountered with this particular partner, how can it not be appropriate -- much less legal -- to attempt to convey your holding by choosing a sequence which, in the context of the agreements you do have, you hope will convey the nature of your holding to partner? Isn't that what good bidding based on a sound knowledge of bidding theory is supposed to be about? When did exercising one's creativity in attempting to come up with a sequence that will tell partner what you have turn into cheating? 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 Jun 11 01:15:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AFFZf00086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 01:15:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe70.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.205]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AFFUH00082 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 01:15:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:02:24 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [206.215.208.8] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <20020609200225.C8D0A595E@poczta.interia.pl> <+DzOBDCQh9A9Ew6M@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:54:28 -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: 10 Jun 2002 15:02:24.0613 (UTC) FILETIME=[D430C950:01C2108F] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 17:36 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! > Konrad Ciborowski writes > > > I have just come back from the Polish Bridge Union TD Course. > >After three exhaustive days filled with practical > >exercises and, finally, an exam - it really happened. > >I am now a real TD! Finishing in the top ten (6th > >out of about 50 participants) means I am a national > >TD - I can direct in all events sponsored by the Polish Bridge Union; > >as the Chief TD in local events and as a sectional > >TD in national events. Now I have yet to direct > >my first event. :-) Add my congratulations to the many that are sure to come! > Ok, let me ask you a problem, which I think I solved incorrectly over > the weekend. > > One of your colleagues gives a ruling in an event with complicated > hybrid scoring, and the Chief TD who is also the Chief Scorer calculates > its effect. The pair concerned has now moved into your section, so you > are now asked to tell them that the result of their match is now 5.5 - > 5.5 VPs on a 10 scale, ie an unbalanced score. > > They tell you this is ridiculous. One of the players gets a bit > annoyed and asks how the opponents can get 5.5 after they gave them a > "thrashing". I say I shall ask the Chief Scorer and get back to them. > He says it is a bit complex so easiest is if the players go and see > him when they get a chance and he will go through it with them. I also > see their opponents who point out that it was a close match not a > "thrashing" and was going to score 6 - 4 without the adjustment. The > Chief Scorer agrees with that. > > So I return to the player and tell him it was not a "thrashing" which > seems part of the explanation for the score of 5.5 - 5.5. > > Now he shouts [so the whole room hears] "You are lying: I never said a > 'thrashing': this ruling is totally unfair: you are just ruling this way > in favour of your chums." > > I was somewhat annoyed. What do you think I should have done at that > moment with the player in front of me, shouting, calling me a liar, and > so on? I think I got it wrong. > > > > As far as the facts are concerned [if they are relevant] I gave no > ruling of any sort originally: I was just the messenger. I did not > really like their opponents much! The two opponents at the table when I > first spoke to them came to me and said they would be happy to give > evidence that he had used the word "thrashing". It seems to me that it would be prudent to report the score adjustment as increasing team A by X VP and decreasing Team B by Y VP in accordance with Law ?? based on the following facts.. And there is the right to appeal the ruling. Not saying that it would prevent a thrashing, however. regards roger pewick > 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 Tue Jun 11 01:45:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AFipD00112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 01:44:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5AFikH00108 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 01:44:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-4.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.4] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17HR8z-0003Tw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:31:45 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020610112812.00adbac0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:31:59 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <3D04BA99.7030201@skynet.be> References: <070602158.8906@webbox.com> <002b01c20e62$0f0ba340$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080851.00aa25a0@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 10:41 AM 6/10/02, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> >>Because in this one case, they had no agreement. Subsequent to this >>case they have an implicit agreement based on previous experience, >>namely that first case. To deny that there is a difference is to >>deny that there is such a thing as "an implicit agreement based on >>previous experience". >And yet they managed to fall on their feet. The next time it >happened, they had the extra knowledge of it happening again, but even >the first time, they got it right. I don't think anything has changed. > >After all, 2NT was unusual, and they both knew it. They also both >knew (or hoped they would realise) that a 3Di rebid after 3Cl was not >some super-hand but rather an indication of some other 2-suiter. They >probably knew that 2NT could not be some huge hand since they have >other ways to describe that. They also knew that they had no systemic >way of showing a red two-suiter. All this they knew, and from all >this they both deduced that 2NT was either minors or reds. All this >knowledge is partnership agreement, and should have been told to >opponents. That is why I am saying that there is no real difference >between the first occasion and the second. The only difference is >that on the second occasion they did not need 2 minutes each to >realise what was happening. When they changed their CC accordingly, >this was not because they had now changed their system, but rather >because they had now discovered the full extent of the system they >were playing. Sometimes there are inferences from bids not made that >have always been there, but the partners have just never realised that >they were there. Those inferences are part of the system and should >be revealed to opponents, even before they are important and even >before they arrive for the very first time. I don't get it. You are required to disclose your agreements, explicit or implicit. But how can you have any agreement, whether explicit or implicit, about something you "never realized [was] there"? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 01:53:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AFrbi00141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 01:53:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5AFrWH00137 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 01:53:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-4.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.4] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17HRHT-00059f-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:40:31 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:40:45 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <3D04B8DB.2010306@skynet.be> References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@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 10:34 AM 6/10/02, Herman wrote: >We've had this discussion before. > >Eric Landau wrote: > >>At 07:23 AM 6/8/02, Herman wrote: >>> >>>no they are NOT entitled to this. >> >>Why not? It is the truth. It describes the "nature" of the >>agreement you have. It might be relevant to the opponents in >>selecting their next and subsequent calls, or in playing the >>hand. As I read the laws, you would be misinforming them to fail to >>tell them that you have no specific agreement, deliberately >>misleading them into believing that your agreement is firm and into >>assuming that there is little or no possiblity of a misunderstanding. >The opponents do not have the right to know that there might be a >misunderstanding. If you know, based on your partnership agreements and experience, that there is enough of a chance of a misunderstanding that you will allow for the possibility in choosing your subsequent calls, I believe you are required to reveal this to your opponents ("a player shall disclose *all* [emphasis mine] special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience"). Of course, they are not entitled to know whether or not you are *in fact* in the process of having a misunderstanding on the deal at hand. >When I am not certain if we have yes or no made a particular >agreement, I will decide which way I think it is, and explain it to my >opponents as fully and clearly as is necessary. If it turns out I was >not on the same track as my partner, then I shall accept any redress >for damage caused and attribute it to sloppy preparation. > >What I will not accept is the fact that I could be guilty of anything >when partner does have the hand that I am describing about him. > >Check the laws again : they do not say that I have to tell the truth, >and everything but the truth, just that I have to correctly describe >the agreements. I submit that you have a better chance of correctly describing your agreements if you do so truthfully than if you lie about them. I'm having trouble with the notion that this isn't self-evident. Herman does have one thing absolutely right -- we have had this discussion before. 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 Jun 11 02:00:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AG0N700162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:00:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (rd-ir.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AG0HH00157 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:00:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id RAA27715; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:45:35 +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 RAA19045; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:47:14 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020610174133.00ab2360@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:54:31 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020610105042.00adb2a0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6190034.1023716788520.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:00 10/06/2002 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >Well, David knows a lot more about the laws than I do, so he may well be >right, but, if so, it would be a pity. It would deprive of us of one of >the more challenging aspects of the game, and one which represents a sound >test of one's (and one's partner's) skill. > >When you hold a hand which cannot be directly described using any of your >existing agreements, and which you have not previously encountered with >this particular partner, how can it not be appropriate -- much less legal >-- to attempt to convey your holding by choosing a sequence which, in the >context of the agreements you do have, you hope will convey the nature of >your holding to partner? Isn't that what good bidding based on a sound >knowledge of bidding theory is supposed to be about? When did exercising >one's creativity in attempting to come up with a sequence that will tell >partner what you have turn into cheating? AG : good question. It remembers me of one sequence I had, many years ago : 1C 1S 1N 2D 3D 1C : 15+ 1S : 10-12 1N : Relay, denies a 6-card suit 2D : diamonds + another suit 3D : ??? We had an agreement that, after a GF relay, departure from further relays is a kind of splinterbid : raise of the last suit shown by partner, and shortness in the named suit (just in case you want to know, 2NT would have been control-asking). Applying this to the present case means partner should have a diamond raise and diamond shortness. Hardly reasonable. Now several points are of importance : 1) partner invented this sequence ; it didn't happen before and was not specifically discussed. He meant it as "diamond shortness and raise in the other suit, whichever it is", thus 3-suited. 2) After considerable thinking, I understood it as such. 3) I gave to many players the agreement and the sequence ; quite a few of them were able to decode it. While the result was only an average on the given deal, I think partner and me had done a very good job of extricating ourselves from a hand which was difficult to treat in our system. Is there any person on this list who would tell us we were cheating ? Of course, the next time a similar sequence happened in a similar context, we knew what it meant. BTW, we also knew that 1C-1S-1NT-2H (hearts + black suit)-3H meant "short hearts, in a S/C hand", because the same reasoning could apply. This is the difference between "no agreement, but It should be ..." and "an agreement". Nobody can convince me that we had an agreement when the sequence occurred for the first time. Best regards, Alain. >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 02:14:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AGEUu00203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:14:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from actinium.btinternet.com (actinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.66]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AGEOH00199 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:14:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from cerium ([194.75.226.98]) by actinium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17HRbf-00076e-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:01:23 +0100 Received: from 213.166.16.2 by cerium ([194.75.226.98]); Mon, 10 Jun 02 17:01:23 BST Message-ID: <6506963.1023724883670.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:01:23 +0100 (BST) From: dalburn@btopenworld.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis 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 Eric wrote: >Well, David knows a lot more about the laws than I do, so he may well be right, but, if so, it would be a pity. There are those who would regard my being right not as a pity, but as a miracle. I am in fact, as I not infrequently do, over-dramatising for the sake of making what seems to me an important point: that Law 40 does not say what an awful lot of people seem to think that it does say. The reality is not as bad as all that, though it is by no means good. >When you hold a hand which cannot be directly described using any of your existing agreements, and which you have not previously encountered with this particular partner, how can it not be appropriate -- much less legal -- to attempt to convey your holding by choosing a sequence which, in the context of the agreements you do have, you hope will convey the nature of your holding to partner? Oh, that's not illegal per se. Just as well, because most of the hands you get will not fit your methods precisely. The trouble is that to do it, players will generally resort to either or both of two devices: bidding out of tempo, or violating the methods. Just as the one is constrained by Law, so is the other. >Isn't that what good bidding based on a sound knowledge of bidding theory is supposed to be about? No. Good bidding based on a sound knowledge of bidding theory is supposed to be about: Devising sensible methods before you sit down to play; Learning them properly, so that you can (a) bid in tempo and (b) describe your methods correctly to the opponents; Recognising that a particular hand does not fit the methods and being prepared to compromise (by "compromise", I do not mean "make up some part of the system which does not actually exist"). >When did exercising one's creativity in attempting to come up with a sequence that will tell partner what you have turn into cheating? It didn't. But what almost invariably accompanies these "exercises in creativity" is an exercise in method acting. I wasn't there when Marvin bid 2NT with the red suits, but I would have known that he had them long before he bid three diamonds over three clubs. It's hard to put this into words, but after you've played quite a lot of bridge, you will know when your opponents are making it up and when they are bidding according to the system. And if you know, why should their partners not know? Marvin and Tim will tell me that *their* partners don't know... er, ordure from car wax. I believe them. But that's not a value judgement I should have to make (nor, of course, is anything else, but it's far too late for that). But this does not give them the right to make it up as they go along, any more than the right is given to anyone else. Next week, you see, Marvin might have this hand: 6 3 AKJ1064 AQJ109 and over 1S he might (as I would) bid 2NT, and then he might (as I would) bid 3D over his partner's 3C. Now, it is surely a matter of "general bridge knowledge" that this sequence shows a powerful minor two-suiter with longer diamonds than clubs. After all, what else could it show? Sorry, Alice - the red suits? Don't be silly! 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 Jun 11 02:17:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AGHK900216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:17:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AGHEH00212 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:17:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48055.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.183]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5AG47Z03006 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:04:08 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D04CE55.3070109@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:05:41 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <6190034.1023716788520.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I do not often post "I agree" but then I don't often agree so completely with anyone. I agree completely with what DB wrote here and I'm buying him a grappa next week. Please read this again. It is important. dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Eric wrote: > > >>Because in this one case, they had no agreement. Subsequent to this case they have an implicit agreement based on previous experience, namely that first case. >> > > Not "implicit" at all; it had better be on the convention card from now on! > > >>To deny that there is a difference is to deny that there is such a thing as "an implicit ageement based on previous experience". >> > > No, it isn't. It is not the case that the Laws permit you to invent your system at the table - you are supposed to have done that before you sit down to play. If your system does not include a bid to show the red suits after 1S-pass-2S-pass-pass, you do not (as Marvin and others seem to think) have carte blanche to use 2NT for this purpose just because you have never so used it before with this partner. > > This may seem arbitrary, but it is not; there are sound practical reasons for it. You see, there is nothing to stop me having this sequence with a given partner "for the first time" on at least sixty separate occasions. Oh, I know you will all tell me that Big Brother is watching me, and that Interpol has a record of the day and the hour when Callaghan and I actually used this sequence with the red suits, so we now have an explicit agreement and we can't do it again. But (a) this is not true; (b) even if it were true, it would involve the most ludicrous way to determine the Laws and establish the running of a game that even a bunch of Tournament Directors (well done Konrad, by the way) could devise. > > An "implicit agreement based on previous experience" is legalese for "a matter of style". You don't put those on your convention cards, but you have to tell the opponents something about them. Marvin will have to (and indeed has) put on his convention card with Alice that in certain sequences, 2NT shows any two unbid suits (where previously it said "minors"), but this has nothing to do with implicit agreements; it was a non-agreement in the first place and is an explicit agreement now. > > Its use in the first instance was not, in my opinion, legal. It has been said that this view would render psyches illegal, for one is permitted to depart from an announced agreement provided that such departure is not based on partnership understanding (that is not what the Law actually says, but it is what the Law actually ought to say and what the Law is understood to mean). But my view would not render such a departure (whether accidental or deliberate) illegal in the least. It would, however, ensure that in order for the departure to be regarded as legal, it would have to be shown that: > > it was a departure from announced agreements; and > the nature or timing of the departure was not, and could not have been, anticipated by virtue of a partnership understanding. > > In order to show the first, one needs to show one's announced agreements (and, strictly, to show that the departure is not among one's announced agreements). In order to show the second, one needs to show that partner's actions were not based on an understanding of the position that could have arisen a priori. Provided that one can do both of those things, one can act within the constraints of Law 40A in violating one's announced agreements, deliberately or otherwise. > > But one cannot argue: "I was allowed to bid 2NT with the red suits, even though our announced agreement was that it showed minors, because we'd never done it before, so partner would not understand." The bid of 2NT is based on the understanding that it shows two suits. In view of the existing disclosure, those two suits are supposed to be the minors, and could not reasonably be expected to be otherwise by the opponents. Thus, per Law 40B, you *are not permitted to make that call with the red suits*. It is not the case, as Marvin and others seem to think, that Law 40A gives you the right to do anything, regardless of what Law 40B says. Law 40A gives you some general rights; Law 40B imposes some particular constraints; you must act in accordance with both Laws. > > Now, I may have given the impression that I think Marvin is a villain who ought to be taken from hence to a place of execution, and hanged by the neck until he is dead. I don't. I just think that he and large numbers of others are labouring under a serious misapprehension as to the actual words in Law 40 and the actual meaning thereof. I also think that Law 40 does not in fact say what the administration would like it to say, and that it should be revisited in order that it may determine the answers to the questions that have been raised in this thread; at present, it is full of holes. > > 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/ > > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 11 02:18:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AGIgF00229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:18:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.btinternet.com (thorium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.67]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AGIaH00224 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:18:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from hassium ([194.75.226.91]) by thorium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17HRfj-0002Px-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:05:35 +0100 Received: from 213.166.16.2 by hassium ([194.75.226.91]); Mon, 10 Jun 02 17:05:35 BST Message-ID: <2278233.1023725135070.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:05:35 +0100 (BST) From: dalburn@btopenworld.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis 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 Eric wrote: > I don't get it. You are required to disclose your agreements, explicit or implicit. But how can you have any agreement, whether explicit or implicit, about something you "never realized [was] there"? Last week, at Weston-super-Mare, I made a bid that wasn't there. It wasn't really very hard - It's now on my convention card! 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 Jun 11 02:20:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AGKCv00244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:20:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5AGK6H00240 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:20:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.95.216]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 0.3 (built May 13 2002)) with SMTP id <0GXH003GLZAVMD@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 19:04:10 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:04:06 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Herman De Wael Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <003601c21098$74399780$d85f003e@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: <3D0377EB.9050605@skynet.be> <002101c21058$18754420$ab4d003e@mycomputer> <3D0487A5.7070402@skynet.be> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 1:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > Israel Erdnbaum wrote: > > >> > >>But neither should you accept the word "undiscussed" at face value. > >>There's always some background that helps the partner understand, and > >>this background needs to be disclosed. > >> > >> > > ' There's always some background ' But in MOST CASES neither of the > > players is AWARE of it. > > Do you REALLY want to DISCLOSE it to them. > > Best regards > > Israel > > > You HAVE to ! > > When I come and play with another belgian in Israel, even someone I've > never seen before - I will have some knowledge of our common roots, > and those have to be told to the opponents ! > This is not BLML this is the real world. You are goinng to TELL your partner and he is going to tell YOU. Your opponents will probably not understand anything. WONDERFUL. This is a club tournament not a championship game. Best regards Israel > >>>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/ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >>-- > >>please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be > >>Herman DE WAEL > >>Antwerpen Belgium > >>http://users.skynet.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/ > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 02:21:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AGLO600257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:21:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AGLIH00253 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:21:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48055.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.183]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5AG7nH27739 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:07:49 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D04CF33.9060903@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:09:23 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020610105042.00adb2a0@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Allow me David, Eric Landau wrote: > > When you hold a hand which cannot be directly described using any of > your existing agreements, and which you have not previously encountered > with this particular partner, how can it not be appropriate -- much less > legal -- to attempt to convey your holding by choosing a sequence which, > in the context of the agreements you do have, you hope will convey the > nature of your holding to partner? Isn't that what good bidding based > on a sound knowledge of bidding theory is supposed to be about? When > did exercising one's creativity in attempting to come up with a sequence > that will tell partner what you have turn into cheating? > > No, no Eric, not at all. But when, in the course of your using your agreements to describe a hand not previously thought of, and your partner understanding the same, you actually develop a new piece of system at the table, you are bound by the Laws to adequately inform your opponents of the same. The nicest thing that might happen is one partner bidding something, other partner understanding it, and both explaining it perfectly to opponents, even for sequences which have never sprung up before. David is not calling you a cheat, Eric, he's merely saying that you should tell opponents. Now if you don't, and then hide behind L40A and some unprovable statement that the bid never came up before, then we might be force to call you ... > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 11 02:23:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AGNlQ00271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:23:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AGNfH00267 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:23:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48055.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.183]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5AGAb916378 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:10:37 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D04CFDB.1040307@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:12:11 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <3D0377EB.9050605@skynet.be> <002101c21058$18754420$ab4d003e@mycomputer> <3D0487A5.7070402@skynet.be> <003601c21098$74399780$d85f003e@mycomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk That's a totally different story, Israel... Israel Erdnbaum wrote: >>>> >>> ' There's always some background ' But in MOST CASES neither of the >>>players is AWARE of it. >>> Do you REALLY want to DISCLOSE it to them. >>> Best regards >>> Israel >>> >> >>You HAVE to ! >> >>When I come and play with another belgian in Israel, even someone I've >>never seen before - I will have some knowledge of our common roots, >>and those have to be told to the opponents ! >> >> > This is not BLML this is the real world. You are goinng to TELL your partner > and he is going to tell YOU. Your opponents will probably not understand > anything. WONDERFUL. This is a club tournament not a championship game. > Best regards > Israel > Another discussion we've had before, and usually I'm on the other side. I do agree that sometimes we don't want to tell opponents something because we're trying to avoid giving UI to partner, and I believe that should be allowed. But I've always added that in those situations, MI has been given and any damage caused by it MUST be corrected. And that has nothing to do with the level involved. >>>>>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/ > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>-- >>>>please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be >>>>Herman DE WAEL >>>>Antwerpen Belgium >>>>http://users.skynet.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/ >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>-- >>please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://users.skynet.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/ >> > > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 11 02:26:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AGQI200286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:26:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5AGQCH00282 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:26:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2137.bb.online.no [80.212.216.89]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA24679 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:13:04 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003701c21099$b3bf61e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <070602158.8906@webbox.com> <002b01c20e62$0f0ba340$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080851.00aa25a0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610112812.00adbac0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:13:04 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Eric Landau" ......... > >>Because in this one case, they had no agreement. Subsequent to this > >>case they have an implicit agreement based on previous experience, > >>namely that first case. To deny that there is a difference is to > >>deny that there is such a thing as "an implicit agreement based on > >>previous experience". ...... > I don't get it. You are required to disclose your agreements, explicit > or implicit. But how can you have any agreement, whether explicit or > implicit, about something you "never realized [was] there"? I have a feeling that Eric has made his point very well in this (and his previous) post(s). I would like to tell what happened many years ago in the top division of the Norwegian series championship for teams: I was summoned to the table where Helge Vinje was playing with Arild Torp (I believe at least Helge is rather known around the world for his theories on defence play). Arild had made a jump to 4NT (Culbertson style asking bid) and the next player bid 4D! I can still remember how Helge's eyes began shining when I explained his alternatives, he immediately accepted the insufficient bid and gained 5 extra calls as possible answers to 4NT! Both Helge and Arild was capable of modifying their system on the spot and trust each other they would understand the added answer possibilities and further calls correctly! So what would be the "correct" answer if an opponent asked for the meaning of Helge's answer of for instance 4H? "Undiscussed" would be technically correct, but would it comply with Law75? In my opinion obviously not. They had a common understanding of the principles in their system, this understanding made them feel confident they would understand each other also in extreme situations like this. THIS is a partnership understanding to which opponents are entitled! Would it be correct for either Arild or Helge to present this understanding as an agreement? Again obviously not. The only correct explanation (if asked) must be: "This is a situation we have never anticipated, but the way I know my partner I expect this call to mean ....... An extraordinary situation, but I think it illustrates very well the principles of disclosure. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 02:36:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AGa6p00314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:36:06 +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 g5AGa0H00310 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:36:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.95.216]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 0.3 (built May 13 2002)) with SMTP id <0GXH00IA4ZVFFQ@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 19:16:30 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:16:35 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, dalburn@btopenworld.com Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <004101c2109a$3226b240$d85f003e@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: <6190034.1023716788520.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 3:46 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > Eric wrote: > > >Because in this one case, they had no agreement. Subsequent to this case they have an implicit agreement based on previous experience, namely that first case. > > Not "implicit" at all; it had better be on the convention card from now on! > > >To deny that there is a difference is to deny that there is such a thing as "an implicit ageement based on previous experience". > > No, it isn't. It is not the case that the Laws permit you to invent your system at the table - you are supposed to have done that before you sit down to play. If your system does not include a bid to show the red suits after 1S-pass-2S-pass-pass, you do not (as Marvin and others seem to think) have carte blanche to use 2NT for this purpose just because you have never so used it before with this partner. > > This may seem arbitrary, but it is not; there are sound practical reasons for it. You see, there is nothing to stop me having this sequence with a given partner "for the first time" on at least sixty separate occasions. Oh, I know you will all tell me that Big Brother is watching me, and that Interpol has a record of the day and the hour when Callaghan and I actually used this sequence with the red suits, so we now have an explicit agreement and we can't do it again. But (a) this is not true; (b) even if it were true, it would involve the most ludicrous way to determine the Laws and establish the running of a game that even a bunch of Tournament Directors (well done Konrad, by the way) could devise. > > An "implicit agreement based on previous experience" is legalese for "a matter of style". You don't put those on your convention cards, but you have to tell the opponents something about them. Marvin will have to (and indeed has) put on his convention card with Alice that in certain sequences, 2NT shows any two unbid suits (where previously it said "minors"), but this has nothing to do with implicit agreements; it was a non-agreement in the first place and is an explicit agreement now. > > Its use in the first instance was not, in my opinion, legal. It has been said that this view would render psyches illegal, for one is permitted to depart from an announced agreement provided that such departure is not based on partnership understanding (that is not what the Law actually says, but it is what the Law actually ought to say and what the Law is understood to mean). But my view would not render such a departure (whether accidental or deliberate) illegal in the least. It would, however, ensure that in order for the departure to be regarded as legal, it would have to be shown that: > > it was a departure from announced agreements; and > the nature or timing of the departure was not, and could not have been, anticipated by virtue of a partnership understanding. > > In order to show the first, one needs to show one's announced agreements (and, strictly, to show that the departure is not among one's announced agreements). In order to show the second, one needs to show that partner's actions were not based on an understanding of the position that could have arisen a priori. Provided that one can do both of those things, one can act within the constraints of Law 40A in violating one's announced agreements, deliberately or otherwise. > > But one cannot argue: "I was allowed to bid 2NT with the red suits, even though our announced agreement was that it showed minors, because we'd never done it before, so partner would not understand." The bid of 2NT is based on the understanding that it shows two suits. In view of the existing disclosure, those two suits are supposed to be the minors, and could not reasonably be expected to be otherwise by the opponents. Thus, per Law 40B, you *are not permitted to make that call with the red suits*. It is not the case, as Marvin and others seem to think, that Law 40A gives you the right to do anything, regardless of what Law 40B says. Law 40A gives you some general rights; Law 40B imposes some particular constraints; you must act in accordance with both Laws. > > Now, I may have given the impression that I think Marvin is a villain who ought to be taken from hence to a place of execution, and hanged by the neck until he is dead. I don't. I just think that he and large numbers of others are labouring under a serious misapprehension as to the actual words in Law 40 and the actual meaning thereof. I also think that Law 40 does not in fact say what the administration would like it to say, and that it should be revisited in order that it may determine the answers to the questions that have been raised in this thread; at present, it is full of holes. > > David Burn > London, England> -- >======================================================================== > Are people who won't understand what you are talking about allowed to play bridge ? Israel Erdenbaum Tel Aviv (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 02:42:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AGgDD00334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:42:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5AGg7H00330 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:42:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.95.216]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 0.3 (built May 13 2002)) with SMTP id <0GXI00IF7083FO@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 19:24:05 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:24:10 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Usenet Bridge abbreviations To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Robin Barker Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <005401c2109b$418c8a60$d85f003e@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: <200206101031.LAA08468@tempest.npl.co.uk> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: ; Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 12:31 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Usenet Bridge abbreviations > > > From: "Brambledown" > > To: "BLML" > > Subject: RE: [BLML] Usenet Bridge abbreviations > > Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 14:55:09 +0100 > > > > > Richard Hills writes: > > > > > Below are usenet bridge abbreviations supplied by David Stevenson. > ^^^^^^ > > > > JFTR & FWIW, ISTM that some commonly used ones are missing from David's > > list. > > Can you please explain what those abbreviations stand for. Thanks Israel > > There may well be others. > > > > Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > > David's is a list of bridge abbreviations, > Chas's claimed omissions are general usenet abbreviations > and IMHO belong on a different list. > > Robin > > -- > Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk > CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 > National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 > Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 02:45:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AGj1N00346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:45:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.btinternet.com (thorium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.67]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AGitH00342 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:44:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from hassium ([194.75.226.91]) by thorium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17HS5C-00038R-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:31:54 +0100 Received: from 213.166.16.2 by hassium ([194.75.226.91]); Mon, 10 Jun 02 17:31:54 BST Message-ID: <190679.1023726714562.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:31:54 +0100 (BST) From: dalburn@btopenworld.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis 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: > 1C 1S > 1N 2D > 3D > > 1C : 15 > 1S : 10-12 > 1N : Relay, denies a 6-card suit > 2D : diamonds another suit > 3D : ??? > > We had an agreement that, after a GF relay, departure from further relays is a kind of splinterbid : raise of the last suit shown by partner, and shortness in the named suit Applying this to the present case means partner should have a diamond raise and diamond shortness. Hardly reasonable. > Now several points are of importance : > 1) partner invented this sequence ; it didn't happen before and was not specifically discussed. He meant it as "diamond shortness and raise in the other suit, whichever it is", thus 3-suited. > 2) After considerable thinking, I understood it as such. > Is there any person on this list who would tell us we were cheating ? I don't know. I wouldn't. I would say that the bid was permitted under both Law 40A (which as it is written gives you the right to make undiscussed bids, although it does not give you the right to open a strong no trump on a balanced 16 count) and under Law 40B (because although the opponents would have no idea what it meant, you would be able to provide adequate disclosure along the lines you have set forth above). > Nobody can convince me that we had an agreement when the sequence occurred for the first time. I have the suspicion that Herman may try. I would say only this: you did not have an agreement about the meaning of three diamonds. But you had in place a set of agreements that enabled your partner to transmit a message with three diamonds that you were able to decode successfully. I would say that this was enough to describe the bid of three diamonds as "based on a special partnership understanding." I might not go as far as Herman, and say that this set of agreements constituted by its very nature an "agreement" about three diamonds. I would say, as Wittgenstein might have said, something like this. If person A says to person B "Bring me a fork", we say that B has understood A if we see B bring A a fork. We might say that B must know what A means, that A and B have an agreement about the meaning of the words "bring" and "fork". Now, if A bids three diamonds to show short diamonds, and B proceeds as if he knows that A has short diamonds, then to us as observers it appears that B knows what A means by three diamonds. It appears that A and B have an agreement about the meaning of the words "three" and "diamonds". Do the Laws require us to judge things as they appear to be, or as they are? Consider a man who tells you that he would always remove his partner's double however fast or slow it was. Imagine that you believe that man. Could you rule against him? If e.g. someone says "I don't know if there's a hand here" he might be told "Look closer" 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 Jun 11 02:51:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AGosI00365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:50:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.btinternet.com (thorium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.67]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AGonH00361 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:50:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from hassium ([194.75.226.91]) by thorium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17HSAu-0003IK-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:37:48 +0100 Received: from 213.166.16.2 by hassium ([194.75.226.91]); Mon, 10 Jun 02 17:37:48 BST Message-ID: <5142978.1023727068246.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:37:48 +0100 (BST) From: dalburn@btopenworld.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis 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 Israel wrote: >Are people who won't understand what you are talking about allowed to play bridge ? Of course not. There have been certain minor technical difficulties with the entrance examination, but these should be resolved soon. I would not worry too much about a new home for BLML if I were you, Markus. David Burn Today London, England Tomorrow... the world -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 02:56:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AGtwL00381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:55:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AGtrH00377 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:55:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.119] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id lvzquaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:42:51 +0200 Message-ID: <003501c2109d$e0a11c40$773f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] IMP scoring Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:42:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0032_01C210AE.A3C07C10" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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_0032_01C210AE.A3C07C10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable hi all, allthough i'm not a td, i'm very interested in bridge laws, particularly = in the organisational part (scoring, movements). i came across a discussion about imp scoring. it was about the datum score with a butler calculation. cross-imps was mentioned too, but no other reason than a gut feeling was = given why this should be preferred. i experimented with some results on a board and this is my conclusion: = the total of imps scored in ns can be different from the total of imps = scored in ew if you use a datum score to compare to (whatever datum = score you use); in fact the totals are each others opposites. to me this seems a very good reason why cross-imps should be preferred, = as the total number of imps is 0 (zero) for ns as well as ew. it cannot be acceptable that the method of scoring has influence on the = results, because lucky or unlucky pairs can end higher or lower in the = ranking regardless their result on a specific board was bad or good. bad = results should lead to lower places, and good ones to higher places. that's why i propose that this matter should be taken in consideration = when the laws of 2007 are going to be decided, and that they include that cross-imps are obligatory. best regards, tom cornelis. ------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C210AE.A3C07C10 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
hi all,

allthough i'm not a td, = i'm very=20 interested in bridge laws, particularly in the organisational part = (scoring,=20 movements).
i came across a discussion about imp scoring.
it was = about the=20 datum score with a butler calculation.
cross-imps was mentioned too, = but no=20 other reason than a gut feeling was given why this should be = preferred.
i=20 experimented with some results on a board and this is my conclusion: the = total=20 of imps scored in ns can be different from the total of imps scored in = ew if you=20 use a datum score to compare to (whatever datum score you use); in fact = the=20 totals are each others opposites.
to me this seems a very good reason = why=20 cross-imps should be preferred, as the total number of imps is 0 (zero) = for ns=20 as well as ew.
it cannot be acceptable that the method of scoring has = influence on the results, because lucky or unlucky pairs can end higher = or lower=20 in the ranking regardless their result on a specific board was bad or = good. bad=20 results should lead to lower places, and good ones to higher = places.
that's=20 why i propose that this matter should be taken in consideration when the = laws of=20 2007 are going to be decided,
and that they include that cross-imps = are=20 obligatory.

best regards,

tom = cornelis.
------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C210AE.A3C07C10-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 03:22:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AHM0P00443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 03:22:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5AHLtH00439 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 03:21:56 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5AH8nZ15348 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:08:49 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200206101708.g5AH8nZ15348@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:08:49 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <5909gugk2icepbuoa8uko3gd72j124mqh3@4ax.com> from "Brian Meadows" at Jun 10, 2002 07:11:41 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 First, let me start by congratulating Konrad (since that is what started this thread) on his certification. Of course, as many of us realize, *wanting* to direct more and bigger events is cause for being certifiable rather than certified. :-) > From: Brian Meadows > Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 07:11:41 -0400 > > On Sun, 9 Jun 2002 23:36:00 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > > > I was somewhat annoyed. What do you think I should have done at that > >moment with the player in front of me, shouting, calling me a liar, and > >so on? I think I got it wrong. > > > > The resolution of such an accusation needs to be as public as the > accusation itself. > Hmmm...I don't agree here. Although there definitely needs to be action taken, I hardly think that raising your voice to loudly issue a procedural penalty is required or advisable. A nice quiet and calm director is a much better signal to everyone involved and playing. It will be a relief to those not standing yelling at you, to know that the director is firmly in control of the situation and not a loose cannon that can be incited by one out-of-control player. > You can hardly require the player to yell a retraction and > apology to the whole room. That means there is only one penalty > that fits the bill, and it would certainly be applied for the > same sort of behaviour in most of the other sports with which I'm > familiar. > > I think you should have disqualified him. > I think something to the effect of: "Mr. X, you are out-of-line here. You need to lower your voice and behave more appropriately. The ruling decided by the Chief Director was [...] and he has asked that at your first opportunity you stop by his desk up front [or wherever] and he will be glad to inform you why the directors chose to rule that way. Until such time, you need to calm down and behave yourself." followed by one of the following: 1. If you don't, then a disciplinary procedural penalty of [1/4 or 1/2 board] will be assessed against your partnership. OR 2. Your inappropriate behaviour will incur a disciplinary procedural penalty of [1/4 or 1/2 board] which will be assessed against your partnership. Any further outbursts will be treated more severely. I suggest you calm yourself and then consult with the Chief Director as he will have more information for you. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 03:51:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AHp4t00470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 03:51:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smarthost2.mail.uk.easynet.net (smarthost2.mail.uk.easynet.net [212.135.6.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AHotH00461 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 03:50:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from tnt-14-74.easynet.co.uk ([212.134.24.74] helo=k6b8p4) by smarthost2.mail.uk.easynet.net with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17HT72-0007ul-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:37:53 +0100 From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Usenet Bridge abbreviations Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:35:58 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <005401c2109b$418c8a60$d85f003e@mycomputer> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Robin Barker writes: > David's is a list of bridge abbreviations, > Chas's claimed omissions are general usenet abbreviations > and IMHO belong on a different list. > > Robin Maybe so, but David's list is not confined to bridge acronyms since it contains: BTW, FAQ, HTH, IIRC, IMHO, IMO, NG, NP, OBM, OTOH, WTP & ZT No specific bridge connotations, AFAIK :-)) Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 03:51:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AHp4A00469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 03:51:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smarthost2.mail.uk.easynet.net (smarthost2.mail.uk.easynet.net [212.135.6.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AHotH00462 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 03:50:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from tnt-14-74.easynet.co.uk ([212.134.24.74] helo=k6b8p4) by smarthost2.mail.uk.easynet.net with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17HT74-0007ul-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:37:54 +0100 From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Usenet Bridge abbreviations Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:35:59 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <005401c2109b$418c8a60$d85f003e@mycomputer> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Israel Erdnbaum writes: >> Brambledown wrote: >> JFTR & FWIW, ISTM that some commonly used ones are missing from David's >> list. > Can you please explain what those abbreviations stand for. > Thanks > Israel "Just for the record", "For what it's worth" and "It seems to me". Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 03:58:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AHwU700495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 03:58:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5AHwPH00491 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 03:58:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-4.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.4] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17HTEE-0003jo-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:45:18 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020610133404.00aa8490@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:45:32 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <3D04CF33.9060903@skynet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020610105042.00adb2a0@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:09 PM 6/10/02, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>When you hold a hand which cannot be directly described using any of >>your existing agreements, and which you have not previously >>encountered with this particular partner, how can it not be >>appropriate -- much less legal -- to attempt to convey your holding >>by choosing a sequence which, in the context of the agreements you do >>have, you hope will convey the nature of your holding to >>partner? Isn't that what good bidding based on a sound knowledge of >>bidding theory is supposed to be about? When did exercising one's >>creativity in attempting to come up with a sequence that will tell >>partner what you have turn into cheating? >No, no Eric, not at all. > >But when, in the course of your using your agreements to describe a >hand not previously thought of, and your partner understanding the >same, you actually develop a new piece of system at the table, you are >bound by the Laws to adequately inform your opponents of the same. When, in the course of your using your agreements to describe a hand not previously thought of, and your partner understanding the same, you actually develop a new piece of system at the table. (But it is not one that was there previously.) When, in the course of your using your agreements to describe a hand not previously thought of, and your partner not understanding the same, you do not develop a new piece of system at the table. Since in real life you do not know whether partner understood the same, you do not know which is the case. So, if Herman is correct, how can you ever know whether you are supposed to inform your opponents of this "agreement", which you do not know whether you actually have or not? You can, of course, *pretend* to have an agreement which you might well not have -- in which case you may well be misinforming (AKA lying to) your opponents. I understand that the "De Wael school" believes this to be proper procedure, but I -- and, I believe, the majority of this forum -- do not accept that proper procedure ever requires you to lie to your opponents. I cannot accept the idea that "full disclosure" requires you to pretend to something which you know is not true. But, as Herman said earlier, we have had this discussion before. 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 Jun 11 04:03:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AI3WG00514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 04:03:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5AI3RH00510 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 04:03:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-4.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.4] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17HTJC-0004ZA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:50:26 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020610134911.00ade180@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:50:40 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Usenet Bridge abbreviations In-Reply-To: <005401c2109b$418c8a60$d85f003e@mycomputer> References: <200206101031.LAA08468@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:24 PM 6/10/02, Israel wrote: > > > JFTR & FWIW, ISTM that some commonly used ones are missing from > David's > > > list. > >Can you please explain what those abbreviations stand for. JFTR: Just for the record FWIW: For what it's worth ISTM: It seems to me Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 04:44:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AIhmI00543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 04:43:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AIhgH00539 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 04:43:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (80-200-208-28.adsl.powered-by.skynet.be [80.200.208.28]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5AIUTH00530 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:30:29 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D04F0A3.6040903@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:32:03 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > If you know, based on your partnership agreements and experience, that > there is enough of a chance of a misunderstanding that you will allow > for the possibility in choosing your subsequent calls, I believe you are > required to reveal this to your opponents ("a player shall disclose > *all* [emphasis mine] special information conveyed to him through > partnership agreement or partnership experience"). > OK, I grant you this. > Of course, they are not entitled to know whether or not you are *in > fact* in the process of having a misunderstanding on the deal at hand. > So why tell them that you are in doubt then ? > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 11 04:47:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AIkmn00555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 04:46:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AIkcH00551 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 04:46:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (80-200-208-28.adsl.powered-by.skynet.be [80.200.208.28]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5AIXUZ20278 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:33:30 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D04F157.7090409@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:35:03 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <070602158.8906@webbox.com> <002b01c20e62$0f0ba340$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080851.00aa25a0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610112812.00adbac0@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > I don't get it. You are required to disclose your agreements, explicit > or implicit. But how can you have any agreement, whether explicit or > implicit, about something you "never realized [was] there"? > > Isn't that what the word implicit implies ? Maybe you are staring yourself blind at the "agree" part of agreement. To me, the woird "agreement" in the bridge sense contains more than that which is simply "agreed". We never agreed to play Stayman, but still I am obliged to inform my opponents that based on my experience with this person, 2Cl is asking about my majors. > 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/ > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 11 04:54:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AIs1K00574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 04:54:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AIroH00570 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 04:53:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (80-200-208-28.adsl.powered-by.skynet.be [80.200.208.28]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5AIdm904371 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:39:48 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D04F2D2.2040306@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:41:22 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <6190034.1023716788520.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.0.20020610174133.00ab2360@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: > > This is the difference between "no agreement, but It should be ..." and > "an agreement". > Nobody can convince me that we had an agreement when the sequence > occurred for the first time. > I never said that you had an agreement in the English sense of the word. I'm just saying that you had an (implicit) partnership agreement in the bridge-laws sense of the word. And that must be disclosed. Which you did. Surely you are not going to suggest that you are able to tell opponents in such a case that he has shown diamond raise and shortness and expect them to be able to come to the same conclusion ? Surely you see that your system did not change after this sequence - you only knew it better ! > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > > >> Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >> 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >> Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 >> >> -- >> ======================================================================== >> (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >> "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >> A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 11 04:56:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AIuRe00586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 04:56:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5AIuMH00582 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 04:56:22 +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 g5AIhLe00501 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:43:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001b01c210ae$9caafa40$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020610082022.00ad2c00@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:42:41 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk (Indents are out-of-kilter, ignore) > > >From: Eric Landau > > > >At 07:28 AM 6/8/02, Herman wrote: > > > >>Marv, > >> > >>good story. > >> > >>But answer me one thing: > >> > >>Suppose Alice had chosen diamonds as her minor. > >> > >>Would you have informed that your other suit was hearts, not clubs? > >> > >>Don't you agree that opponents might be damaged by partner's > >>explanation that you hold clubs ? > >> > >>You have changed your CC since then - why does this one case differ > >>from all others? > > > >Because in this one case, they had no agreement. Subsequent to this > >case they have an implicit agreement based on previous experience, > >namely that first case. To deny that there is a difference is to deny > >that there is such a thing as "an implicit agreement based on previous > >experience". > As usual, Eric has this exactly right. This does not mean (my opinion) that "inferences drawn from general knowledge and experience" (L75C) become through partnership experience implicit agreements that must be disclosed. In such cases the inference is not *based on* previous partnership experience, but on previous knowledge.and experience unrelated to the partnership, and so "need not be disclosed." Unless, of course, some significant shading of meaning has been added by partnership discussion or experience. For instance, my new or old partner opens three of a suit, a bid which we both know, and have always known, is a weak preempt based on a reasonable suit of seven or more cards, with little if any outside strength. That is exactly what anyone but a novice would assume in the absence of an Alert or other disclosure on the CC. This is general knowledge and experience, so the *meaning* of 3C need not be explained. Any stylistic tendencies or agreements (e.g., denies an ace in hand) must be disclosed, of course, and the CC has three check-boxes for 3/4 level openings, disclosing whether they are Sound, Light, or Very Light. (None is Alertable, and what these mean is explained in the instructions for filling out the CC, which no one reads.). Below the boxes is a red line for disclosing Alertable agreements about the opening/responses. "Alert!" ACBL pro playing with a novice: "Please explain." "Tends to deny an ace." Pro: "Does it show a weak or strong hand?" (illegal question, obviously for client's benefit) "No special partnership agreement about that." (Not meant as a likely scenario, just illustrating the point) 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 Jun 11 05:13:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AJDL800613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 05:13:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AJDGH00609 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 05:13:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id PAA02976 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:00:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA28517 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:00:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:00:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200206101900.PAA28517@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] IMP scoring X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Tom Cornelis" > i came across a discussion about imp scoring. > it was about the datum score with a butler calculation. > cross-imps was mentioned too There were quite a few messages on this topic, probably a year or two ago. They should be in the BLML archive. A very brief summary: cross-IMPs should always be used for serious events (basically for the reasons you give plus others). However, some players and TD's prefer Butler because the results appear more transparent, and if so, organizers may decide to use it (or related methods, of which there are several) in less serious events. If you have trouble finding the archive, I may be able to send you my messages on the subject via private email. The Web archive used to be at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 05:28:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AJSJU00629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 05:28:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5AJSDH00625 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 05:28:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-4.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.4] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17HUdE-0003pA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:15:12 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:15:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <3D04F0A3.6040903@skynet.be> References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:32 PM 6/10/02, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>Of course, they are not entitled to know whether or not you are *in >>fact* in the process of having a misunderstanding on the deal at hand. >So why tell them that you are in doubt then ? Because being in doubt is a function of the state of your agreements, and you are obligated to tell them whatever you know about your agreements, which perforce includes whether or not they result in the meaning of a particular call being "in doubt" or not. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 05:43:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AJgun00649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 05:42:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5AJgpH00645 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 05:42:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-4.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.4] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17HUrN-0006T1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:29:49 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020610152902.00aeab00@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:30:03 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [once again sloppily mis-send and forwarded -- I must be having a bad day; please ignore first level of indentation] >From: Eric Landau >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > >At 02:35 PM 6/10/02, Herman wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote: >> >>>I don't get it. You are required to disclose your agreements, >>>explicit or implicit. But how can you have any agreement, whether >>>explicit or implicit, about something you "never realized [was] there"? >>Isn't that what the word implicit implies ? > >"Implicit: (1) Implied or understood although not directly expressed." >[AHD] > >If you have an agreement and have directly expressed it, it is an >explicit agreement. If you have it, but haven't directly expressed >it, it is an implicit agreement. If you don't have it, it is not an >agreement at all. > >>Maybe you are staring yourself blind at the "agree" part of >>agreement. To me, the woird "agreement" in the bridge sense contains >>more than that which is simply "agreed". We never agreed to play >>Stayman, but still I am obliged to inform my opponents that based on >>my experience with this person, 2Cl is asking about my majors. > >If you never explicitly agreed to play Stayman, but you believe based >on your experience with this person that 2C is asking about majors, >ISTM that proper full disclosure is along the lines of, "We never >explicitly agreed to play Stayman, but I believe based on my >experience with this person that 2C is asking about majors." Seems >straightforward enough to me. > >Of course, the first time it comes up, you give that explanation, and >it turns out to be correct, you have established an implicit agreement >(you still haven't directly expressed it), so from then on you can >(and should) simply describe it as asking about majors. 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 Jun 11 05:52:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AJq2500664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 05:52:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5AJpvH00660 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 05:51:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-4.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.4] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17HV0C-0000Fk-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:38:56 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020610152850.00ae0270@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:39:03 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <3D04F2D2.2040306@skynet.be> References: <6190034.1023716788520.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.0.20020610174133.00ab2360@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:41 PM 6/10/02, Herman wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>This is the difference between "no agreement, but It should be ..." >>and "an agreement". >>Nobody can convince me that we had an agreement when the sequence >>occurred for the first time. >I never said that you had an agreement in the English sense of the word. >I'm just saying that you had an (implicit) partnership agreement in >the bridge-laws sense of the word. >And that must be disclosed. Which you did. "Agreement" isn't in the "Definitions" chapter, nor does any definition of it appear in the body of the laws or notes thereto (in contrast to, say, "normal"). So whence comes the notion that "agreement" in "the bridge-laws sense of the word" means anything different from "agreement" in "the English sense of the word"? If we make the assumption that something not specifically defined means anything other than "the English sense of the word" we are in Wonderland, where words can mean whatever we want them to. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 06:29:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AKTAG00698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 06:29:10 +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-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 g5AKT5H00694 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 06:29:05 +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 17HVa5-000NoT-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:16:03 +0100 Message-ID: <7UGwVTBgFPB9EwSE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 19:35:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] IMP scoring References: <003501c2109d$e0a11c40$773f23d5@cornelis> In-Reply-To: <003501c2109d$e0a11c40$773f23d5@cornelis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis writes > hi all, > > allthough i'm not a td, i'm very interested in bridge laws, > particularly in the organisational part (scoring, movements). > i came across a discussion about imp scoring. > it was about the datum score with a butler calculation. > cross-imps was mentioned too, but no other reason than a gut > feeling was given why this should be preferred. > i experimented with some results on a board and this is my > conclusion: the total of imps scored in ns can be different from > the total of imps scored in ew if you use a datum score to compare > to (whatever datum score you use); in fact the totals are each > others opposites. > to me this seems a very good reason why cross-imps should be > preferred, as the total number of imps is 0 (zero) for ns as well > as ew. > it cannot be acceptable that the method of scoring has influence on > the results, because lucky or unlucky pairs can end higher or lower > in the ranking regardless their result on a specific board was bad > or good. bad results should lead to lower places, and good ones to > higher places. > that's why i propose that this matter should be taken in > consideration when the laws of 2007 are going to be decided, > and that they include that cross-imps are obligatory. There are advantages in Butler scoring. It is easier when a computer is not available. It also has a feelgood factor since ordinary players like the datum to compare with. There are also disadvantages. Despite the fact that people understand and like the datums, a minority here feel datums are not acceptable if they are not real scores. There is also a striong feeling that cross- imps is slightly fairer. Do we need to resolve the differences? No, why not just let a sponsoring organisation use whichever seems suitable. I do not see any reason to make Butler scoring illegal for a tiny advantage. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 07:08:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AL7YN00735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 07:07:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5AL7TH00731 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 07:07:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g5AKsS927310 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:54:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004801c210c0$ed962300$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <003501c2109d$e0a11c40$773f23d5@cornelis> Subject: Re: [BLML] IMP scoring Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:53:39 -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: "Tom Cornelis" allthough i'm not a td, i'm very interested in bridge laws, particularly in the organisational part (scoring, movements). i came across a discussion about imp scoring. it was about the datum score with a butler calculation. cross-imps was mentioned too, but no other reason than a gut feeling was given why this should be preferred. i experimented with some results on a board and this is my conclusion: the total of imps scored in ns can be different from the total of imps scored in ew if you use a datum score to compare to (whatever datum score you use); in fact the totals are each others opposites. to me this seems a very good reason why cross-imps should be preferred, as the total number of imps is 0 (zero) for ns as well as ew. it cannot be acceptable that the method of scoring has influence on the results, because lucky or unlucky pairs can end higher or lower in the ranking regardless their result on a specific board was bad or good. bad results should lead to lower places, and good ones to higher places. that's why i propose that this matter should be taken in consideration when the laws of 2007 are going to be decided, and that they include that cross-imps are obligatory. Scoring methods are not a concern of the Laws, Tom, but of the sponsoring organizations. The only exceptions are the Laws' definition of matchpoints and International Match Points. Even those can be modified by the sponsoring organization. For instance IMP-Pair games use an IMP-scale for cross-imp (X-imp) scoring that is truncated at 17 imps instead of using the entire scale, which goes up to a maximum of 24 imps. Your particular example isn't appropriate because not everyone has the computer program that is almost indispensable for X-imp scoring, except for small games. With manual Butler scoring, the top and bottom scores are thrown out, reducing the math effort, and an average of the rest (the "datum") is established for every board. The datums are put up on the wall, allowing players to compute their scores while the scorers are doing the same. This gives them a quicker notion of how they have done, and serves as a check on the scorers' work. This is a satisfactory solution to scoring without the aid of a computer. Scoring by the Butler method with a computer program is quite widespread, however, probably as a surrender to custom. The prestigious annual Cavendish Invitational IMP-Pairs, not an ACBL event, is scored by X-imps. After several years of pushing by me, the ACBL's National IMP-Pair Championship is now scored by X-imps instead of Butler. Inexplicably, IMP-Pair games of lesser importance at NABCs use the Butler method. I must remember to make some noise about that, since X-imp requires no extra work by the TDs. Perhaps TDs dislike the humongous scores that come out when no divisor is used to obtain an average score per board that is more meaningful. TDs don't like to keep explaining to players why the numbers are so big.. Peter Boyd and Steve Robinson won the NABC+ IMP-Pairs in Toronto last summer with a score of 12,777.74. Although no divisor is used for the Cavendish, why I can't imagine, the ACBLScor program has a divisor option. There's a good chance it will be used next time (summer NABC, Washington DC). Of course it will be the wrong divisor (number of comparisons instead of the number of results), but that effect is minuscule. 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 Jun 11 08:04:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AM43n00766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:04:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5AM3vH00762 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:03:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.61.55] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17HX2W-000PW9-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:49:29 +0100 Message-ID: <001801c210c9$31903340$1e22e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <6190034.1023716788520.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.0.20020610174133.00ab2360@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610152850.00ae0270@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:52:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > "Agreement" isn't in the "Definitions" chapter, nor > does any definition of it appear in the body of the > laws or notes thereto (in contrast to, say, "normal"). > So whence comes the notion that "agreement" in "the > bridge-laws sense of the word" means anything > different from "agreement" in "the English sense of > the word"? If we make the assumption that > something not specifically defined means anything > other than "the English sense of the word" we are > in Wonderland, where words can mean whatever > we want them to. > > +=+ I have not been watching this thread before today, and I do not know where it is coming from, but what I read is full of knots. Law 40B refers, of course, to partnership understandings. Law 75 refers to agreements. It is double cover of the disclosure requirement. Any words not defined in the law book must be taken for their dictionary meaning. In my opinion, one of the most difficult words in this area of the laws is 'special'. Since I am not familiar with the thread I am not prepared to say this view necessarily agrees with what you have written. ~ 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 Jun 11 08:10:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AMAYT00779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:10:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AMASH00775 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:10:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g5ALvRG24192 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:57:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006c01c210c9$ba5ca5a0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200206101900.PAA28517@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] IMP scoring Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:56:48 -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" > A very brief summary: cross-IMPs should always be used for serious > events (basically for the reasons you give plus others). However, some > players and TD's prefer Butler because the results appear more > transparent, and if so, organizers may decide to use it (or related > methods, of which there are several) in less serious events. > More transparent? Take a 10-table game. Results for N-S on board 1 are two 500's, two 430's, three 400s, a 180 and, two 150s. Using Butler one 500 and one 150 are thrown out, the rest averaged to get a "datum" of 361.25 rounded, as is usual, to 360. Comparing against this datum, the N-S pairs with +500 have a score of +140, for +4 imps Note that two pairs are comparing against a datum that does not include their scores. Moreover, the datum, which excludes two perfectly valid scores, is not a "bridge number." Also, Butler averages scores as if the imp-scale were linear, which it is not. With X-imps every score is compared with every other result. Pair 1 scores 0+2+2+3+3+3+8+8+8, a total of +37 imps, not a meaningful number. However, the computer option of dividing by the number of comparisons (9) gives a meaningful score of +4.11. The difference vs Butler is usually small, as in this case, but championships can be won or lost on the basis of very small numbers. Note that rounding with X-imps is done to two decimal places (usually). Anyway, the N-S Pair 1 who have Butler scoring see that they won +4 imps on board 1. They don't even look at the datum if a computer has been used, why should they? They know the significance of 4 imps. The N-S Pair 1 who have X-imp scoring see that they won +4.11 imps on board 1. They don't miss having a datum, why would they? They also know the significance of 4 imps. I really don't see anything to do with "transparency," whatever that means, so long as a computer is used for both methods, and the divisor option is exercised with X-imps. 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 Jun 11 09:46:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5ANjfL00834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:45:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5ANjYH00830 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:45:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-39-151-218.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.39.151.218] helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17HYeG-0007Gl-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 00:32:32 +0100 Message-ID: <006901c210d6$fc67c4e0$da9727d9@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <070602158.8906@webbox.com> <002b01c20e62$0f0ba340$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080851.00aa25a0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610112812.00adbac0@pop.starpower.net> <003701c21099$b3bf61e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 00:31:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven wrote: > I was summoned to the table where Helge Vinje was playing with > Arild Torp (I believe at least Helge is rather known around the world > for his theories on defence play). Arild had made a jump to 4NT > (Culbertson style asking bid) and the next player bid 4D! > > I can still remember how Helge's eyes began shining when I > explained his alternatives, he immediately accepted the insufficient > bid and gained 5 extra calls as possible answers to 4NT! Both > Helge and Arild was capable of modifying their system on the spot > and trust each other they would understand the added answer > possibilities and further calls correctly! > > So what would be the "correct" answer if an opponent asked for > the meaning of Helge's answer of for instance 4H? > > "Undiscussed" would be technically correct, but would it comply > with Law75? In my opinion obviously not. They had a common > understanding of the principles in their system, this understanding > made them feel confident they would understand each other also > in extreme situations like this. > > THIS is a partnership understanding to which opponents are > entitled! > Would it be correct for either Arild or Helge to present this > understanding as an agreement? Again obviously not. I have agreed with every word up to here. I do not agree at all with the last one. >The only correct explanation (if asked) must be: "This is a situation >we have never anticipated, but the way I know my partner I >expect this call to mean ....... And I don't agree with any of that either. What Herman says is entirely correct: if because of the nature of things, there arises a position which can never have been made the subject of a *formal* agreement between partners, nevertheless, if the partnership continues to behave in such a way as to make it entirely clear to an observer that they understand one another's calls, one may say that because of the structure of their formal agreements in other situations, they have a de facto agreement about this one. > An extraordinary situation, but I think it illustrates very well the > principles of disclosure. So do I. The trouble is, of course, that I draw a diametrically opposite conclusion from Sven's. 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 Jun 11 14:32:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5B4V7R01064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:31:07 +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 g5B4V3H01060 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:31:03 +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 OAA08720 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:32:13 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:14:13 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:17:21 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 11/06/2002 14:13:58 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: [snip] >>But neither should you accept the word "undiscussed" at >>face value. There's always some background that helps >>the partner understand, and this background needs to be >>disclosed. David Burn wrote: [snip] >Good bidding based on a sound knowledge of bidding theory >is supposed to be about: > >Devising sensible methods before you sit down to play; > >Learning them properly, so that you can (a) bid in tempo >and (b) describe your methods correctly to the opponents; > >Recognising that a particular hand does not fit the >methods and being prepared to compromise (by "compromise", >I do not mean "make up some part of the system which does >not actually exist"). [snip] The De Wael/Burn approach is always correct in an ideal world. But even a long-standing World Champion partnership such as Meckstroth-Rodwell come across undiscussed sequences where they are not of like mind. In such situations (which are naturally more common among new and/or non-expert partnerships), "Undiscussed" should be accepted at face-value as an explanation. 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 Jun 11 17:12:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5B7BvQ01176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:11:57 +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 g5B7BrH01172 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:11:53 +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 RAA09733 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:13:11 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:55:09 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:58:20 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 11/06/2002 16:54:54 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: [snip] >>West has given East UI that the 2NT is being taken as >>minors. East *must* therefore assume that West has >>correctly interpreted the 2NT call as the reds, but >>wants to play in clubs anyway with a seven-card club >>suit. East should therefore Pass West's 3C call. Eric Landau replied: >Just because E has UI doesn't mean he must shoot himself >in the foot. His obligation is to continue the auction >as though W had said nothing. East's obligation is *not* "to continue the auction as though West had said nothing", but rather to avoid selecting from amongst logical alternatives those which West's comment suggests would be more successful. >Assuming standard agreements, he bid 2NT expecting it to >be ambiguous, expecting W to (correctly) show a minor-suit >preference, and expecting W to read the C-to-D conversion >as showing reds. He was presumably simply carrying >through his original intention, just as though W had said >nothing, as he is required to do. How can we "assume standard agreements", when it is clear that East and West did not have an agreement? By Eric's logic if East: a) bid 2NT as showing either minors or reds, then 3D is allowed; b) bid 2NT as showing just reds, then a Pass of 3C is required. Should a TD take East's unsupported word for his intentions in bidding 2NT? 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 Jun 11 18:32:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5B8VNL01216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:31:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5B8VHH01212 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:31:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-47451.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.57.91]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5B8I7H17983 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:18:07 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D05B29F.7020502@skynet.be> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:19:43 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 02:32 PM 6/10/02, Herman wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> Of course, they are not entitled to know whether or not you are *in >>> fact* in the process of having a misunderstanding on the deal at hand. >> >> So why tell them that you are in doubt then ? > > > Because being in doubt is a function of the state of your agreements, > and you are obligated to tell them whatever you know about your > agreements, which perforce includes whether or not they result in the > meaning of a particular call being "in doubt" or not. > Why the "perforce" ? I have already told you that I agree with you when the doubt influences your next choice of call. But more often than not, it does not influence it. Not in the sense that you would select a different call if you were certain of the meaning that you are now only marginally certain of. Why do you say that the doubt would "perforce" be needed as a part of the full explanation. I know it is silly as an example, but a full explanation would have to include statements about the weather and the presence of Wendy, and we don't require that, do we ? So when the "doubt" does not influence the meaning, and we agree that opponents are not entitled to the knowledge of the doubt, why then should we "perforce" add the doubt bit ? > > 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/ > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 11 18:35:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5B8ZWd01228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:35:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5B8ZRH01224 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:35:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-47451.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.57.91]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5B8MFZ16499 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:22:15 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D05B396.1000805@skynet.be> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:23:50 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <070602158.8906@webbox.com> <002b01c20e62$0f0ba340$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080851.00aa25a0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610112812.00adbac0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151742.00ae3620@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric, please. Eric Landau wrote: > >> Maybe you are staring yourself blind at the "agree" part of agreement. >> To me, the woird "agreement" in the bridge sense contains more than >> that which is simply "agreed". We never agreed to play Stayman, but >> still I am obliged to inform my opponents that based on my experience >> with this person, 2Cl is asking about my majors. > > > If you never explicitly agreed to play Stayman, but you believe based on > your experience with this person that 2C is asking about majors, ISTM > that proper full disclosure is along the lines of, "We never explicitly > agreed to play Stayman, but I believe based on my experience with this > person that 2C is asking about majors." Seems straightforward enough to > me. > So you keep saying this is not a "partnership agreement" and yet you tell us that it needs to be disclosed. On which Law do you base that need? On a Law that says that partnership agreements need to be disclosed, yes? Again, you are confusing the English word agreement (to which I agree that it does not apply to these cases) with the bridge-legal term "partnership agreement", which you seem to agree does apply to this case. > Of course, the first time it comes up, you give that explanation, and it > turns out to be correct, you have established an implicit agreement (you > still haven't directly expressed it), so from then on you can (and > should) simply describe it as asking about majors. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 11 20:11:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BAAIv01331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 20:10:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5BAACH01327 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 20:10:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3460.bb.online.no [80.212.221.132]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA24337 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:57:03 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000f01c2112e$567262e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <070602158.8906@webbox.com> <002b01c20e62$0f0ba340$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080851.00aa25a0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610112812.00adbac0@pop.starpower.net> <003701c21099$b3bf61e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006901c210d6$fc67c4e0$da9727d9@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:57:02 +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 To David: I understand you disagree with me on that last part, but I am not sure I understand in what way. Please clarify whether your opinion is that Arild and Helge should (if asked) have "hidden behind" a statement that the situation was undiscussed, full stop, or whether they should present their understanding as an agreement. (And leave it to opponents to try figure out how they could have had any "agreement" for a situation like this). To make it clear: My opinion is that with a partnership understanding like the one that existed between them, opponents are indeed entitled to be told how they interpreted each others calls. Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 1:31 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > Sven wrote: > > > I was summoned to the table where Helge Vinje was playing with > > Arild Torp (I believe at least Helge is rather known around the world > > for his theories on defence play). Arild had made a jump to 4NT > > (Culbertson style asking bid) and the next player bid 4D! > > > > I can still remember how Helge's eyes began shining when I > > explained his alternatives, he immediately accepted the insufficient > > bid and gained 5 extra calls as possible answers to 4NT! Both > > Helge and Arild was capable of modifying their system on the spot > > and trust each other they would understand the added answer > > possibilities and further calls correctly! > > > > So what would be the "correct" answer if an opponent asked for > > the meaning of Helge's answer of for instance 4H? > > > > "Undiscussed" would be technically correct, but would it comply > > with Law75? In my opinion obviously not. They had a common > > understanding of the principles in their system, this understanding > > made them feel confident they would understand each other also > > in extreme situations like this. > > > > THIS is a partnership understanding to which opponents are > > entitled! > > > Would it be correct for either Arild or Helge to present this > > understanding as an agreement? Again obviously not. > > I have agreed with every word up to here. I do not agree at all with the > last one. > > >The only correct explanation (if asked) must be: "This is a situation > >we have never anticipated, but the way I know my partner I > >expect this call to mean ....... > > And I don't agree with any of that either. What Herman says is entirely > correct: if because of the nature of things, there arises a position > which can never have been made the subject of a *formal* agreement > between partners, nevertheless, if the partnership continues to behave > in such a way as to make it entirely clear to an observer that they > understand one another's calls, one may say that because of the > structure of their formal agreements in other situations, they have a de > facto agreement about this one. > > > An extraordinary situation, but I think it illustrates very well the > > principles of disclosure. > > So do I. The trouble is, of course, that I draw a diametrically opposite > conclusion from Sven's. > > 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 Jun 11 21:39:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BBdEf01366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 21:39:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5BBd8H01362 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 21:39:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-47451.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.57.91]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5BBPeY24327 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:25:40 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D05DE93.20506@skynet.be> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:27:15 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <070602158.8906@webbox.com> <002b01c20e62$0f0ba340$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080851.00aa25a0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610112812.00adbac0@pop.starpower.net> <003701c21099$b3bf61e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006901c210d6$fc67c4e0$da9727d9@pbncomputer> <000f01c2112e$567262e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > To David: > I understand you disagree with me on that last part, but > I am not sure I understand in what way. > neither do I understand how anyone can have a different opinion about these Norwegian's actions. > Please clarify whether your opinion is that Arild and Helge > should (if asked) have "hidden behind" a statement that the > situation was undiscussed, full stop, or whether they should > present their understanding as an agreement. (And leave it > to opponents to try figure out how they could have had any > "agreement" for a situation like this). > The Norwegians had a clear partnership understanding that the first step showed .... and so on, and this understanding must be available to opponents. They also were on the same wavelength that the same principle would apply over an accepted insufficient call. Is there really anyone left who thinks it important whether this "same wavelength" is the result of a previous occurence or not. Whether it is important that they discussed this or not ? As DB pointed out, the first is impossibly difficult to prove or disprove, and the second totally impossible. Whether you call this an agreement or an implicit partnership understanding, it must fall under the heading of things that opponents are entitled to know. > To make it clear: My opinion is that with a partnership > understanding like the one that existed between them, > opponents are indeed entitled to be told how they > interpreted each others calls. > Of course. Who can disagree with that. > Sven > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 11 21:45:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BBjKs01382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 21:45:21 +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 (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5BBjFH01378 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 21:45:15 +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 NAA16600; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:29:43 +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 NAA18489; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:32:09 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020611133359.00ab4a20@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:39:30 +0200 To: "Sven Pran" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <003701c21099$b3bf61e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <070602158.8906@webbox.com> <002b01c20e62$0f0ba340$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080851.00aa25a0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610112812.00adbac0@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 18:13 10/06/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > >I can still remember how Helge's eyes began shining when I >explained his alternatives, he immediately accepted the insufficient >bid and gained 5 extra calls as possible answers to 4NT! Both >Helge and Arild was capable of modifying their system on the spot >and trust each other they would understand the added answer >possibilities and further calls correctly! > >So what would be the "correct" answer if an opponent asked for >the meaning of Helge's answer of for instance 4H? > >"Undiscussed" would be technically correct, but would it comply >with Law75? In my opinion obviously not. They had a common >understanding of the principles in their system, this understanding >made them feel confident they would understand each other also >in extreme situations like this. > >THIS is a partnership understanding to which opponents are >entitled! AG : I bet you anything you like that if , playing with Gilles, the bidding goes 2NT - (2H) (TD call, explanation, condoning of the 2H bid) - 3C, he will interpret it as a transfer bid, because that's what it means over 1NT (2H). However, we didn't discuss it. This means that the word 'undiscussed' doesn't mean the same at the bridge table than in everyday life. It is synonymous with 'I have no means to know', which is quite different ... I wouldn't mind this, but we'd rather specify it : "one shan't respond 'undiscussed' when one has some reason to believe it's something specific, even if we really didn't discuss it". Best regards, Alain. >Would it be correct for either Arild or Helge to present this >understanding as an agreement? Again obviously not. The >only correct explanation (if asked) must be: "This is a situation >we have never anticipated, but the way I know my partner I >expect this call to mean ....... > >An extraordinary situation, but I think it illustrates very well the >principles of disclosure. > >Sven > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 22:14:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BCEC001436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 22:14:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5BCE6H01426 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 22:14:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3460.bb.online.no [80.212.221.132]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA14868 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:00:57 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00a101c2113f$a5aebfa0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <070602158.8906@webbox.com> <002b01c20e62$0f0ba340$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080851.00aa25a0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610112812.00adbac0@pop.starpower.net> <003701c21099$b3bf61e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006901c210d6$fc67c4e0$da9727d9@pbncomputer> <000f01c2112e$567262e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3D05DE93.20506@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:00:57 +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 Herman I understand we are on the same track here, but just to emphasize a minor point: The answers to Culbertson 4-5NT asking bids (which was used here) are not step answers, they are directly related to the denomination named in the answer. However, Arild and Helge had such a good understanding of Culbertson's logic that they could trust they would both adapt to the new situation without misunderstandings. And as I understand we fully agree: This common understanding between the two shall not be kept "under cover" but be fully revealed to opponents as well. regards Sven ....... > The Norwegians had a clear partnership understanding that the first > step showed .... and so on, and this understanding must be available > to opponents. > They also were on the same wavelength that the same principle would > apply over an accepted insufficient call. > Is there really anyone left who thinks it important whether this "same > wavelength" is the result of a previous occurence or not. Whether it > is important that they discussed this or not ? > As DB pointed out, the first is impossibly difficult to prove or > disprove, and the second totally impossible. > > Whether you call this an agreement or an implicit partnership > understanding, it must fall under the heading of things that opponents > are entitled to know. > > > > To make it clear: My opinion is that with a partnership > > understanding like the one that existed between them, > > opponents are indeed entitled to be told how they > > interpreted each others calls. > > > > > Of course. Who can disagree with that. > > > > Sven > > > > > > > -- > please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 22:18:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BCIFJ01478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 22:18:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5BCIAH01474 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 22:18:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3460.bb.online.no [80.212.221.132]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA20070 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:05:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00a701c21140$377fd9a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <070602158.8906@webbox.com> <002b01c20e62$0f0ba340$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080851.00aa25a0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610112812.00adbac0@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020611133359.00ab4a20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:05:02 +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 ......... > AG : I bet you anything you like that if , playing with Gilles, the bidding > goes 2NT - (2H) (TD call, explanation, condoning of the 2H bid) - 3C, he > will interpret it as a transfer bid, because that's what it means over 1NT > (2H). However, we didn't discuss it. This means that the word 'undiscussed' > doesn't mean the same at the bridge table than in everyday life. It is > synonymous with 'I have no means to know', which is quite different ... I > wouldn't mind this, but we'd rather specify it : "one shan't respond > 'undiscussed' when one has some reason to believe it's something specific, > even if we really didn't discuss it". Exactly my point, at least if you include "or to warn that there is a degree of guesswork involved because this really has not been previously discussed". regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 22:23:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BCNWQ01522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 22:23:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5BCNMH01513 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 22:23:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-17.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.17] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17HkTb-0000WR-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:10:19 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:10:35 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <3D05B29F.7020502@skynet.be> References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:19 AM 6/11/02, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>At 02:32 PM 6/10/02, Herman wrote: >> >>>Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>>>Of course, they are not entitled to know whether or not you are *in >>>>fact* in the process of having a misunderstanding on the deal at hand. >>> >>>So why tell them that you are in doubt then ? >> >>Because being in doubt is a function of the state of your agreements, >>and you are obligated to tell them whatever you know about your >>agreements, which perforce includes whether or not they result in the >>meaning of a particular call being "in doubt" or not. >Why the "perforce" ? >I have already told you that I agree with you when the doubt >influences your next choice of call. >But more often than not, it does not influence it. Not in the sense >that you would select a different call if you were certain of the >meaning that you are now only marginally certain of. >Why do you say that the doubt would "perforce" be needed as a part of >the full explanation. > >I know it is silly as an example, but a full explanation would have to >include statements about the weather and the presence of Wendy, and we >don't require that, do we ? > >So when the "doubt" does not influence the meaning, and we agree that >opponents are not entitled to the knowledge of the doubt, why then >should we "perforce" add the doubt bit ? "Perforce" in the sense of "true by definition", because whether or not an agreement is subject to doubt is, by definition, included in "whatever you know about your agreement". 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 Jun 11 22:29:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BCSsZ01534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 22:28:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5BCSjH01530 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 22:28:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-17.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.17] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17HkYo-0001CL-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:15:42 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020611081129.00ae8bd0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:15:59 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <3D05B396.1000805@skynet.be> References: <070602158.8906@webbox.com> <002b01c20e62$0f0ba340$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080851.00aa25a0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610112812.00adbac0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151742.00ae3620@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:23 AM 6/11/02, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>>Maybe you are staring yourself blind at the "agree" part of >>>agreement. To me, the woird "agreement" in the bridge sense contains >>>more than that which is simply "agreed". We never agreed to play >>>Stayman, but still I am obliged to inform my opponents that based on >>>my experience with this person, 2Cl is asking about my majors. >> >>If you never explicitly agreed to play Stayman, but you believe based >>on your experience with this person that 2C is asking about majors, >>ISTM that proper full disclosure is along the lines of, "We never >>explicitly agreed to play Stayman, but I believe based on my >>experience with this person that 2C is asking about majors." Seems >>straightforward enough to me. > >So you keep saying this is not a "partnership agreement" and yet you >tell us that it needs to be disclosed. On which Law do you base that >need? On a Law that says that partnership agreements need to be >disclosed, yes? > >Again, you are confusing the English word agreement (to which I agree >that it does not apply to these cases) with the bridge-legal term >"partnership agreement", which you seem to agree does apply to this case. You are required to disclose whatever you know about partner's call based on your partnership agreements. Obviously, if you have an agreement about the particular call in question, that is (at least part of) what you know. If you don't have an agreement about the call, however, the set of "whatever you know about partner's call based on your partnership agreements" is not, in general, empty. The fact that you have no specific agreement to disclose doesn't mean you are allowed to refuse to say anything 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 Jun 11 23:31:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BDV0601572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:31:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5BDUtH01568 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:30:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-17.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.17] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17HlWz-0002cI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:17:53 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020611091153.00ae8cb0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:18:10 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <00a701c21140$377fd9a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <070602158.8906@webbox.com> <002b01c20e62$0f0ba340$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080851.00aa25a0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610112812.00adbac0@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020611133359.00ab4a20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:05 AM 6/11/02, Sven wrote: > > AG : I bet you anything you like that if , playing with Gilles, the >bidding > > goes 2NT - (2H) (TD call, explanation, condoning of the 2H bid) - > 3C, he > > will interpret it as a transfer bid, because that's what it means > over 1NT > > (2H). However, we didn't discuss it. This means that the word >'undiscussed' > > doesn't mean the same at the bridge table than in everyday life. It is > > synonymous with 'I have no means to know', which is quite different > ... I > > wouldn't mind this, but we'd rather specify it : "one shan't respond > > 'undiscussed' when one has some reason to believe it's something > specific, > > even if we really didn't discuss it". > >Exactly my point, at least if you include "or to warn that there is a >degree >of >guesswork involved because this really has not been previously discussed". It looks like Sven is on the right track. If it is undiscussed, you must tell the opponents that it is undiscussed. But if you have other agreements from which its meaning might be inferred or deduced, you must reveal those agreements to the opponents. "Undiscussed" by itself is almost never sufficient disclosure -- only if you truly haven't a clue as to what partner might be trying to do. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 23:49:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BDnl001591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:49:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5BDngH01587 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:49:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id ACE769010080; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 06:36:39 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Message-Id: <110602162.23799@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 06:36:42 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk There are 128,745,650,347,030,683,120,231,926,111,609,371,363,122,697,557 possible auctions, and I expect that some pairs may not quite have discussed all of them. The number of auctions in which insufficient bids occur is of course infinite. However, if a situation like this occurs: West North East South 1S Pass 2NT* 3D 3H** 3D 3H *spade raise **cue bid and East-West's methods are to cue bid following the forcing raise, one would expect East's 3H to be explained as a cue bid, and not as "undiscussed". This is not to say that East-West have agreed to play 3H as a cue bid; rather, it is a cue bid (and both partners know it) by virtue of the fact that any non-spade-suit bid is a cue bid by agreement. I would say, in answer to Sven's question (which I'm afraid I don't have access to at the moment, so I can't quote it) that in the "insufficient Culbertson" auction, the Norwegians should not have described their bids as "undiscussed", nor should they have said anything along the lines of "we don't have an agreement for this situation but...". If they were prepared to condone the insufficient bid and to "adjust" their responses to Culbertson accordingly, then one may say that by virtue of their structure, their bids meant whatever they meant, and they meant this *by agreement*. This really isn't very complicated. If A bids something with hand X, and B proceeds as if A's bid had accurately described some aspect of hand X, then it does not matter whether East-West have actually discussed the sequence. To an observer, it will appear that they have discussed the sequence; at the table, the effect will be the same as if they had discussed the sequence. If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck... 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 Jun 12 01:09:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BF4n101668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:04:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5BF4hH01664 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:04:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-47451.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.57.91]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5BEoP919789 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:50:26 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D060E8A.7070208@skynet.be> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:51:54 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <110602162.23799@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: > > This really isn't very complicated. If A bids something with > hand X, and B proceeds as if A's bid had accurately described > some aspect of hand X, then it does not matter whether East-West > have actually discussed the sequence. To an observer, it will > appear that they have discussed the sequence; at the table, the > effect will be the same as if they had discussed the sequence. > If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck... > I hope this ends all discussions about this topic. Now for the more difficult bit. What if A intends his bid to show hand X, and B explains it as hand Y, but actually undiscussed. At the end of the hand, A produces a piece of logic explaining why his undiscussed bid does in fact show X. Is there MI? > 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/ > > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 12 01:09:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BF6dZ01674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:06:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5BF6SH01670 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:06:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-47451.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.57.91]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5BEogH07726 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:50:42 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:47:30 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >> >> So when the "doubt" does not influence the meaning, and we agree that >> opponents are not entitled to the knowledge of the doubt, why then >> should we "perforce" add the doubt bit ? > > > "Perforce" in the sense of "true by definition", because whether or not > an agreement is subject to doubt is, by definition, included in > "whatever you know about your agreement". > But the Laws don't say that you have to say whatever you know. I don't have to tell my opponents that a particular convention was written on a Saturday afternoon. L40C speaks of "the full meaning". L75A says "agreements must be fully available". I don't have to add that I am uncertain, that is no part of any agreement. We have often ruled that opponents have no right to the knowledge that there is doubt, so why now should you say that this has to be added? > > 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/ > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 12 01:12:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BFC2201697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:12:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5BFBvH01693 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:11:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-17.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.17] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17Hn6k-0007ES-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:58:54 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020611104401.00ae85e0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:59:11 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <110602162.23799@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 09:36 AM 6/11/02, David wrote: >This really isn't very complicated. If A bids something with >hand X, and B proceeds as if A's bid had accurately described >some aspect of hand X, then it does not matter whether East-West >have actually discussed the sequence. But this covers two very different cases. A bids something with hand X, B proceeds as if A's bid had accurately described some aspect of hand X, and then either (a) A continues on the assumption that B has proceeded as if A's bid had accurately described some aspect of hand X, or (b) A allows in his continuation for the possibility that B has not proceeded as if A's bid had accurately described some aspect of hand X. IMO, full disclosure requires A to reveal whether or not he is in sufficient doubt about the meaning of B's calls to continue as in (a) or (b). >To an observer, it will >appear that they have discussed the sequence; at the table, the >effect will be the same as if they had discussed the sequence. >If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck... Whether A continues as in (a) or (b) may well affect his subsequent calls (as well as, potentially, his opponents' selection of subsequent calls -- or plays), so we (and he) can hardly assume that "the effect will be the same". 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 Jun 12 01:44:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BFhLC01715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:43:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5BFhHH01711 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:43:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A7865D3C0090; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:30:14 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Message-Id: <110602162.30614@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:30:16 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: >What if A intends his bid to show hand X, and B explains it as hand Y, but actually undiscussed. At the end of the hand, A produces a piece of logic explaining why his undiscussed bid does in fact show X. Is there MI? Yes. Unless A produces a piece of paper, rather than a piece of logic, to support his contention that the bid shows hand X, then one proceeds as if the bid did not in fact show hand X. You have misinformed your opponents if you have told them that a bid corresponds to hand X when it is made with a hand that is not-X, unless you can show beyond doubt that the bid does indeed (in your methods) correspond to hand X and has been made by mistake (or as a deliberate departure from an agreement). That isn't "the more difficult bit". That's the even easier bit. 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 Jun 12 01:45:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BFjc801732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:45:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5BFjTH01724 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:45:29 +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 RAA25525; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:29:57 +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 RAA26342; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:32:25 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020611173439.00ab3750@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:39:45 +0200 To: "David Burn" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <110602162.23799@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 06:36 11/06/2002 -0700, David Burn wrote: >This really isn't very complicated. If A bids something with >hand X, and B proceeds as if A's bid had accurately described >some aspect of hand X, then it does not matter whether East-West >have actually discussed the sequence. To an observer, it will >appear that they have discussed the sequence; at the table, the >effect will be the same as if they had discussed the sequence. >If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck... AG : it could be a robot, or at least a drake. To the observer, the net result won't be the same, if only because he will see partner rack one's brains, hear one stammer the explanation, and observe the broken tempo. I claim I'm able to discern between honest and feigned ignorance. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 01:45:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BFjf501733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:45:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe48.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5BFjUH01725 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:45:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:32:23 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [206.215.201.86] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020610082022.00ad2c00@pop.starpower.net> <001b01c210ae$9caafa40$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:03:28 -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: 11 Jun 2002 15:32:23.0555 (UTC) FILETIME=[2EDB4D30:01C2115D] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 13:42 PM Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > (Indents are out-of-kilter, ignore) > > > > >From: Eric Landau > > > > > >At 07:28 AM 6/8/02, Herman wrote: > > > > > >>Marv, > > >> > > >>good story. > > >> > > >>But answer me one thing: > > >> > > >>Suppose Alice had chosen diamonds as her minor. > > >> > > >>Would you have informed that your other suit was hearts, not clubs? > > >> > > >>Don't you agree that opponents might be damaged by partner's > > >>explanation that you hold clubs ? > > >> > > >>You have changed your CC since then - why does this one case differ > > >>from all others? > > > > > >Because in this one case, they had no agreement. Subsequent to this > > >case they have an implicit agreement based on previous experience, > > >namely that first case. To deny that there is a difference is to deny > > >that there is such a thing as "an implicit agreement based on previous > > >experience". > > > As usual, Eric has this exactly right. > > This does not mean (my opinion) that "inferences drawn from general > knowledge and experience" (L75C) become through partnership experience > implicit agreements that must be disclosed. In such cases the inference is > not *based on* previous partnership experience, but on previous > knowledge.and experience unrelated to the partnership, and so "need not be > disclosed." Unless, of course, some significant shading of meaning has been > added by partnership discussion or experience. > > For instance, my new or old partner opens three of a suit, a bid which we > both know, and have always known, is a weak preempt based on a reasonable > suit of seven or more cards, with little if any outside strength. That is > exactly what anyone but a novice would assume in the absence of an Alert or > other disclosure on the CC. This is general knowledge and experience, so the > *meaning* of 3C need not be explained. I am inclined to believe that because that is the meaning your partnership attaches to 3C yes indeed it is to be made available to the opponents. Why? How do the opponents know that 3C is long clubs and not forward going- instead of long clubs and strong or intermediate? or artificial? They don't because it is specific knowledge, not as you say general knowledge. General knowledge is that 3C is a contract for 9 tricks with clubs as trumps and generally, three level openings are most efficiently used as preemptive. But to know what 3C is for this pair one needs to find out. In other words it just would not do to hide the convention card from someone who wanted to find out. regards roger pewick > Any stylistic tendencies or > agreements (e.g., denies an ace in hand) must be disclosed, of course, and > the CC has three check-boxes for 3/4 level openings, disclosing whether they > are Sound, Light, or Very Light. (None is Alertable, and what these mean is > explained in the instructions for filling out the CC, which no one reads.). > Below the boxes is a red line for disclosing Alertable agreements about the > opening/responses. > "Alert!" > > ACBL pro playing with a novice: "Please explain." > > "Tends to deny an ace." > > Pro: "Does it show a weak or strong hand?" (illegal question, obviously for > client's benefit) > > "No special partnership agreement about that." > > (Not meant as a likely scenario, just illustrating the point) > > Marv > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 02:03:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BG3bU01759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 02:03:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from front3.netvisao.pt ([213.228.128.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g5BG3WH01755 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 02:03:32 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 26368 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2002 15:50:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rui) (217.129.63.158) by pal-213-228-128-91.netvisao.pt with SMTP; 11 Jun 2002 15:50:15 -0000 From: "Rui Marques" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: [BLML] Your call (judgment case) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:50:15 +0100 Message-ID: <000001c2115f$adf253a0$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Player has S KJ9xx H AK D x C A9xxx And starts the bidding. The bidding with screens and opps silent: 1Sp - 2Di (FG) 3Cl (showing shape) - 3Sp 4He - 4Sp ... According to the "right" opp there was a break in tempo before the tray with 4Sp came in. According to the player bidding 4Sp there was a break in tempo, just as in any of his other bids before (2Di and 3Sp). The opener says that yes the tray took some time on the other side but "he would always bid slam". The rest of the bidding: 5He - 6Cl - 6Di - 6Sp. Would you allow it or take it back? National Open Teams, finals... -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 02:08:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BG8kj01772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 02:08:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5BG8eH01768 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 02:08:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2857.bb.online.no [80.212.219.41]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA17101 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:55:31 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:55:29 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" ...... > But the Laws don't say that you have to say whatever you know. ........ > L40C speaks of "the full meaning". > L75A says "agreements must be fully available". I don't have to add > that I am uncertain, that is no part of any agreement. > We have often ruled that opponents have no right to the knowledge that > there is doubt, so why now should you say that this has to be added? I do not know what the word "we" includes here, it certainly does not include me. This whole discussion has now IMO boiled down to a single question: When disclosing the meaning of a call or an auction; shall the fact that there is reason for some doubt be disclosed or concealed? There are strong reasons to keep such facts concealed. Most important opponents have only a definite declaration to consider and any uncertainity is on the risk of the declaring party. There are also good reasons to require such uncertainity disclosed. Opponents have a better chance to participate in a game that otherwise might be ruled as destroyed. After all, we want to play bridge whenever at all possible, not to have results assigned more or less arbitrarily after what is then deemed as a damaging irregularity. Personally I fancy full disclosure to include the fact that there is some uncertainity on the ground that it puts all four players on equal terms as far as information is concerned. (Any declaration statement given by one player is of course UI to his partner for as long as applicable according to Law 75D2) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 02:30:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BGTvE01792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 02:29:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5BGTqH01788 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 02:29:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A0F5175000C6; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:10:29 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Message-Id: <110602162.33029@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:16:52 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: >But this covers two very different cases. A bids something with hand X, B proceeds as if A's bid had accurately described some aspect of hand X, and then either (a) A continues on the assumption that B has proceeded as if A's bid had accurately described some aspect of hand X, or (b) A allows in his continuation for the possibility that B has not proceeded as if A's bid had accurately described some aspect of hand X. I'm not sure that I see these as "different cases". In a sequence where A is showing hand X by making some call C1, B has made some later call C2. Whether or not C2 is predicated on having understood C1 or not, whether it is predicated on having remembered the significance of C2 or not, does not matter. One merely asks the same questions of C2 as one asked of C1: did A react to C2 in a manner corresponding to a belief that C2 described some aspect of B's hand, or not? If so, then C2 may be said to have been made in accordance with the agreements of A and B; if not, then not. I speak here, of course, only of the undocumented agreements of A and B. If A and B can produce documentation to show that the "systemic" meaning of a call Cn is X, then it is X. All statements to the effect that it is not-X are misinformation. Put it this way. If at the end of an auction, both A and B are unsurprised at the contents of one another's hands, and have during the auction correctly described what has been shown of one another's hands to the opponents, then - regardless of the extent of their system documentation, the histrionics they may have employed during the auction, their history of partnership experience and peer-group discussion - they may be said to have bid in accordance with their partnership agreements. If not, then not, and any incorrect description of their hands given to the opponents is misinformation, unless their documentation explicitly states otherwise. Exceptionally, of course, both partners may have forgotten the documented method in the same way at the same time; then, although they will not be surprised at the contents of one another's hands and will have given correct descriptions, they will nonetheless be technically guilty of having given misinformation. But cases of the kind are rare. As to what you are expected to reveal concerning the nature of your partnership experience or the extent of any doubts you may have, I do not see that there is any need to reveal more than: what you know to be your agreement (documented or otherwise) about the meaning of a call C; if this is not adequate as a description of call C, any inferences from the totality of your agreements that may assist the opponents. You do not have to tell the opponents anything such as "My partner often forgets this". You have not agreed to forget your system, and such comments are on the whole counter-productive as far as the opponents are concerned, and (illegally) helpful as far as the bidders are concerned. 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 Jun 12 02:46:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BGkNc01809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 02:46:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5BGkIH01805 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 02:46:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-17.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.17] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17HoEY-0000X3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:11:03 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020611115706.00aeac00@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:11:19 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@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 10:47 AM 6/11/02, Herman wrote: >But the Laws don't say that you have to say whatever you know. >I don't have to tell my opponents that a particular convention was >written on a Saturday afternoon. >L40C speaks of "the full meaning". >L75A says "agreements must be fully available". I don't have to add >that I am uncertain, that is no part of any agreement. >We have often ruled that opponents have no right to the knowledge that >there is doubt, so why now should you say that this has to be added? L75C requires a player to "disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience". When partner makes a call, you are either sufficiently confident to proceed on the assumption that it means what you hope/expect it to mean, or sufficiently in doubt to allow for the possibility that it is not, depending on those aspects of your "partnership agreement[s] or partnership experience" which are relevant. Your opponents are entitled to the same [relevant] knowledge of "partnership agreement or partnership experience" that you will use in choosing your subsequent actions. The fact that a particular convention was invented on a Saturday cannot be relevant to your -- or your opponents! -- subsequent choice of actions, and need not be disclosed *for that reason*. The "De Wael school", as we know well, disagrees. It believes that whether you are confident or in doubt, you must pretend to be confident, and accept the MI penalty when partner, not at all unexpectedly, turns out to justify the secret doubt you have neglected to disclose. In effect, it says that you must lie to the opponents, and then take the penalty when your failure to tell the truth is revealed. IMO, it makes a lot more sense to just tell the truth in the first place. As we've said several times already in this thread, we have had this discussion before. 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 Jun 12 03:00:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BH0MC01836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 03:00:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5BH0FH01832 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 03:00:16 +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 SAA10262; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:44:43 +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 SAA23451; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:47:11 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020611184306.00ab4c60@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:54:31 +0200 To: "Rui Marques" , "'Bridge Laws'" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Your call (judgment case) In-Reply-To: <000001c2115f$adf253a0$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> References: <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:50 11/06/2002 +0100, Rui Marques wrote: >Player has >S KJ9xx >H AK >D x >C A9xxx > >And starts the bidding. > >The bidding with screens and opps silent: > >1Sp - 2Di (FG) >3Cl (showing shape) > - 3Sp >4He - 4Sp >... > >According to the "right" opp there was a break in tempo before the tray >with 4Sp came in. According to the player bidding 4Sp there was a break >in tempo, just as in any of his other bids before (2Di and 3Sp). The >opener says that yes the tray took some time on the other side but "he >would always bid slam". > >The rest of the bidding: 5He - 6Cl - 6Di - 6Sp. > >Would you allow it or take it back? National Open Teams, finals... AG : to bid again is of course a possibility, but so is passing, because the player has already shown some slight slam interest (with his 4H bid). So, if it is established that the tray took a long time to come back, it is not difficult to guess who hesitated, and I would disallow the 5H bid, because I don't feel it's true that the player would always bid slam. AFAIC, partner might have something like Ax - Jx - KJxxxx - KJx (you might add one spade if you feel it necessary, but it isn't a good slam yet). Facing such a hand, even 5S is too high. The fact that this player "would always bid the slam" after this start may not be taken into account. The only question is : is it 100% obvious to bid the slam ? And my answer is a firm no. However, the fact that there was a slight time interval before the tray came back does not necessarily mean that this interval was significative. If the tempo was the same for all bids, then it is as if there was no tempo ; also consider the possibility of "random delay", that is, if you don't want tempi to be significative, just retain the tray for a short time before you pass it. If opponents practiced this (as I encourage them to do), there would have been no problem. To cut it short : - unmistakable tempo : disallow the continuation - no clear break in tempo : allow it To distinguish between those cases, you will have to ascertain the facts at the table. With the facts you handled us, I would say there *was* a break of tempo, because the opener admitted it. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 03:02:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BH2hb01848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 03:02:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5BH2cH01844 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 03:02:38 +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 JAA28896; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:49:28 -0700 Message-Id: <200206111649.JAA28896@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "'Bridge Laws'" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Your call (judgment case) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:50:15 BST." <000001c2115f$adf253a0$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:55:44 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Rui Marques wrote: > Player has > S KJ9xx > H AK > D x > C A9xxx > > And starts the bidding. > > The bidding with screens and opps silent: > > 1Sp - 2Di (FG) > 3Cl (showing shape) > - 3Sp > 4He - 4Sp > ... > > According to the "right" opp there was a break in tempo before the tray > with 4Sp came in. According to the player bidding 4Sp there was a break > in tempo, just as in any of his other bids before (2Di and 3Sp). The > opener says that yes the tray took some time on the other side but "he > would always bid slam". > > The rest of the bidding: 5He - 6Cl - 6Di - 6Sp. > > Would you allow it or take it back? National Open Teams, finals... We have to determine: (1) was there a hesitation by opener's partner; (2) did the hesitation demonstrably suggest anything; (3) were there logical alternatives to opener's subsequent auction; (4) was there damage? We can't answer (1) without being at the table. One opponent says that responder hesitated; responder seemed to imply that he was hesitating before all his bids, and that the 4S bid was therefore "in tempo". Assuming there was a hesitation: (2) Yes, the hesitation demonstrably suggested bidding on. Any time there's a hesitation and the hesitator does something "minimum", the clear implication is that hesitator has extra values. ("Extra values" doesn't necessarily mean more high cards, but it could mean high cards or distribution in the "right" place for a slam.) (3) The comments on r.g.b clearly indicate that passing 4S is a logical alternative to 5H. Opener already made one move toward slam, and there was strong feeling that opposite a signoff, he has done enough. (4) As for whether there was damage: you didn't say whether 6S made. I guess we can assume it did or else this question wouldn't be posted. So if we determine that responder did indeed hesitate, then I think it's clear to adjust the score to the result of 4S making whatever. -- 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 Jun 12 03:45:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BHiqP01894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 03:44:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f159.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.159]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5BHimH01890 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 03:44:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:31:40 -0700 Received: from 24.28.122.53 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:31:39 GMT X-Originating-IP: [24.28.122.53] From: "Roger Pewick" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Your call (judgment case) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:31:39 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jun 2002 17:31:40.0165 (UTC) FILETIME=[D8875350:01C2116D] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Rui Marques" >To: "'Bridge Laws'" >Subject: [BLML] Your call (judgment case) >Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:50:15 +0100 > >Player has >S KJ9xx >H AK >D x >C A9xxx > >And starts the bidding. > >The bidding with screens and opps silent: > >1Sp - 2Di (FG) >3Cl (showing shape) > - 3Sp >4He - 4Sp >... > >According to the "right" opp there was a break in tempo before the tray >with 4Sp came in. According to the player bidding 4Sp there was a break >in tempo, just as in any of his other bids before (2Di and 3Sp). The >opener says that yes the tray took some time on the other side but "he >would always bid slam". > >The rest of the bidding: 5He - 6Cl - 6Di - 6Sp. > >Would you allow it or take it back? National Open Teams, finals... If we can rule based on what words the player said- 'he always breaks tempo' then who should disbelieve him? Accordingly, there was UI. I do not consider pass to be a LA [5C looks to be the only appropriate call]but at the same time I consider 5H to be dubious without a diamond or club cue. In my thinking opener has not yet promised the CA and denies having it when he bids 5H [suggesting instead second round club control]. It certainly appears that a player would tend to cue clubs before 5H unless he had reason to believe it was safe to do otherwise- such as UI. It appears that this would be a good place to apply 12C3. regards roger pewick _________________________________________________________________ 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 Wed Jun 12 03:54:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BHsSv01907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 03:54:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5BHsNH01903 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 03:54:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-17.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.17] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17Hpdw-0002ag-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:41:20 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020611132724.00aa94b0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:41:37 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <110602162.30614@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 11:30 AM 6/11/02, David wrote: >Herman wrote: > > >What if A intends his bid to show hand X, and B explains it >as hand Y, but actually undiscussed. At the end of the hand, >A produces a piece of logic explaining why his undiscussed bid >does in fact show X. Is there MI? > >Yes. Unless A produces a piece of paper, rather than a piece >of logic, to support his contention that the bid shows hand X, >then one proceeds as if the bid did not in fact show hand X. Earlier David suggested that my views were colored by the fact that I "know roughly 0.000001% of the world's bridge players", and here he seems to fall into the same error himself. I submit that if A is one of the remaining 99.999999% of the world's bridge players, and the bid in question is not one which is specifically covered on his SO's convention card, the possibility that the "piece of paper" David requires will actually exist is insignificantly different from zero. I don't believe that either the spirit or the letter of the Law supports the notion that one should suffer an otherwise avoidable adverse ruling because one does not compile exhaustive system notes for every one of one's potential partnerships. 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 Jun 12 04:15:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BIFYO01942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 04:15:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.netcabo.pt (smtp.netcabo.pt [212.113.174.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5BIFRH01938 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 04:15:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from torre ([213.22.98.193]) by smtp.netcabo.pt with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:56:16 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lino_Tralh=E3o?= To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Your call (judgment case) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:56:46 +0100 Message-ID: <000101c21171$5aa90c40$0200a8c0@torre> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000001c2115f$adf253a0$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jun 2002 17:56:16.0100 (UTC) FILETIME=[48412240:01C21171] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g5BIFUH01939 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In my opinion the meaning of the 3Sp call have paramount importance. Usually, in forcing game situations 3Sp is stronger than 4Sp (or any other game bid). In this hypothesis (3Sp very strong by the system, as is usual -- but more information about the system this pair play is pertinent), the opener "knows" the possibility of the slam by the 3sp bid and NOT by the break in tempo before the 4Sp bid. So the slam try is not a "logical alternative one that could DEMONSTRABLY have been suggested over another by the" break in tempo. Had the opener passed over the 4Sp bid and ... may be ... we could have a case. If 3sp have the usual meaning, I would maintain the result. Best Regards Lino Tralhão -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Rui Marques Sent: terça-feira, 11 de Junho de 2002 16:50 To: 'Bridge Laws' Subject: [BLML] Your call (judgment case) Player has S KJ9xx H AK D x C A9xxx And starts the bidding. The bidding with screens and opps silent: 1Sp - 2Di (FG) 3Cl (showing shape) - 3Sp 4He - 4Sp ... According to the "right" opp there was a break in tempo before the tray with 4Sp came in. According to the player bidding 4Sp there was a break in tempo, just as in any of his other bids before (2Di and 3Sp). The opener says that yes the tray took some time on the other side but "he would always bid slam". The rest of the bidding: 5He - 6Cl - 6Di - 6Sp. Would you allow it or take it back? National Open Teams, finals... -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 04:55:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BIshF01964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 04:54:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5BIsbH01960 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 04:54:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-39-92-102.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.39.92.102] helo=pbncomputer) by carbon with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17HqaD-0003Ii-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 19:41:33 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c21177$80919480$665c27d9@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020611132724.00aa94b0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 19:40:47 +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 Eric wrote: > I submit that if A is one of the remaining 99.999999% of the world's > bridge players, and the bid in question is not one which is > specifically covered on his SO's convention card, the possibility that > the "piece of paper" David requires will actually exist is > insignificantly different from zero. > > I don't believe that either the spirit or the letter of the Law > supports the notion that one should suffer an otherwise avoidable > adverse ruling because one does not compile exhaustive system notes for > every one of one's potential partnerships. Oh, quite so. But the more comprehensive your system documentation, the greater your freedom to depart from your announced methods (either accidentally or on purpose). It is a legal requirement, if the director is not to presume misinformation, that you produce "evidence to the contrary". I don't actually insist that, at levels below the highest, this evidence has to be in the form of a document - a convincing case before the director or an appeals committee (or the "local knowledge" of those people) may suffice. I do suggest, however, that both the spirit and the letter of Law 75 are quite clear - if you cannot show that your method is as you claim and that your actions were a departure from it, then a ruling will be given as if you had acted according to your method while misinforming the opponents. 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 Jun 12 04:57:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BIv3b01976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 04:57:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5BIuwH01972 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 04:56:59 +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 LAA29509; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:43:50 -0700 Message-Id: <200206111843.LAA29509@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Your call (judgment case) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:56:46 BST." <000101c21171$5aa90c40$0200a8c0@torre> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:50:07 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Lino Tralhao wrote: > In my opinion the meaning of the 3Sp call have paramount importance. > Usually, in forcing game situations 3Sp is stronger than 4Sp (or any > other game bid). Normally (IMHO), 3S in this auction doesn't promise real spade support---it's just a preference---so I'd say the above doesn't apply. However, maybe the normal meaning is different in Portugal. I agree that we'd need to find out just how the pair is playing. -- Adam > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Rui Marques > Sent: terça-feira, 11 de Junho de 2002 16:50 > To: 'Bridge Laws' > Subject: [BLML] Your call (judgment case) > > Player has > S KJ9xx > H AK > D x > C A9xxx > > And starts the bidding. > > The bidding with screens and opps silent: > > 1Sp - 2Di (FG) > 3Cl (showing shape) > - 3Sp > 4He - 4Sp > ... -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 06:06:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BK5td02014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 06:05:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f91.law10.hotmail.com [64.4.15.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5BK5oH02010 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 06:05:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:52:42 -0700 Received: from 12.124.93.22 by lw10fd.law10.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 19:52:42 GMT X-Originating-IP: [12.124.93.22] From: "David Kent" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:52:42 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jun 2002 19:52:42.0476 (UTC) FILETIME=[8C7582C0:01C21181] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis >Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:16:52 -0700 > > >Eric wrote: > > >But this covers two very different cases. A bids something >with hand X, B proceeds as if A's bid had accurately described >some aspect of hand X, and then either (a) A continues on the >assumption that B has proceeded as if A's bid had accurately >described some aspect of hand X, or (b) A allows in his continuation >for the possibility that B has not proceeded as if A's bid had >accurately described some aspect of hand X. > >I'm not sure that I see these as "different cases". In a sequence >where A is showing hand X by making some call C1, B has made >some later call C2. Whether or not C2 is predicated on having >understood C1 or not, whether it is predicated on having remembered >the significance of C2 or not, does not matter. One merely asks >the same questions of C2 as one asked of C1: did A react to C2 >in a manner corresponding to a belief that C2 described some >aspect of B's hand, or not? If so, then C2 may be said to have >been made in accordance with the agreements of A and B; if not, >then not. > >I speak here, of course, only of the undocumented agreements >of A and B. If A and B can produce documentation to show that >the "systemic" meaning of a call Cn is X, then it is X. All statements >to the effect that it is not-X are misinformation. > >Put it this way. If at the end of an auction, both A and B are >unsurprised at the contents of one another's hands, and have >during the auction correctly described what has been shown of >one another's hands to the opponents, then - regardless of the >extent of their system documentation, the histrionics they may >have employed during the auction, their history of partnership >experience and peer-group discussion - they may be said to have >bid in accordance with their partnership agreements. If not, >then not, and any incorrect description of their hands given >to the opponents is misinformation, unless their documentation >explicitly states otherwise. > Imaginary Scenario: Playing in the Spingold in the round 16 (i.e. behind screens) with a good partner with whom you play about 10-15 session per year, but not your regular partner. So you pick up: Axxxx KQxxx x Kx and open 1S. Partner responds 1NT (forcing since you play 2/1) which you duly alert (or announce or whatever) and you bid 2H. Partner bids 4C which you alert. Your screenmate (your RHO) asks you what that means. Now you and your partner have never discussed this auction but have decided to play splinters in most situations and fit bids only in competition or by a passed hand. But you think that partner is good enough to realize that the number of situations that a splinter occurs in a minor after a 1S-1N-2H start is much fewer than the number of times a fit bid would occur. How do you answer the question? Assume you give the full explanation above (writing it down of course). Let's say you do decide to treat it as a fit bid, so you bid RKCB (since x Axxxx xx AQxxx makes slam almost laydown). Partner duly shows 2 key cards and you bid slam. A diamond is led and dummy tracks with xx Jxxx A AQxxxx; Hearts split 3-1 and clubs split 3-2 and you rack up your slam. All hell breaks loose at this point (ok, let's say that the director is called by the opps at this point). RHO holds KQx Ax Qxxxxx xx. He explains that he could guarantee a S lead in one of 2 ways if he only knew for certain what 4C meant. If natural (or a fit bid), he could pass 4C and double 6H. If a splinter, he could double 4C to ask for the lead of the lower suit (i.e. spades). The director asks how 4C was explained on each side of the table, and wonder of wonders, you had both explained it the same. The director rules that since both you and your partner treated the bid as it was intended, since it contradicted your "explicit agreement", you were guilty of giving misinformation to the opponents. The score is rolled back to 6Hx -1. Clearly you have no proof the you had never discussed this sequence, but you are feeling somewhat hard done by since all you tried to do was be as honest as possbile. Could this happen? What about if this happened when not playing with screens? -- Dave Kent _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 06:39:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BKdP902033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 06:39:25 +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.eduhi.at (mail.asn-linz.ac.at [193.170.68.251]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5BKdJH02029 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 06:39:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from pp-xp [10.90.16.33] by mail.eduhi.at (SMTPD32-7.10) id AC7A2AFA0062; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 22:24:26 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster OSB To: BLML Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 22:26:10 +0200 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-Id: Subject: [BLML] HUM? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" X-Mailer: Opera 6.03 build 1107 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I am not sure I quite understand the last item making a system a HUM: d) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows ... (b) either length in one suit or length in another 1. It is quite common, in the context of a strong club system, to open some balanced hands with 1D, even on a doubleton. Therefore, it could be said that this 1D opening shows "length in diamonds or length in another suit" (as one of them has to be of more than two cards). Obviously, it was not the intention that this should make a system HUM. 2. If the meaning is to be "length in a specific other suit or suits", it would still make a strong club system where you open 1D on hands with a weak club suit a HUM. Is that what is intended? Regards, Petrus -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 07:55:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BLtLC02080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 07:55:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net ([213.35.62.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5BLtGH02076 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 07:55:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.114] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id onnyuaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:42:12 +0200 Message-ID: <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:42:06 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From Sven Pran: > This whole discussion has now IMO boiled down to a single question: > When disclosing the meaning of a call or an auction; shall the fact that > there is reason for some doubt be disclosed or concealed? In fact, I think one should also tell what the alternative meanings are, giving the opponents all the information they could possibly want. That way they can take the right action, if they disagree with the explanation, at their own risk though. But at least this allows for more boards not be directed. It also makes sence that as you have to guess about the meaning, and can be wrong, that at least the opponents can guess too, and right (they might even be certain that you're wrong - something that isn't covered (very well) by the laws). Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 08:01:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BM0s602096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:00:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5BM0mH02092 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:00:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mailing.poczta.interia.pl (mailing) with ESMTP id 076335FDA for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:47:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by rav.antivirus (Mailserver) with SMTP id 9E0BA5933 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:47:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 462A75BD5; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:43:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from miauczur-gbq01f (pd87.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl [213.76.39.87]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 8368F5C46 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:43:23 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:42:54 +0100 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Konrad Ciborowski Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis X-Mailer: Opera 5.01 build 840 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <20020611214323.8368F5C46@poczta.interia.pl> X-EMID: 56e40acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk 2002-06-11 13:11:19, Eric Landau wrote: >The "De Wael school", as we know well, disagrees. It believes that >whether you are confident or in doubt, you must pretend to be >confident, and accept the MI penalty when partner, not at all >unexpectedly, turns out to justify the secret doubt you have neglected >to disclose. In effect, it says that you must lie to the opponents, >and then take the penalty when your failure to tell the truth is >revealed. IMO, it makes a lot more sense to just tell the truth in the >first place. Say that the auction starts as in David Kent's post: 1S 1NT 2H 4C and I ask opener (no screens) what the 4C bid means. As an opponent I *very* much prefer to play against the dWs players. If they are on the same wavelength then I lose nothing - I know the meaning of my opponents' calls so I am sure that me & my partner are on the same wavelength, too. It gives me the comfort of playing. If the explanation is wrong then I know for sure that I will get redress for MI - if one opponent explains that 4C is a splinter while the explanation should really be "natural, fit showing" then this will be an easy case for the TD to rule. It also gives me the comfort of playing as I know I will get the full protection from the TD. What I don't like is when I receive an explanation full of ornaments like "We have never discussed this auction but have decided to play splinters in most situations and fit bids only in competition or by a passed hand. But I think that partner might think that the number of situations where a splinter occurs in a minor after a 1S-1N-2H start is much fewer than the number of times a fit bid would occur." Yes, it all may very well be true. But now I am not on the firm ground. I have to do *twice as much* of mental work because I have to work out what my best action might be in both cases. Do I want to double 4C for the lead if it is natural? What is more - I am no longer certain that I am not going to be told by some TD that my opponents have "fully disclosed" their agreements so I really wasn't damaged. Or that I should have protected myself by asking further questions. Or that I will pick one of the possibilities (say splinter) and go by that (say I double 4C) and then be told that I did something "irrational, wild or gambling". They redoubled and made 4Cxx? It was foolish of you to double 4C when you were told that it might have been natural. I believe in dWs because I very much prefer to play against a dWs pair that against a pair who gives me but-I-am-in-doubt explanations. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mamy dla ciebie pamiatke z Mundialu! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f15e8 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 08:09:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BM9Em02109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:09:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail5.nc.rr.com (fe5.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.52]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5BM98H02105 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:09:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail5.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:58:35 -0400 Received: from ncmx01.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.67.251]) by mail5.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:30:15 -0400 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by ncmx01.mgw.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5AJUEtH027803 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:30:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AJSJU00629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 05:28:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5AJSDH00625 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 05:28:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-4.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.4] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17HUdE-0003pA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:15:12 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:15:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <3D04F0A3.6040903@skynet.be> References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:32 PM 6/10/02, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>Of course, they are not entitled to know whether or not you are *in >>fact* in the process of having a misunderstanding on the deal at hand. >So why tell them that you are in doubt then ? Because being in doubt is a function of the state of your agreements, and you are obligated to tell them whatever you know about your agreements, which perforce includes whether or not they result in the meaning of a particular call being "in doubt" or not. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 08:11:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BMBQM02125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:11:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net ([213.35.62.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5BMBLH02121 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:11:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.114] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id trnyuaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:58:15 +0200 Message-ID: <006101c21193$15519cd0$723f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] HUM? Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:58:12 +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: "Petrus Schuster OSB" > I am not sure I quite understand the last item making a > system a HUM: > > d) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one > level shows ... (b) either length in one suit or length in > another I quite agree, it is hard to understand. IMO, this line was added to prohibit systems, where for example 1D shows either hearts or spades. But in that case the rule was very poorly put into words. In any case I think it's a bad rule, because HUM system are about systems that are so difficult, that you can't come up with a reasonable defence in a reasonable time. If the opening bids are strong enough not be HUM, I don't see why you should prohibit systems based on how the strong hands are distributed over the one level. All those systems should be red. You might make an exception for systems that use some kind of encryption such as 1C shows either short or long clubs (0-1 or 5+) or 1D shows either both majors or both minors. I think the last lines of HUM description were meant for such systems, but then he law should siply state that encrypted opening bids are a HUM, with an example of encryption. Best regards Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 10:14:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5C0E0502216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:14:00 +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-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 g5C0DsH02212 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:13:55 +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 17HvZ9-000PVi-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:00:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 00:59:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! References: <20020609200225.C8D0A595E@poczta.interia.pl> <+DzOBDCQh9A9Ew6M@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <+DzOBDCQh9A9Ew6M@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 David Stevenson writes > Ok, let me ask you a problem, which I think I solved incorrectly over >the weekend. > > One of your colleagues gives a ruling in an event with complicated >hybrid scoring, and the Chief TD who is also the Chief Scorer calculates >its effect. The pair concerned has now moved into your section, so you >are now asked to tell them that the result of their match is now 5.5 - >5.5 VPs on a 10 scale, ie an unbalanced score. > > They tell you this is ridiculous. One of the players gets a bit >annoyed and asks how the opponents can get 5.5 after they gave them a >"thrashing". I say I shall ask the Chief Scorer and get back to them. > > He says it is a bit complex so easiest is if the players go and see >him when they get a chance and he will go through it with them. I also >see their opponents who point out that it was a close match not a >"thrashing" and was going to score 6 - 4 without the adjustment. The >Chief Scorer agrees with that. > > So I return to the player and tell him it was not a "thrashing" which >seems part of the explanation for the score of 5.5 - 5.5. > > Now he shouts [so the whole room hears] "You are lying: I never said a >'thrashing': this ruling is totally unfair: you are just ruling this way >in favour of your chums." > > I was somewhat annoyed. What do you think I should have done at that >moment with the player in front of me, shouting, calling me a liar, and >so on? I think I got it wrong. > > > > As far as the facts are concerned [if they are relevant] I gave no >ruling of any sort originally: I was just the messenger. I did not >really like their opponents much! The two opponents at the table when I >first spoke to them came to me and said they would be happy to give >evidence that he had used the word "thrashing". Ok, very sensible answers. Now let me explain my problem. I have a player calling me a liar, telling me I am ruling in favour of my chums, and I am naturally annoyed. Let's be honest, I was *very* annoyed. Now my problem was this: I knew I was very annoyed, and I am not happy at the idea of giving a DP while I am very annoyed. I might cool off, and in about ten minutes think I only gave it because of bad temper. So I effectively told him to behave himself, and said I would come back to him later. Shortly afterwards, his partner apologised profusely for him. After I had cooled down and chatted to a colleague I realised that a disciplinary penalty of some sort was suitable. But now it seemed too late: if I go to him *now*, say half an hour later, I will be exacerbating a cool situation. So eventually I decided to let sleeping dogs lie, and he escaped unpunished. Comments? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 10:46:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5C0kHY02234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:46:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5C0kDH02230 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:46:13 +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 KAA05353 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:47:26 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:29:24 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:32:37 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 12/06/2002 10:29:08 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: [snip] >What I don't like is when I receive an >explanation full of ornaments like "We >have never discussed this auction but >have decided to play splinters in most >situations and fit bids only in >competition or by a passed hand. But I >think that partner might think that the >number of situations where a splinter >occurs in a minor after a 1S-1N-2H start >is much fewer than the number of times a >fit bid would occur." > >Yes, it all may very well be true. But >now I am not on the firm ground. I have >to do *twice as much* of mental work >because I have to work out what my best >action might be in both cases. [snip] You are entitled to be on firm ground when the opponents have a firm agreement. If one or both of the opponents have forgotten their firm agreement, L75 entitles you to still firmly know what the opponent(s) temporarily do not know. *But* ... Law does not require that opponents must have firm agreements, or indeed any agreements. Nor does Law require opponents to state that their firm agreement is X, when their actual non-agreement is either X or Y. For example, in his book "Win the Bermuda Bowl With Me", Jeff Meckstroth revealed how in an undiscussed auction he bid 4NT, hoping that it would be assumed by his partner to be Blackwood. Eric Rodwell, however, thought that the logical meaning of this undiscussed 4NT was natural, so passed. The De Wael/Ciborowski school would have required Meckstroth to explain 4NT to his screenmate as Blackwood, and Rodwell explain 4NT to his screenmate as natural. The Landau/Hills school would have required both Meckstroth and Rodwell explain 4NT to their screenmates as "Undiscussed". Which school creates unnecessary MI? 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 Jun 12 12:24:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5C2NGO02287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:23:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5C2NCH02283 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:23:12 +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 MAA25047 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:24:31 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:06:28 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:09:40 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 12/06/2002 12:06:13 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [big snip] >After I had cooled down and chatted to a colleague >I realised that a disciplinary penalty of some sort >was suitable. But now it seemed too late: if I go >to him *now*, say half an hour later, I will be >exacerbating a cool situation. So eventually I >decided to let sleeping dogs lie, and he escaped >unpunished. > > Comments? > >-- >David Stevenson This sort of situation is why the Recorder system has been adopted in national ABF events and many Australian clubs. A quiet word by the TD with the Recorder would not exacerbate a cool situation, and would make sure that a serial offender would eventually receive justice. If the WBU and/or EBU have not yet adopted the Recorder system, then David could speak with the-powers-that-be, using this example as an argument in the Recorder system's favour. 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 Jun 12 14:10:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5C4A1N02339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:10:01 +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 g5C49tH02335 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:09:56 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5C3ujH02110 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:56:45 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200206120356.g5C3ujH02110@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:56:45 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Jun 12, 2002 12:59:10 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 Okay, I understand your situation. What I would have done (and have done in similar situations) is ask the player to behave themselves and that I'll get back to them. I then immediately go and consult with another TD and present the facts and consult with them about whether or not a DP is in order. If I get a concurrence from the other TD, at the next opportunity, I award the DP, if not, then I leave sleeping dogs lie. In the ACBL, it is quite appropriate for a director to file a recorder form about a player. In your incident, once you had the situation cooled down, I agree that it was too late, the situation had cooled and there was no reason to incite another incident, but the player should not have gotten off scot free and a recorder form should have been filed. -Ted. > Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 00:59:10 +0100 > From: David Stevenson > > Ok, very sensible answers. Now let me explain my problem. I have a > player calling me a liar, telling me I am ruling in favour of my chums, > and I am naturally annoyed. Let's be honest, I was *very* annoyed. > > Now my problem was this: I knew I was very annoyed, and I am not happy > at the idea of giving a DP while I am very annoyed. I might cool off, > and in about ten minutes think I only gave it because of bad temper. > > So I effectively told him to behave himself, and said I would come > back to him later. Shortly afterwards, his partner apologised profusely > for him. > > After I had cooled down and chatted to a colleague I realised that a > disciplinary penalty of some sort was suitable. But now it seemed too > late: if I go to him *now*, say half an hour later, I will be > exacerbating a cool situation. So eventually I decided to let sleeping > dogs lie, and he escaped unpunished. > > Comments? > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 17:13:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5C7CF702411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:12:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5C7C9H02407 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:12:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3186.bb.online.no [80.212.220.114]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA03063 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:58:59 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001101c211de$a0792120$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <20020609200225.C8D0A595E@poczta.interia.pl> <+DzOBDCQh9A9Ew6M@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:58:54 +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" ....... > Ok, very sensible answers. Now let me explain my problem. I have a > player calling me a liar, telling me I am ruling in favour of my chums, > and I am naturally annoyed. Let's be honest, I was *very* annoyed. > > Now my problem was this: I knew I was very annoyed, and I am not happy > at the idea of giving a DP while I am very annoyed. I might cool off, > and in about ten minutes think I only gave it because of bad temper. > > So I effectively told him to behave himself, and said I would come > back to him later. Shortly afterwards, his partner apologised profusely > for him. > > After I had cooled down and chatted to a colleague I realised that a > disciplinary penalty of some sort was suitable. But now it seemed too > late: if I go to him *now*, say half an hour later, I will be > exacerbating a cool situation. So eventually I decided to let sleeping > dogs lie, and he escaped unpunished. > > Comments? The way you handled this - I don't think you had any other choice EXCEPT: (on afterthought) You could have considered yourself too involved to handle the case and done exactly what we suggest players to do when they feel there is an infraction of law 74: Call the Director! But you were the Director? Not the only one as I understand you. What do you think about immediately involving the chief Director and let him handle the case while the temperature was on top on the reason that you were too upset to handle it yourself? (And I think in the actual case a report to your SO might have been in order even with no DP given on the scene) regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 17:54:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5C7sR702430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:54:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe69.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.204]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5C7sLH02426 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:54:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 00:41:12 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [206.215.202.95] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <20020609200225.C8D0A595E@poczta.interia.pl><+DzOBDCQh9A9Ew6M@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 02:43:03 -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: 12 Jun 2002 07:41:12.0533 (UTC) FILETIME=[866D7050:01C211E4] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 18:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! > David Stevenson writes > > > Ok, let me ask you a problem, which I think I solved incorrectly over > >the weekend. > > > > One of your colleagues gives a ruling in an event with complicated > >hybrid scoring, and the Chief TD who is also the Chief Scorer calculates > >its effect. The pair concerned has now moved into your section, so you > >are now asked to tell them that the result of their match is now 5.5 - > >5.5 VPs on a 10 scale, ie an unbalanced score. > > > > They tell you this is ridiculous. One of the players gets a bit > >annoyed and asks how the opponents can get 5.5 after they gave them a > >"thrashing". I say I shall ask the Chief Scorer and get back to them. > > > > He says it is a bit complex so easiest is if the players go and see > >him when they get a chance and he will go through it with them. I also > >see their opponents who point out that it was a close match not a > >"thrashing" and was going to score 6 - 4 without the adjustment. The > >Chief Scorer agrees with that. > > > > So I return to the player and tell him it was not a "thrashing" which > >seems part of the explanation for the score of 5.5 - 5.5. > > > > Now he shouts [so the whole room hears] "You are lying: I never said a > >'thrashing': this ruling is totally unfair: you are just ruling this way > >in favour of your chums." > > > > I was somewhat annoyed. What do you think I should have done at that > >moment with the player in front of me, shouting, calling me a liar, and > >so on? I think I got it wrong. > > > > > > > > As far as the facts are concerned [if they are relevant] I gave no > >ruling of any sort originally: I was just the messenger. I did not > >really like their opponents much! The two opponents at the table when I > >first spoke to them came to me and said they would be happy to give > >evidence that he had used the word "thrashing". > > Ok, very sensible answers. Now let me explain my problem. I have a > player calling me a liar, telling me I am ruling in favour of my chums, > and I am naturally annoyed. Let's be honest, I was *very* annoyed. > > Now my problem was this: I knew I was very annoyed, and I am not happy > at the idea of giving a DP while I am very annoyed. I might cool off, > and in about ten minutes think I only gave it because of bad temper. > > So I effectively told him to behave himself, and said I would come > back to him later. Shortly afterwards, his partner apologised profusely > for him. > > After I had cooled down and chatted to a colleague I realised that a > disciplinary penalty of some sort was suitable. But now it seemed too > late: if I go to him *now*, say half an hour later, I will be > exacerbating a cool situation. So eventually I decided to let sleeping > dogs lie, and he escaped unpunished. > > Comments? > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ David, If I were in the same situation I probably would have issued one or more disciplinary reductions in score. Most likely failing to get the punishment to fit the crime. But by doing so an immediate and powerful message would be sent. However, upon reflection once the director has become one of the primary parties the matter needs to rest in the hands of others. In this case the contestant needs to be informed that he has accused you of the unethical conduct of lying and the unethical conduct of cheating by improper use of office. That such charges are taken seriously and that a conduct hearing will be held where he must give evidence substantiating the charges. Also advise him that he has committed the offense of making the charges in an improper and public forum and he must give good reason at the hearing for doing so. I think it would be helpful in addition to ask everyone to take thirty seconds to settle down and give their best effort for the rest of the event. 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 Jun 12 19:14:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5C9DQf02471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:13:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5C9DGH02467 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:13:17 +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 KAA19450; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:58:20 +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 KAA29532; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:59:59 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020612110356.00ab4d60@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:07:22 +0200 To: Lino =?iso-8859-1?Q?Tralh=E3o?= , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Your call (judgment case) In-Reply-To: <000101c21171$5aa90c40$0200a8c0@torre> References: <000001c2115f$adf253a0$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> 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 g5C9DMH02468 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 18:56 11/06/2002 +0100, Lino Tralhão wrote: >In my opinion the meaning of the 3Sp call have paramount importance. >Usually, in forcing game situations 3Sp is stronger than 4Sp (or any >other game bid). In this hypothesis (3Sp very strong by the system, as >is usual -- but more information about the system this pair play is >pertinent), the opener "knows" the possibility of the slam by the 3sp >bid and NOT by the break in tempo before the 4Sp bid. So the slam try is >not a "logical alternative one that could DEMONSTRABLY have been >suggested over another by the" break in tempo. Had the opener passed >over the 4Sp bid and ... may be ... we could have a case. > If 3sp have the usual meaning, I would maintain the result. AG : IBTD. Even if the 3S bid is not a clear slam try in these methods (it could be made on a hand that doesn't know whether to play in NT or S), even if the players are able to prove it via their CC or system notes ("general use of fast arrival" would be enough),.5S may be in some jeopardy. Could you tell me why responder can't hold xxx - xx - AKQJx - KQx ? I therefore maintain the opinion that passing 4S is a LA. 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 Jun 12 19:26:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5C9PhQ02487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:25:43 +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 (resulb.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5C9PbH02483 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:25:38 +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 LAA15358; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:10:04 +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 LAA13403; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:12:30 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020612111150.00ab58d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:19:54 +0200 To: Petrus Schuster OSB , BLML From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] HUM? 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 22:26 11/06/2002 +0200, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >I am not sure I quite understand the last item making a >system a HUM: > >d) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one >level shows ... (b) either length in one suit or length in >another > >1. It is quite common, in the context of a strong club >system, to open some balanced hands with 1D, even on a >doubleton. Therefore, it could be said that this 1D opening >shows "length in diamonds or length in another suit" (as one >of them has to be of more than two cards). Obviously, it was >not the intention that this should make a system HUM. > >2. If the meaning is to be "length in a specific other suit >or suits", it would still make a strong club system where >you open 1D on hands with a weak club suit a HUM. Is that >what is intended? AG : the meaning is to eliminate systems where 1D would mean eg. 5+ D or S and 1H would mean 5+ C or H. The sense of a 1D bid in a strong club system (or the other way round) doesn't make it a HUM when it only is "any hand worth an opening bid that doesn't fit into any other opening" (what theorists call a residual bid), as is often the case. It could well translate into "5+ D or C" (if playing 12-15 NT ant 3-suited 2C for example), but it explicitly doesn't make it a HUM. A one bid that shows length in a specific suit (even if it is not the named suit) or strength doesn't make it a HUM either : eg 1C meaning "17+ unbalanced or 10-12 with 5+ hearts" is only a red system. It was accepted as such by Belgian and Dutch authorities. I feel, however, than the Roman 1D opening (11-22, any 5+ suit without a side 4-card major) should be treated as more artificial than a residual bid, buth several authorities have decided otherwise. 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 Jun 12 20:52:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5CAjSw02527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:45:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5CAjLH02523 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:45:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (80-200-6-112.adsl.powered-by.skynet.be [80.200.6.112]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5CAWDY26447 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:32:13 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:33:48 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Tom, we should have a private meeting as well. Tom Cornelis wrote: >>From Sven Pran: > >>This whole discussion has now IMO boiled down to a single question: >>When disclosing the meaning of a call or an auction; shall the fact that >>there is reason for some doubt be disclosed or concealed? >> > > In fact, I think one should also tell what the alternative meanings are, > giving the opponents all the information they could possibly want. That way > they can take the right action, if they disagree with the explanation, at > their own risk though. But at least this allows for more boards not be > directed. So you are saying that it is somehow better for the game of bridge if players start to disbelieve their opponents and take action based on the opposite of what they are told ? Don't forget that partner has also heard the double explanation, and may not be aware that you can work out it's the second alternative. He believes you are bidding on the first meaning and you might end up in a bad score. And all this, as you correctly say, at their own risk. > It also makes sence that as you have to guess about the meaning, and can be > wrong, that at least the opponents can guess too, and right (they might even > be certain that you're wrong - something that isn't covered (very well) by > the laws). > Yes, but the laws do handle quite well that you guess wrong. Whether or not the opponent guesses right is not needed in the laws. > Best regards, > > Tom. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 12 20:54:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5CAqWd02540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:52:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5CAqQH02536 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:52:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (80-200-6-112.adsl.powered-by.skynet.be [80.200.6.112]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5CAdFZ02004 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:39:15 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D072532.7020606@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:40:50 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611115706.00aeac00@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 10:47 AM 6/11/02, Herman wrote: > > > > L75C requires a player to "disclose all special information conveyed to > him through partnership agreement or partnership experience". When > partner makes a call, you are either sufficiently confident to proceed > on the assumption that it means what you hope/expect it to mean, or > sufficiently in doubt to allow for the possibility that it is not, > depending on those aspects of your "partnership agreement[s] or > partnership experience" which are relevant. Your opponents are entitled > to the same [relevant] knowledge of "partnership agreement or > partnership experience" that you will use in choosing your subsequent > actions. > > The fact that a particular convention was invented on a Saturday cannot > be relevant to your -- or your opponents! -- subsequent choice of > actions, and need not be disclosed *for that reason*. > Well, since I have already admitted that one should express the doubt if it influences ones own further actions, how can there still be a *reason* for disclosing it if it's not? > The "De Wael school", as we know well, disagrees. It believes that > whether you are confident or in doubt, you must pretend to be confident, > and accept the MI penalty when partner, not at all unexpectedly, turns > out to justify the secret doubt you have neglected to disclose. In > effect, it says that you must lie to the opponents, and then take the > penalty when your failure to tell the truth is revealed. IMO, it makes > a lot more sense to just tell the truth in the first place. > YOU are the one that says that not telling you're in doubt is lying. I'm saying that it is exactly as relevant as revealing that the convention was invented on a saturday. And don't say that it is more relevant to opponents. That is just repeating that it helps them. That is not the same as saying that they are entitled to the information. If I tell my LHO that I have the Queen of trumps, that is very nice of me, but I don't have to. Would you call not saying that I have the trump queen "lying"? So please don't use this argument. Try and find me an argument that says that I am legally obliged to express my doubts. > As we've said several times already in this thread, we have had this > discussion before. > And we have gotten nowhere still. Is anyone else interested in telling Eric that he's wrong ? > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 12 20:55:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5CAsW402561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:54:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5CAsQH02555 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:54:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (80-200-6-112.adsl.powered-by.skynet.be [80.200.6.112]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5CAfGH07629 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:41:16 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D0725AB.6090207@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:42:51 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <110602162.30614@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: > Herman wrote: > > >>What if A intends his bid to show hand X, and B explains it >> > as hand Y, but actually undiscussed. At the end of the hand, > A produces a piece of logic explaining why his undiscussed bid > does in fact show X. Is there MI? > Uhmm, sorry David. I meant that A actually holds hand X. > Yes. Unless A produces a piece of paper, rather than a piece > of logic, to support his contention that the bid shows hand X, > then one proceeds as if the bid did not in fact show hand X. > > You have misinformed your opponents if you have told them that > a bid corresponds to hand X when it is made with a hand that > is not-X, unless you can show beyond doubt that the bid does > indeed (in your methods) correspond to hand X and has been made > by mistake (or as a deliberate departure from an agreement). > > That isn't "the more difficult bit". That's the even easier bit. > > 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/ > > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 12 21:03:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5CB2uU02603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:02:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5CB2nH02599 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:02:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (80-200-6-112.adsl.powered-by.skynet.be [80.200.6.112]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5CAngH19660 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:49:42 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D0727A6.4020006@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:51:18 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis 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.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > [snip] > Thanks Conrad, for the support. > >>What I don't like is when I receive an >>explanation full of ornaments like "We >>have never discussed this auction but >>have decided to play splinters in most >>situations and fit bids only in >>competition or by a passed hand. But I >>think that partner might think that the >>number of situations where a splinter >>occurs in a minor after a 1S-1N-2H start >>is much fewer than the number of times a >>fit bid would occur." >> >>Yes, it all may very well be true. But >>now I am not on the firm ground. I have >>to do *twice as much* of mental work >>because I have to work out what my best >>action might be in both cases. >> > > [snip] > > You are entitled to be on firm ground > when the opponents have a firm agreement. > Very nice statement, Richard, and very unhelpful, since we are actually talking of opponents who are not on firm ground. > If one or both of the opponents have > forgotten their firm agreement, L75 > entitles you to still firmly know what the > opponent(s) temporarily do not know. > Very good. > *But* ... > > Law does not require that opponents must > have firm agreements, or indeed any > agreements. > Indeed. But the same law also says that the TD is to assume misinformation unless proof can be provided. When a pair is not on firm ground, does that not mean that MI is almost always the ruling ? > Nor does Law require opponents to state > that their firm agreement is X, when their > actual non-agreement is either X or Y. > > For example, in his book "Win the Bermuda > Bowl With Me", Jeff Meckstroth revealed > how in an undiscussed auction he bid > 4NT, hoping that it would be assumed by > his partner to be Blackwood. > > Eric Rodwell, however, thought that the > logical meaning of this undiscussed 4NT > was natural, so passed. > > The De Wael/Ciborowski school would have > required Meckstroth to explain 4NT to his > screenmate as Blackwood, and Rodwell > explain 4NT to his screenmate as natural. > Which is what they thought it was. > The Landau/Hills school would have > required both Meckstroth and Rodwell > explain 4NT to their screenmates as > "Undiscussed". > Which is totally unhelpful. > Which school creates unnecessary MI? > Well, the second one creates no I at all, so the Laws say this is MI. The first one gives correct I to one player, at least. > 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/ > > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 12 21:16:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5CBFhU02635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:15:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5CBFbH02631 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:15:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.100] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id wgyyuaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:02:28 +0200 Message-ID: <001701c21200$a3de9ad0$643f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:02:27 +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 > The De Wael/Ciborowski school would have > required Meckstroth to explain 4NT to his > screenmate as Blackwood, and Rodwell > explain 4NT to his screenmate as natural. > > The Landau/Hills school would have > required both Meckstroth and Rodwell > explain 4NT to their screenmates as > "Undiscussed". > > Which school creates unnecessary MI? They both do. Meckstroth should explain 4NT as intended Blackwood but actually undiscussed. Rodwell should explain 4NT as undiscussed, interpreting as natural. Mind that without screens there will be of course UI available to Meckstroth as Rodwell explains. With this approach, the opponents know as much as possible. They won't know what happens on the other side of the screen, but they can base their actions rightfully on the explanation on their side of the screen. This way there is as little room as possible for MI. Best regards. Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 22:25:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5CCPMV02763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 22:25:22 +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 g5CCPEH02759 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 22:25:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-17.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.17] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17I6yu-0001ms-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:12:08 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020612080123.00aa8860@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:11:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <20020611214323.8368F5C46@poczta.interia.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:42 PM 6/11/02, Konrad wrote: >2002-06-11 13:11:19, Eric Landau wrote: > > >The "De Wael school", as we know well, disagrees. It believes that > >whether you are confident or in doubt, you must pretend to be > >confident, and accept the MI penalty when partner, not at all > >unexpectedly, turns out to justify the secret doubt you have neglected > >to disclose. In effect, it says that you must lie to the opponents, > >and then take the penalty when your failure to tell the truth is > >revealed. IMO, it makes a lot more sense to just tell the truth in the > >first place. > >Say that the auction starts as in David Kent's post: > >1S 1NT >2H 4C > >and I ask opener (no screens) what the 4C >bid means. > >As an opponent I *very* much prefer to play against the >dWs players. If they are on the same wavelength then >I lose nothing - I know the meaning of my opponents' calls >so I am sure that me & my partner are on the same >wavelength, too. It gives me the comfort of playing. > >If the explanation is wrong then I know for sure that >I will get redress for MI - if one opponent explains >that 4C is a splinter while the explanation should >really be "natural, fit showing" then this will >be an easy case for the TD to rule. >It also gives me the comfort of playing as >I know I will get the full protection from the TD. Think about that. If they are on the same wavelength, you lose nothing, while if they are not on the same wavelength you will get redress. Exactly. So how is that different from it being an infraction for them to not be on the same wavelength? Of course you like it -- every time you play against confused opponents, and they fail to give you a good score, you will be happy when the TD gives you a good score instead. >What I don't like is when I receive an explanation >full of ornaments like "We have never discussed this >auction but have decided to play splinters in most >situations and fit bids only in competition or by a >passed hand. But I think that partner might think >that the number of situations where a splinter occurs in a >minor after a 1S-1N-2H start is much fewer than the number >of times a fit bid would occur." Indeed. Sometimes when we ask a question and get a complete and truthful answer, we don't like it. >Yes, it all may very well be true. But now I am not >on the firm ground. You are not entitled to firm ground. You are entitled to ground that's as firm for you as for your opponents, no more, no less. >I have to do *twice as much* of >mental work because I have to work out what >my best action might be in both cases. Do I want >to double 4C for the lead if it is natural? >What is more - I am no longer certain that I am >not going to be told by some TD that my opponents >have "fully disclosed" their agreements so I really >wasn't damaged. Or that I should have >protected myself by asking further questions. >Or that I will pick one of the possibilities (say splinter) >and go by that (say I double 4C) and then be told that I did >something "irrational, wild or gambling". >They redoubled and made 4Cxx? >It was foolish of you to double 4C when you were >told that it might have been natural. Bridge does present some challenging problems at the table, eh? >I believe in dWs because I very much prefer to >play against a dWs pair that against a pair who >gives me but-I-am-in-doubt explanations. As would anyone who usually plays in experienced, established partnerships. But the laws are for the LOLs who go to the partnership desk too. 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 Jun 12 22:44:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5CCiGa02792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 22:44:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5CCiBH02788 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 22:44:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-17.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.17] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17I7HG-0004uu-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:31:06 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020612082432.00aab800@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:31:25 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! In-Reply-To: <200206120356.g5C3ujH02110@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:56 PM 6/11/02, Ted wrote: >Okay, I understand your situation. What I would have done (and >have done in similar situations) is ask the player to behave themselves >and that I'll get back to them. I then immediately go and consult >with another TD and present the facts and consult with them about >whether or not a DP is in order. If I get a concurrence from the >other TD, at the next opportunity, I award the DP, if not, then I >leave sleeping dogs lie. ISTM that DPs are far more effective when imposed summarily upon the infraction, which is why L91A gives the TD the power to do so, and with authority ("the Director's decision... is final"). The TD needs to be able to credibly say to an unruly player something along the lines of, "One more word out of you and you'll be penalized half a board." "One more word out of you and I'll be off to ask someone else whether I can give you a penalty" just doesn't hack it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 00:57:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5CEvLH02895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 00:57:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m04.mx.aol.com (imo-m04.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5CEvGH02888 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 00:57:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from RomitoDini@aol.com by imo-m04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id 7.122.128c0d40 (3940) for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:43:52 -0400 (EDT) From: RomitoDini@aol.com Message-ID: <122.128c0d40.2a38b828@aol.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:43:52 EDT Subject: [BLML] (no subject) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_122.128c0d40.2a38b828_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10516 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_122.128c0d40.2a38b828_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit bridge laws mailing list --part1_122.128c0d40.2a38b828_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit bridge laws mailing list --part1_122.128c0d40.2a38b828_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 Jun 13 03:35:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5CHYE403035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 03:34:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5CHY9H03031 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 03:34:10 +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 g5CHL1D21803; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:21:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:13:58 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3D0727A6.4020006@skynet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/12/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >But the same law also says that the TD is to assume misinformation >unless proof can be provided. No, it doesn't. It says "evidence". Evidence is not proof. 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 Jun 13 04:03:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5CI3S603063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 04:03:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5CI3NH03059 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 04:03:24 +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 g5CHo1f14919 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:50:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:27:34 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <001701c21200$a3de9ad0$643f23d5@cornelis> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/12/02, Tom Cornelis wrote: >They both do. Meckstroth should explain 4NT as intended Blackwood but >actually undiscussed. Rodwell should explain 4NT as undiscussed, >interpreting as natural. Mind that without screens there will be of >course UI available to Meckstroth as Rodwell explains. With this >approach, the opponents know as much as possible. They won't know what >happens on the other side of the screen, but they can base their >actions rightfully on the explanation on their side of the screen. >This way there is as little room as possible for MI. The bid is undiscussed. If the basis of Meckstroth's hope is other agreements in their system or partnership experience, then Meckstroth should explain those agreemeentnts or that experience. If the basis is "general bridge knowledge" he isn't required to provide that knowledge. "Undiscussed" is appropriate; I'm still on the fence regarding "intended as Blackwood", but I lean toward including it. Similarly, if Rodwell is basing his conclusion on partnership agreements or experience, he should explain those. If not, he need, imo, say no more than "undiscussed". I think it was David Burn who argued that there will *always* be some element of partnership experience involved, but I'm not sure I buy that (not sure I don't, either :). Why might Meckstroth include his intention, but not Rodwell his interpretation? Simply because the intention is definite and known to Meckstroth*. Rodwell's interpretation is his best guess, he really doesn't *know*. And if the basis of the guess is general bridge knowledge, then either the opponents have that same knowledge and can reach the same conclusion, or they are ignorant in an area in which the explaining side is *not* required to enlighten them. As for the UI created by Rodwell's explanation absent screens, it is probably irrelevant in this case, because Rodwell is going to pass, and that's likely to end the auction. *I suppose one could argue that if the intention is based on "general bridge knowledge", opponents ought to be able to work it out, in which case simply "undiscussed" is enough. 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 Jun 13 04:13:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5CIDJ603080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 04:13:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail32.hq.webvisie.net [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5CIDEH03076 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 04:13:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.116] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id iajzuaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:00:07 +0200 Message-ID: <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:00:05 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > So you are saying that it is somehow better for the game of bridge if > players start to disbelieve their opponents and take action based on > the opposite of what they are told ? That's my point: they don't have take action based on the opposite of what they're told, because there's no opposite. But they can disbelieve their opponents and therefore take the right action, if they have a clear view of what's happening. It's more difficult to understand the bidding of your opponents if they say 'undiscussed' or give a specific explanation, but a wrong one. In the first case you are poorly protected by Law IMO. In the second case Law protects you very well, but hte protection isn't always needed. E.g. 1) North explains South's bid as undiscussed. East or West are more likely to take the wrong action, because you have less information. I'm not 100% sure, but I think this case is poorly protected by Law, also because it's being discussed here. 2) N explains Bid X having meaning A, but actually it had meaning B. You are protected, but given your hand, you might know it has meaning B, but you must act as if it had meaning A. 3) N explains X as undiscussed, either meaning A or B, guessing it to be A (no required by full disclosure, as it's undiscussed) If you're sure it's B, you can take the right action now, not needing protection by law. If you're not sure, you need protection, and you have because you can assume also meaning A. > Don't forget that partner has also heard the double explanation, and > may not be aware that you can work out it's the second alternative. He > believes you are bidding on the first meaning and you might end up in > a bad score. And all this, as you correctly say, at their own risk. You can still believe the opponents if you're not willing to take the risk. At least both you and your partner are on better footing, given a correct explanation, which really reveils what's happening ('undiscussed' therefore doubt) and gives some kind of meaningful explanation (A or B, but guessing A). > > It also makes sence that as you have to guess about the meaning, and can be > > wrong, that at least the opponents can guess too, and right (they might even > > be certain that you're wrong - something that isn't covered (very well) by > > the laws). > > > > Yes, but the laws do handle quite well that you guess wrong. Whether > or not the opponent guesses right is not needed in the laws. > My point is that fewer TD decisions will have to be made, not that Law doesn't handle it. It certainly is the spirit of Law, that problems are fixed as well as possible, not to punish a pair or even to require as many TD decisions as possible. I also think it's in the spirit of full disclosure, though such an explanation is not required by it. It should be required though. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 04:16:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5CIGjm03094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 04:16:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5CIGeH03090 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 04:16:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5CI3Tn08575 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:03:29 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200206121803.g5CI3Tn08575@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:03:29 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Eric Landau" at Jun 12, 2002 08:31:25 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:31:25 -0400 > From: Eric Landau > > At 11:56 PM 6/11/02, Ted wrote: > > >Okay, I understand your situation. What I would have done (and > >have done in similar situations) is ask the player to behave themselves > >and that I'll get back to them. I then immediately go and consult > >with another TD and present the facts and consult with them about > >whether or not a DP is in order. If I get a concurrence from the > >other TD, at the next opportunity, I award the DP, if not, then I > >leave sleeping dogs lie. > > ISTM that DPs are far more effective when imposed summarily upon the > infraction, which is why L91A gives the TD the power to do so, and with > authority ("the Director's decision... is final"). The TD needs to be > able to credibly say to an unruly player something along the lines of, > "One more word out of you and you'll be penalized half a board." "One > more word out of you and I'll be off to ask someone else whether I can > give you a penalty" just doesn't hack it. > TY: In most instances, I would agree with you. And I typically do issue such a warning or penalty, but not when I stand as one of the accused. In this instance, the TD on the floor has become one of the participants by being accused of improper behavior. An immediate DP looks retributive rather than penalizing. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 06:42:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5CKfNo03150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 06:41:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5CKfHH03146 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 06:41:18 +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 g5CKU4x31560 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:30:04 +0100 Message-ID: <$Uf4JiBgQ4B9EwCH@asimere.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:25:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <001701c21200$a3de9ad0$643f23d5@cornelis> In-Reply-To: <001701c21200$a3de9ad0$643f23d5@cornelis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <001701c21200$a3de9ad0$643f23d5@cornelis>, Tom Cornelis writes >> The De Wael/Ciborowski school would have >> required Meckstroth to explain 4NT to his >> screenmate as Blackwood, and Rodwell >> explain 4NT to his screenmate as natural. >> >> The Landau/Hills school would have >> required both Meckstroth and Rodwell >> explain 4NT to their screenmates as >> "Undiscussed". >> >> Which school creates unnecessary MI? > >They both do. >Meckstroth should explain 4NT as intended Blackwood but actually >undiscussed. >Rodwell should explain 4NT as undiscussed, interpreting as natural. >Mind that without screens there will be of course UI available to Meckstroth >as Rodwell explains. It should be explained as "He won't have a clue - he'll have to decide between BW and Natural" on both sides. There is NO MI, and NO UI. >With this approach, the opponents know as much as possible. >They won't know what happens on the other side of the screen, but they can >base their actions rightfully on the explanation on their side of the >screen. >This way there is as little room as possible for MI. > >Best regards. > >Tom. > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Jun 13 09:02:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5CN1BQ03227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:01:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5CN16H03223 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:01:06 +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 g5CMluD29425; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:47:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:22:41 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: "John (MadDog) Probst" cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <$Uf4JiBgQ4B9EwCH@asimere.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/12/02, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >It should be explained as "He won't have a clue - he'll have to decide >between BW and Natural" on both sides. There is NO MI, and NO UI. There ya go. :-) 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 Jun 13 10:31:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5D0UOs03274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:30:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g5D0UGH03266 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:30:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.61.26] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17IIIK-000IEB-00; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 01:16:56 +0100 Message-ID: <000501c2126f$f6993220$1a3de150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3D0727A6.4020006@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 00:47:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:51 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > Very nice statement, Richard, and very unhelpful, since we are > actually talking of opponents who are not on firm ground. > +=+ ..... and whom some would wish under firm ground. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 10:31:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5D0UNi03273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:30:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5D0UFH03265 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:30:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.61.26] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17IIII-000IEB-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 01:16:55 +0100 Message-ID: <000401c2126f$f5850300$1a3de150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <110602162.23799@webbox.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 00:45:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 2:36 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > There are 128,745,650,347,030,683,120,231,926,111,609,371,363,122,697,557 > possible auctions, and I expect that some pairs may not quite > have discussed all of them. The number of auctions in which > insufficient bids occur is of course infinite. > +=+ I suspect this last is not an accurate statement. Incalculable, perhaps, although with today's science even this seems unlikely. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 10:46:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5D0jXg03297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:45:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5D0jSH03293 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:45:28 +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 KAA10192 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:46:46 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:28:40 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:31:54 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 13/06/2002 10:28:24 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] I wrote: >>Law does not require that opponents must >>have firm agreements, or indeed any >>agreements. Herman De Wael replied: >Indeed. > >But the same law also says that the TD is >to assume misinformation unless proof can >be provided. When a pair is not on firm >ground, does that not mean that MI is >almost always the ruling? "Almost always" is an overstatement. If there is a genuine non-agreement, evidence that the non-agreement exists can often be produced. [snip] >>The De Wael/Ciborowski school would have >>required Meckstroth to explain 4NT to his >>screenmate as Blackwood, and Rodwell >>explain 4NT to his screenmate as natural. >Which is what they thought it was. What an individual "thinks" is not Lawfully relevant. What is relevant, and must be explained to the opponents under L75 is what the *partnership* has implicitly or explicitly agreed. >>The Landau/Hills school would have >>required both Meckstroth and Rodwell >>explain 4NT to their screenmates as >>"Undiscussed". >Which is totally unhelpful. Leading an ace against 7NT is totally unhelpful to declarer, but is currently permitted under the Laws. :-) >>Which school creates unnecessary MI? >Well, the second one creates no I at all, >so the Laws say this is MI. Logical disagreement. Correctly informing the opponents that for a particular call there is zero partnership agreement is *not* the same as giving zero information to the opponents. >The first one gives correct I to one >player, at least. Another logical disagreement. Incorrectly informing the opponents that a partnership agreement exists (when it does not) is *always* MI, even if partner's hand fortuitously happens to correspond to the explanation. L75 gives an entitlement to know about the other side's *agreements*, not the other side's *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 Jun 13 11:11:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5D1Awq03315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:10:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail7.nc.rr.com (fe7.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5D1AqH03311 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:10:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail7.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:36:52 -0400 Received: from ncmx01.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.67.251]) by mail7.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:28:52 -0400 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by ncmx01.mgw.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5CCSpbC026392 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:28:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5CCPMV02763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 22:25:22 +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 g5CCPEH02759 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 22:25:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-17.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.17] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17I6yu-0001ms-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:12:08 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020612080123.00aa8860@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:11:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <20020611214323.8368F5C46@poczta.interia.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:42 PM 6/11/02, Konrad wrote: >2002-06-11 13:11:19, Eric Landau wrote: > > >The "De Wael school", as we know well, disagrees. It believes that > >whether you are confident or in doubt, you must pretend to be > >confident, and accept the MI penalty when partner, not at all > >unexpectedly, turns out to justify the secret doubt you have neglected > >to disclose. In effect, it says that you must lie to the opponents, > >and then take the penalty when your failure to tell the truth is > >revealed. IMO, it makes a lot more sense to just tell the truth in the > >first place. > >Say that the auction starts as in David Kent's post: > >1S 1NT >2H 4C > >and I ask opener (no screens) what the 4C >bid means. > >As an opponent I *very* much prefer to play against the >dWs players. If they are on the same wavelength then >I lose nothing - I know the meaning of my opponents' calls >so I am sure that me & my partner are on the same >wavelength, too. It gives me the comfort of playing. > >If the explanation is wrong then I know for sure that >I will get redress for MI - if one opponent explains >that 4C is a splinter while the explanation should >really be "natural, fit showing" then this will >be an easy case for the TD to rule. >It also gives me the comfort of playing as >I know I will get the full protection from the TD. Think about that. If they are on the same wavelength, you lose nothing, while if they are not on the same wavelength you will get redress. Exactly. So how is that different from it being an infraction for them to not be on the same wavelength? Of course you like it -- every time you play against confused opponents, and they fail to give you a good score, you will be happy when the TD gives you a good score instead. >What I don't like is when I receive an explanation >full of ornaments like "We have never discussed this >auction but have decided to play splinters in most >situations and fit bids only in competition or by a >passed hand. But I think that partner might think >that the number of situations where a splinter occurs in a >minor after a 1S-1N-2H start is much fewer than the number >of times a fit bid would occur." Indeed. Sometimes when we ask a question and get a complete and truthful answer, we don't like it. >Yes, it all may very well be true. But now I am not >on the firm ground. You are not entitled to firm ground. You are entitled to ground that's as firm for you as for your opponents, no more, no less. >I have to do *twice as much* of >mental work because I have to work out what >my best action might be in both cases. Do I want >to double 4C for the lead if it is natural? >What is more - I am no longer certain that I am >not going to be told by some TD that my opponents >have "fully disclosed" their agreements so I really >wasn't damaged. Or that I should have >protected myself by asking further questions. >Or that I will pick one of the possibilities (say splinter) >and go by that (say I double 4C) and then be told that I did >something "irrational, wild or gambling". >They redoubled and made 4Cxx? >It was foolish of you to double 4C when you were >told that it might have been natural. Bridge does present some challenging problems at the table, eh? >I believe in dWs because I very much prefer to >play against a dWs pair that against a pair who >gives me but-I-am-in-doubt explanations. As would anyone who usually plays in experienced, established partnerships. But the laws are for the LOLs who go to the partnership desk too. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 11:36:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5D1a7D03332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:36:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail7.nc.rr.com (fe7.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5D1a2H03328 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:36:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail7.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:51:21 -0400 Received: from ncmx01.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.67.251]) by mail7.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:11:04 -0400 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by ncmx01.mgw.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5BKB3bC014223 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:11:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BK5td02014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 06:05:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f91.law10.hotmail.com [64.4.15.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5BK5oH02010 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 06:05:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:52:42 -0700 Received: from 12.124.93.22 by lw10fd.law10.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 19:52:42 GMT X-Originating-IP: [12.124.93.22] From: "David Kent" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:52:42 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jun 2002 19:52:42.0476 (UTC) FILETIME=[8C7582C0:01C21181] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis >Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:16:52 -0700 > > >Eric wrote: > > >But this covers two very different cases. A bids something >with hand X, B proceeds as if A's bid had accurately described >some aspect of hand X, and then either (a) A continues on the >assumption that B has proceeded as if A's bid had accurately >described some aspect of hand X, or (b) A allows in his continuation >for the possibility that B has not proceeded as if A's bid had >accurately described some aspect of hand X. > >I'm not sure that I see these as "different cases". In a sequence >where A is showing hand X by making some call C1, B has made >some later call C2. Whether or not C2 is predicated on having >understood C1 or not, whether it is predicated on having remembered >the significance of C2 or not, does not matter. One merely asks >the same questions of C2 as one asked of C1: did A react to C2 >in a manner corresponding to a belief that C2 described some >aspect of B's hand, or not? If so, then C2 may be said to have >been made in accordance with the agreements of A and B; if not, >then not. > >I speak here, of course, only of the undocumented agreements >of A and B. If A and B can produce documentation to show that >the "systemic" meaning of a call Cn is X, then it is X. All statements >to the effect that it is not-X are misinformation. > >Put it this way. If at the end of an auction, both A and B are >unsurprised at the contents of one another's hands, and have >during the auction correctly described what has been shown of >one another's hands to the opponents, then - regardless of the >extent of their system documentation, the histrionics they may >have employed during the auction, their history of partnership >experience and peer-group discussion - they may be said to have >bid in accordance with their partnership agreements. If not, >then not, and any incorrect description of their hands given >to the opponents is misinformation, unless their documentation >explicitly states otherwise. > Imaginary Scenario: Playing in the Spingold in the round 16 (i.e. behind screens) with a good partner with whom you play about 10-15 session per year, but not your regular partner. So you pick up: Axxxx KQxxx x Kx and open 1S. Partner responds 1NT (forcing since you play 2/1) which you duly alert (or announce or whatever) and you bid 2H. Partner bids 4C which you alert. Your screenmate (your RHO) asks you what that means. Now you and your partner have never discussed this auction but have decided to play splinters in most situations and fit bids only in competition or by a passed hand. But you think that partner is good enough to realize that the number of situations that a splinter occurs in a minor after a 1S-1N-2H start is much fewer than the number of times a fit bid would occur. How do you answer the question? Assume you give the full explanation above (writing it down of course). Let's say you do decide to treat it as a fit bid, so you bid RKCB (since x Axxxx xx AQxxx makes slam almost laydown). Partner duly shows 2 key cards and you bid slam. A diamond is led and dummy tracks with xx Jxxx A AQxxxx; Hearts split 3-1 and clubs split 3-2 and you rack up your slam. All hell breaks loose at this point (ok, let's say that the director is called by the opps at this point). RHO holds KQx Ax Qxxxxx xx. He explains that he could guarantee a S lead in one of 2 ways if he only knew for certain what 4C meant. If natural (or a fit bid), he could pass 4C and double 6H. If a splinter, he could double 4C to ask for the lead of the lower suit (i.e. spades). The director asks how 4C was explained on each side of the table, and wonder of wonders, you had both explained it the same. The director rules that since both you and your partner treated the bid as it was intended, since it contradicted your "explicit agreement", you were guilty of giving misinformation to the opponents. The score is rolled back to 6Hx -1. Clearly you have no proof the you had never discussed this sequence, but you are feeling somewhat hard done by since all you tried to do was be as honest as possbile. Could this happen? What about if this happened when not playing with screens? -- Dave Kent _________________________________________________________________ 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 13:35:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5D3Yex03392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:34:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta04ps.bigpond.com (mta04ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.136]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5D3YaH03388 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:34:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from master.bigpond.net.au ([144.135.25.69]) by mta04ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 mta04ps Apr 29 2002 13:22:02) with SMTP id GXMJZP00.BQL for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:21:25 +1000 Received: from CPE-144-137-65-68.nsw.bigpond.net.au ([144.137.65.68]) by PSMAM01.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0n 65/3354815); 13 Jun 2002 13:21:25 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020613131358.00b6f5a0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> X-Sender: ardelm@pop-server.bigpond.net.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:21:19 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: [BLML] Is this a trick? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This really happened: The diamond suit: Q 10 2 J 7 4 K 8 5 A 9 6 3 1) Declarer is in dummy but leads the 3 of diamonds from hand. 2) West follows with the 4 3) East says "You're on the table" 4) South says "OK, low diamond" 5) Dummy plays the 2 of diamonds, East plays the 5 and then discovers that his partner had already accepted the lead out of turn by playing the 4. All plays have been made in rotation, so is this a trick? 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 Thu Jun 13 14:45:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5D4jLn03428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:45:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5D4jHH03424 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:45:17 +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 OAA25072 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:46:35 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:28:27 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:31:40 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 13/06/2002 14:28:13 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >This really happened: > >The diamond suit: > Q 10 2 > > J 7 4 K 8 5 > > A 9 6 3 > >1) Declarer is in dummy but leads the 3 of diamonds from hand. >2) West follows with the 4 >3) East says "You're on the table" >4) South says "OK, low diamond" >5) Dummy plays the 2 of diamonds, East plays the 5 and then discovers > that his partner had already accepted the lead out of turn by > playing the 4. > >All plays have been made in rotation, so is this a trick? > >Cheers, > >Tony >Sydney No, it is a clear case of L47E1. East's statement was incorrect, so declarer (in dummy's role) was misinformed by an opponent that dummy was on lead. Dummy can therefore retract the diamond 2. L47D allows East to also retract the diamond 5, but L49 & L50 designate the diamond 5 as a major penalty card. 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 Jun 13 15:34:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5D5VV803453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:31:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5D5VQH03449 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:31:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-35-159-212.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.159.212] helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17IMu7-0002Fa-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 06:12:15 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c21298$c58127a0$d49f23d9@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <110602162.23799@webbox.com> <000401c2126f$f5850300$1a3de150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 06:11:27 +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 wrote: > > The number of auctions in which > > insufficient bids occur is of course infinite. > +=+ I suspect this last is not an accurate statement. It isn't. But that last is. > Incalculable, perhaps, although with today's science > even this seems unlikely. Consider those auctions where everybody bids one club until someone bids one diamond. Now, this bid of one diamond can occur after 0, 1, 2, [...] aleph-nought bids of one club; thus, the cardinality of the set of such auctions is aleph-nought (the same as that of the set of integers). A trivial modification of Cantor's diagonal method can then be used to show that the cardinality of the set of all auctions is (at least) aleph-one (the same as that of the set of real numbers). 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 Jun 13 17:02:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5D72Bt03503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:02:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5D725H03499 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:02:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g5D6mO107216 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 23:48:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] TD Advice Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 23:46:33 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In a competitive auction there is a distinct break in tempo at the four level. Rightly or wrongly, the opposing side immediately calls the TD, who determines that there was indeed a definite break in tempo. There is no infraction so far. Many ACBL TDs in this situation start advising the partner of the tempo-breaker that he/she must not take any action demonstrably suggested by the UI if there is a logical alternative Is this correct TD procedure? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 17:35:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5D7Z3V03521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:35:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail44.fg.online.no (mail44-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.44]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5D7YvH03517 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:34:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1869.bb.online.no [80.212.215.77]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA12563 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:21:44 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002b01c212aa$f8b8dc00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:21:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >This really happened: > > > >The diamond suit: > > Q 10 2 > > > > J 7 4 K 8 5 > > > > A 9 6 3 > > > >1) Declarer is in dummy but leads the 3 of diamonds from hand. > >2) West follows with the 4 > >3) East says "You're on the table" > >4) South says "OK, low diamond" > >5) Dummy plays the 2 of diamonds, East plays the 5 and then discovers > > that his partner had already accepted the lead out of turn by > > playing the 4. > > > >All plays have been made in rotation, so is this a trick? > > > >Cheers, > > > >Tony > >Sydney > > No, it is a clear case of L47E1. > East's statement was incorrect, so declarer (in dummy's role) was > misinformed by an opponent that dummy was on lead. > > Dummy can therefore retract the diamond 2. Whatever it is it is not a case for Law 47E1 which concerns lead out of turn. "Definitions": Lead - The first card played to a trick. The applicable laws are 9A2a, 9B1 and 53A Yes, the trick has been completed. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 18:41:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5D8emC03557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 18:40:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@xgate.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5D8egH03553 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 18:40:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5D8RX319242; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:27:33 +0100 Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:27:33 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5D8RXd09947; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:27:33 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:27:33 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA08936; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:27:32 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id JAA16278; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:27:32 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:27:32 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200206130827.JAA16278@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, dalburn@btopenworld.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Consider those auctions where everybody bids one club until someone bids > one diamond. Now, this bid of one diamond can occur after 0, 1, 2, [...] > aleph-nought bids of one club; thus, the cardinality of the set of such > auctions is aleph-nought (the same as that of the set of integers). A > trivial modification of Cantor's diagonal method can then be used to > show that the cardinality of the set of all auctions is (at least) > aleph-one (the same as that of the set of real numbers). > David knows an awful lot, but to know (a proof of?) the truth of the continuum hypothesis is quite remarkable. The continuum hypothesis is the statement that the cardinality of the real numbers is the next cardinal after the cardinality of the integers, i.e. 2^aleph_0 = aleph_1 or if X is an infinite subset of R then X ~ R or X ~ Z (R is the reals, Z the integers, X ~ Y if X and Y have the same number of elements). The continuum hypothesis is known to be independent of the axioms of set theory (including the axiom of choice), i.e. we know that we can't prove it to be true or prove it to be false. (Godel 1930s/Cohen 1960s.) The number of auctions with insufficient bids (assuming the auctions themselves can be infinite) is the cardinality of the reals, i.e. 2^aleph_0 (which may or may not be aleph_1). For instance, take a real number as a decimal and replace digits 0..9 by 1C..2NT and replace the decimal point by a pass. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 19:06:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5D96cd03579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 19:06:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5D96WH03575 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 19:06:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-47493.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.57.133]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5D8rN828755 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:53:23 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:55:00 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Yes Tom, but ... Tom Cornelis wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > 1) North explains South's bid as undiscussed. > East or West are more likely to take the wrong action, because you have less > information. > I'm not 100% sure, but I think this case is poorly protected by Law, also > because it's being discussed here. > 2) N explains Bid X having meaning A, but actually it had meaning B. > You are protected, but given your hand, you might know it has meaning B, but > you must act as if it had meaning A. > 3) N explains X as undiscussed, either meaning A or B, guessing it to be A > (no required by full disclosure, as it's undiscussed) > If you're sure it's B, you can take the right action now, not needing > protection by law. > If you're not sure, you need protection, and you have because you can assume > also meaning A. > The problem with this reasoning is that if you think opponents have meaning B, from you hand, and you act on that, and it turns out that it was meaning A after all, you have no right to redress. So actually this is a silly action to take. Which is why I believe that a player should not say "A, but perhaps B" because that is legally exactly the same as saying "A". > >>Don't forget that partner has also heard the double explanation, and >>may not be aware that you can work out it's the second alternative. He >>believes you are bidding on the first meaning and you might end up in >>a bad score. And all this, as you correctly say, at their own risk. >> > > You can still believe the opponents if you're not willing to take the risk. > At least both you and your partner are on better footing, given a correct > explanation, which really reveils what's happening ('undiscussed' therefore > doubt) and gives some kind of meaningful explanation (A or B, but guessing > A). > > >>>It also makes sence that as you have to guess about the meaning, and can >>> > be > >>>wrong, that at least the opponents can guess too, and right (they might >>> > even > >>>be certain that you're wrong - something that isn't covered (very well) >>> > by > >>>the laws). >>> >>> >>Yes, but the laws do handle quite well that you guess wrong. Whether >>or not the opponent guesses right is not needed in the laws. >> >> > My point is that fewer TD decisions will have to be made, not that Law > doesn't handle it. It certainly is the spirit of Law, that problems are > fixed as well as possible, not to punish a pair or even to require as many > TD decisions as possible. I also think it's in the spirit of full > disclosure, though such an explanation is not required by it. It should be > required though. > > Best regards, > > Tom. > > > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 13 19:07:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5D97n103591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 19:07:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5D97hH03587 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 19:07:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-47493.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.57.133]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5D8sV800235 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:54:31 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D085E27.60908@skynet.be> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:56:07 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <110602162.23799@webbox.com> <000401c2126f$f5850300$1a3de150@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: >>There are >> > 128,745,650,347,030,683,120,231,926,111,609,371,363,122,697,557 > >>possible auctions, and I expect that some pairs may not quite >>have discussed all of them. The number of auctions in which >>insufficient bids occur is of course infinite. >> >> > +=+ I suspect this last is not an accurate statement. > Incalculable, perhaps, although with today's science > even this seems unlikely. ~ G ~ +=+ > No Grattan, infinite is correct. The bidding can go 1He 1Di 1He 1Di ad infintum > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 13 19:14:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5D9DtB03609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 19:13:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5D9DnH03605 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 19:13:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id AF378E6E0140; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 02:00:39 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.dalburn@btopenworld.com CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Message-Id: <130602164.7239@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 02:00:45 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robin wrote: >David knows an awful lot, but to know (a proof of?) the truth of the continuum hypothesis is quite remarkable. The continuum hypothesis, as everybody knows, is of course true given the Axiom of Restricted Choice. 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 Jun 13 20:00:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5D9xmk03628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 19:59:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5D9xfH03624 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 19:59:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A9FB11B000A6; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 02:46:35 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Message-Id: <130602164.9995@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 02:46:39 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: >No Grattan, infinite is correct. > >The bidding can go > >1He >1Di >1He >1Di ad infintum Indeed it can, and the table will avoid a slow play penalty by adopting the following procedure: the first call is made after one minute, and each call subsequent call is made after half the length of time that it took to make the previous one. Of course, the director will need to rule on each insufficient bid in half the time taken to give his previous ruling, and so forth, but that is not difficult provided the tournament is held in Malament-Hogarth spacetime. But Herman's argument does not show that the number of auctions containing insufficient bids is infinite, only that there is at least one such auction of infinite length. As Robin Barker points out, however, the problem has been resolved thanks to the work of many eminent mathematicians. I would mention only Eddie Kantor's celebrated conjecture that the number 1430 is is some way "infinitely superior" to the number 3041, and Larry Cohen's "Totality Hypothesis", a refutation of Kurt Godel's principle that the number of tricks anyone will make on any give hand is undecidable. 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 Jun 13 20:10:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DAADi03645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 20:10:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail5.nc.rr.com (fe5.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.52]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DAA6H03641 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 20:10:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail5.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 05:55:40 -0400 Received: from ncmx02.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.67.222]) by mail5.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:46:34 -0400 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by ncmx02.mgw.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5CCkWa2017905 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:46:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5CCiGa02792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 22:44:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5CCiBH02788 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 22:44:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-17.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.17] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17I7HG-0004uu-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:31:06 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020612082432.00aab800@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:31:25 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! In-Reply-To: <200206120356.g5C3ujH02110@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:56 PM 6/11/02, Ted wrote: >Okay, I understand your situation. What I would have done (and >have done in similar situations) is ask the player to behave themselves >and that I'll get back to them. I then immediately go and consult >with another TD and present the facts and consult with them about >whether or not a DP is in order. If I get a concurrence from the >other TD, at the next opportunity, I award the DP, if not, then I >leave sleeping dogs lie. ISTM that DPs are far more effective when imposed summarily upon the infraction, which is why L91A gives the TD the power to do so, and with authority ("the Director's decision... is final"). The TD needs to be able to credibly say to an unruly player something along the lines of, "One more word out of you and you'll be penalized half a board." "One more word out of you and I'll be off to ask someone else whether I can give you a penalty" just doesn't hack it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 21:48:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DBlkN03703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:47:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DBlfH03699 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:47:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id krcavaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:34:30 +0200 Message-ID: <001701c212ce$485a36f0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:34:30 +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 Ed Reppert wrote: > The origin of the doubt is the fact the call is undiscussed, not that > bridge knowledge is not the same for everyone. And if we carry this line > of logic to its end, we have to conclude that the provision of law that > specifically excludes inferences made from general bridge knowledge from > disclosure requirements is totally useless, since we can't know > opponents' level of same, and therefore must cater to the possibility > that he knows *nothing*. I don't buy it. I still disagree. If everyone would have the same ideas about general bridge knowledge - expected by Law or not - there would be no need to explain a call as undiscussed. The fact that 4NT is BW or nat can be derived from logical conclusions. The partner can interpret it wrongly, because he uses other general principles to derive conclusions. The principles on which someone bases his or her conclusions, is what I understand under 'general bridge knwoledge' according to Law. The term 'general bridge knowledge' should not be included in Law, because there is no such thing. Give me an example to prove otherwise. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 21:50:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DBolK03715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:50:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net ([213.35.62.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DBofH03711 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:50:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id ptcavaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:37:35 +0200 Message-ID: <002301c212ce$b63f9b60$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:37:34 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From Marvin L. French: > In a competitive auction there is a distinct break in tempo at the four > level. Rightly or wrongly, the opposing side immediately calls the TD, who > determines that there was indeed a definite break in tempo. > > There is no infraction so far. > > Many ACBL TDs in this situation start advising the partner of the > tempo-breaker that he/she must not take any action demonstrably suggested by > the UI if there is a logical alternative > > Is this correct TD procedure? I would say it's advisible, because it prevents an infraction (or at least it tries to). Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 22:08:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DC88h03737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:08:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail5.nc.rr.com (fe5.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.52]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DC7xH03729 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:07:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail5.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 07:46:56 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by mail5.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:47:11 -0400 Received: from ncmx02.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.67.222]) by mail5.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:37:37 -0400 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by ncmx02.mgw.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5AInQIa028700 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:49:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AIkmn00555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 04:46:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AIkcH00551 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 04:46:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (80-200-208-28.adsl.powered-by.skynet.be [80.200.208.28]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5AIXUZ20278 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:33:30 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D04F157.7090409@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:35:03 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <070602158.8906@webbox.com> <002b01c20e62$0f0ba340$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080851.00aa25a0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610112812.00adbac0@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > I don't get it. You are required to disclose your agreements, explicit > or implicit. But how can you have any agreement, whether explicit or > implicit, about something you "never realized [was] there"? > > Isn't that what the word implicit implies ? Maybe you are staring yourself blind at the "agree" part of agreement. To me, the woird "agreement" in the bridge sense contains more than that which is simply "agreed". We never agreed to play Stayman, but still I am obliged to inform my opponents that based on my experience with this person, 2Cl is asking about my majors. > 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/ > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 22:08:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DC88Y03738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:08:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail5.nc.rr.com (fe5.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.52]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DC7xH03730 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:07:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail5.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 07:46:57 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by mail5.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:47:11 -0400 Received: from ncmx02.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.67.222]) by mail5.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:37:25 -0400 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by ncmx02.mgw.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5AIqJIa009008 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:52:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AIs1K00574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 04:54:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AIroH00570 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 04:53:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (80-200-208-28.adsl.powered-by.skynet.be [80.200.208.28]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5AIdm904371 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:39:48 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D04F2D2.2040306@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:41:22 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <6190034.1023716788520.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.0.20020610174133.00ab2360@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: > > This is the difference between "no agreement, but It should be ..." and > "an agreement". > Nobody can convince me that we had an agreement when the sequence > occurred for the first time. > I never said that you had an agreement in the English sense of the word. I'm just saying that you had an (implicit) partnership agreement in the bridge-laws sense of the word. And that must be disclosed. Which you did. Surely you are not going to suggest that you are able to tell opponents in such a case that he has shown diamond raise and shortness and expect them to be able to come to the same conclusion ? Surely you see that your system did not change after this sequence - you only knew it better ! > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > > >> Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >> 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >> Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 >> >> -- >> ======================================================================== >> (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >> "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >> A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 22:12:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DCC5b03761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:12:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail5.nc.rr.com (fe5.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.52]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DCBwH03757 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:11:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail5.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 07:48:08 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by mail5.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:47:39 -0400 Received: from ncmx02.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.67.222]) by mail5.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:37:45 -0400 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by ncmx02.mgw.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5AIlPIa021440 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AIhmI00543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 04:43:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AIhgH00539 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 04:43:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (80-200-208-28.adsl.powered-by.skynet.be [80.200.208.28]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5AIUTH00530 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:30:29 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D04F0A3.6040903@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:32:03 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > If you know, based on your partnership agreements and experience, that > there is enough of a chance of a misunderstanding that you will allow > for the possibility in choosing your subsequent calls, I believe you are > required to reveal this to your opponents ("a player shall disclose > *all* [emphasis mine] special information conveyed to him through > partnership agreement or partnership experience"). > OK, I grant you this. > Of course, they are not entitled to know whether or not you are *in > fact* in the process of having a misunderstanding on the deal at hand. > So why tell them that you are in doubt then ? > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 22:13:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DCDlx03793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:13:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail5.nc.rr.com (fe5.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.52]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DCDfH03789 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:13:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail5.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 07:48:21 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by mail5.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:47:23 -0400 Received: from ncmx02.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.67.222]) by mail5.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:37:20 -0400 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by ncmx02.mgw.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5AIxeIa006571 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:59:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AIuRe00586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 04:56:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5AIuMH00582 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 04:56:22 +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 g5AIhLe00501 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:43:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001b01c210ae$9caafa40$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020610082022.00ad2c00@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:42:41 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk (Indents are out-of-kilter, ignore) > > >From: Eric Landau > > > >At 07:28 AM 6/8/02, Herman wrote: > > > >>Marv, > >> > >>good story. > >> > >>But answer me one thing: > >> > >>Suppose Alice had chosen diamonds as her minor. > >> > >>Would you have informed that your other suit was hearts, not clubs? > >> > >>Don't you agree that opponents might be damaged by partner's > >>explanation that you hold clubs ? > >> > >>You have changed your CC since then - why does this one case differ > >>from all others? > > > >Because in this one case, they had no agreement. Subsequent to this > >case they have an implicit agreement based on previous experience, > >namely that first case. To deny that there is a difference is to deny > >that there is such a thing as "an implicit agreement based on previous > >experience". > As usual, Eric has this exactly right. This does not mean (my opinion) that "inferences drawn from general knowledge and experience" (L75C) become through partnership experience implicit agreements that must be disclosed. In such cases the inference is not *based on* previous partnership experience, but on previous knowledge.and experience unrelated to the partnership, and so "need not be disclosed." Unless, of course, some significant shading of meaning has been added by partnership discussion or experience. For instance, my new or old partner opens three of a suit, a bid which we both know, and have always known, is a weak preempt based on a reasonable suit of seven or more cards, with little if any outside strength. That is exactly what anyone but a novice would assume in the absence of an Alert or other disclosure on the CC. This is general knowledge and experience, so the *meaning* of 3C need not be explained. Any stylistic tendencies or agreements (e.g., denies an ace in hand) must be disclosed, of course, and the CC has three check-boxes for 3/4 level openings, disclosing whether they are Sound, Light, or Very Light. (None is Alertable, and what these mean is explained in the instructions for filling out the CC, which no one reads.). Below the boxes is a red line for disclosing Alertable agreements about the opening/responses. "Alert!" ACBL pro playing with a novice: "Please explain." "Tends to deny an ace." Pro: "Does it show a weak or strong hand?" (illegal question, obviously for client's benefit) "No special partnership agreement about that." (Not meant as a likely scenario, just illustrating the point) Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 22:23:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DCN9Y03849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:23:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail7.nc.rr.com (mail7.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DCN3H03843 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:23:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail7.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 07:29:48 -0400 Received: from ncmx01.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.67.251]) by mail7.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Mon, 10 Jun 2002 12:30:26 -0400 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by ncmx01.mgw.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5AGUOtH013024 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 12:30:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AGNlQ00271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:23:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AGNfH00267 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:23:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48055.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.183]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5AGAb916378 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:10:37 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D04CFDB.1040307@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:12:11 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <3D0377EB.9050605@skynet.be> <002101c21058$18754420$ab4d003e@mycomputer> <3D0487A5.7070402@skynet.be> <003601c21098$74399780$d85f003e@mycomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk That's a totally different story, Israel... Israel Erdnbaum wrote: >>>> >>> ' There's always some background ' But in MOST CASES neither of the >>>players is AWARE of it. >>> Do you REALLY want to DISCLOSE it to them. >>> Best regards >>> Israel >>> >> >>You HAVE to ! >> >>When I come and play with another belgian in Israel, even someone I've >>never seen before - I will have some knowledge of our common roots, >>and those have to be told to the opponents ! >> >> > This is not BLML this is the real world. You are goinng to TELL your partner > and he is going to tell YOU. Your opponents will probably not understand > anything. WONDERFUL. This is a club tournament not a championship game. > Best regards > Israel > Another discussion we've had before, and usually I'm on the other side. I do agree that sometimes we don't want to tell opponents something because we're trying to avoid giving UI to partner, and I believe that should be allowed. But I've always added that in those situations, MI has been given and any damage caused by it MUST be corrected. And that has nothing to do with the level involved. >>>>>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/ > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>-- >>>>please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be >>>>Herman DE WAEL >>>>Antwerpen Belgium >>>>http://users.skynet.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/ >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>-- >>please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://users.skynet.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/ >> > > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 22:23:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DCNEp03853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:23:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail7.nc.rr.com (mail7.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DCN8H03848 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:23:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail7.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 07:29:52 -0400 Received: from ncmx01.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.67.251]) by mail7.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Mon, 10 Jun 2002 12:29:50 -0400 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by ncmx01.mgw.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5AGTltH010457 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 12:29:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AGEUu00203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:14:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from actinium.btinternet.com (actinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.66]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AGEOH00199 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:14:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from cerium ([194.75.226.98]) by actinium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17HRbf-00076e-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:01:23 +0100 Received: from 213.166.16.2 by cerium ([194.75.226.98]); Mon, 10 Jun 02 17:01:23 BST Message-ID: <6506963.1023724883670.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:01:23 +0100 (BST) From: dalburn@btopenworld.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis 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 Eric wrote: >Well, David knows a lot more about the laws than I do, so he may well be right, but, if so, it would be a pity. There are those who would regard my being right not as a pity, but as a miracle. I am in fact, as I not infrequently do, over-dramatising for the sake of making what seems to me an important point: that Law 40 does not say what an awful lot of people seem to think that it does say. The reality is not as bad as all that, though it is by no means good. >When you hold a hand which cannot be directly described using any of your existing agreements, and which you have not previously encountered with this particular partner, how can it not be appropriate -- much less legal -- to attempt to convey your holding by choosing a sequence which, in the context of the agreements you do have, you hope will convey the nature of your holding to partner? Oh, that's not illegal per se. Just as well, because most of the hands you get will not fit your methods precisely. The trouble is that to do it, players will generally resort to either or both of two devices: bidding out of tempo, or violating the methods. Just as the one is constrained by Law, so is the other. >Isn't that what good bidding based on a sound knowledge of bidding theory is supposed to be about? No. Good bidding based on a sound knowledge of bidding theory is supposed to be about: Devising sensible methods before you sit down to play; Learning them properly, so that you can (a) bid in tempo and (b) describe your methods correctly to the opponents; Recognising that a particular hand does not fit the methods and being prepared to compromise (by "compromise", I do not mean "make up some part of the system which does not actually exist"). >When did exercising one's creativity in attempting to come up with a sequence that will tell partner what you have turn into cheating? It didn't. But what almost invariably accompanies these "exercises in creativity" is an exercise in method acting. I wasn't there when Marvin bid 2NT with the red suits, but I would have known that he had them long before he bid three diamonds over three clubs. It's hard to put this into words, but after you've played quite a lot of bridge, you will know when your opponents are making it up and when they are bidding according to the system. And if you know, why should their partners not know? Marvin and Tim will tell me that *their* partners don't know... er, ordure from car wax. I believe them. But that's not a value judgement I should have to make (nor, of course, is anything else, but it's far too late for that). But this does not give them the right to make it up as they go along, any more than the right is given to anyone else. Next week, you see, Marvin might have this hand: 6 3 AKJ1064 AQJ109 and over 1S he might (as I would) bid 2NT, and then he might (as I would) bid 3D over his partner's 3C. Now, it is surely a matter of "general bridge knowledge" that this sequence shows a powerful minor two-suiter with longer diamonds than clubs. After all, what else could it show? Sorry, Alice - the red suits? Don't be silly! 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 Thu Jun 13 22:34:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DCXoT03902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:33:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DCXgH03898 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:33:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id AE14648C0084; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 05:20:36 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: RE: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Message-Id: <130602164.19236@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 05:20:38 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom wrote: > The term 'general bridge knowledge' should not be included > in Law, because there is no such thing. > Give me an example to prove otherwise. One might say, for example, that a double of a natural opening bid of one spade is not, as a matter of general bridge knowledge, a penalty double; whereas a double of a natural opening bid of 1NT showing a balanced 10-12 hcp is, as a matter of general bridge knowledge, a penalty double. Such "general" knowledge may, of course, be counter-indicated by local specifics. The notion that 4NT on the fourth round of a Meckwell auction might be Blackwood as a matter of "general bridge knoweldge" is... well, it is not very 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 Thu Jun 13 22:37:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DCbam03914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:37:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DCbRH03910 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:37:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id hceavaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:24:15 +0200 Message-ID: <005501c212d5$3bb69270$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:24:15 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" > Yes Tom, but ... > > Tom Cornelis wrote: > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > > 1) North explains South's bid as undiscussed. > > East or West are more likely to take the wrong action, because you have less > > information. > > I'm not 100% sure, but I think this case is poorly protected by Law, also > > because it's being discussed here. > > 2) N explains Bid X having meaning A, but actually it had meaning B. > > You are protected, but given your hand, you might know it has meaning B, but > > you must act as if it had meaning A. > > 3) N explains X as undiscussed, either meaning A or B, guessing it to be A > > (no required by full disclosure, as it's undiscussed) > > If you're sure it's B, you can take the right action now, not needing > > protection by law. > > If you're not sure, you need protection, and you have because you can assume > > also meaning A. > > > > > The problem with this reasoning is that if you think opponents have > meaning B, from you hand, and you act on that, and it turns out that > it was meaning A after all, you have no right to redress. > So actually this is a silly action to take. Not if you're sure. If there's any doubt at all, you might still believe the explanation. In any case I have witnessed wrong explanations that couldn't be right. I also heard about appeals where one pair has been punished because they acted on the wrong explanation (the one actually given), because the AC reasoned that if they believed their opponents who obviously are wrong, they acted stupidly. > Which is why I believe that a player should not say "A, but perhaps B" > because that is legally exactly the same as saying "A". There is very little difference with my point of view. If you say 'A, but perhaps B', you are lying, because that states that you're simply not sure, whether you discussed this auction or not, where as if you say 'undiscussed, A or B, assuming A', Law will protect you whatever happens. It protects you additionally because there's UI. Mind that doubt can be seen as UI. You might as well inform and protect the opponents properly. If you say undiscussed, and it is undiscussed, and the opponents take the wrong action based on that, they are not protected by Law. (I suppose that's why you prefer to explain a bid as sth. in particular.) I feel this is wrong. It encourages players not to make clear agreements. Law would be much more effective if a specific explanation would have to be given. The fact that it doesn't, is because you're allowed not be on firm ground (explanation 'undiscussed'). I think Law therefore encourages players not to be on firm ground. I would very much like that to change, because it would leave a much smaller margin for errors and therefore preventing them, because players are ON FIRM GROUND with the LAW. Players give MI because they're not sure how to explain a bid. They should be made to make a choice. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 22:49:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DCmsg03957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:48:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail5.nc.rr.com (fe5.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.52]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DCmjH03953 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:48:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail5.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:18:58 -0400 Received: from ncmx02.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.67.222]) by mail5.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Wed, 12 Jun 2002 07:56:48 -0400 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by ncmx02.mgw.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5CBNma2012167 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 07:23:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5CBFhU02635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:15:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5CBFbH02631 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:15:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.100] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id wgyyuaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:02:28 +0200 Message-ID: <001701c21200$a3de9ad0$643f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:02:27 +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 > The De Wael/Ciborowski school would have > required Meckstroth to explain 4NT to his > screenmate as Blackwood, and Rodwell > explain 4NT to his screenmate as natural. > > The Landau/Hills school would have > required both Meckstroth and Rodwell > explain 4NT to their screenmates as > "Undiscussed". > > Which school creates unnecessary MI? They both do. Meckstroth should explain 4NT as intended Blackwood but actually undiscussed. Rodwell should explain 4NT as undiscussed, interpreting as natural. Mind that without screens there will be of course UI available to Meckstroth as Rodwell explains. With this approach, the opponents know as much as possible. They won't know what happens on the other side of the screen, but they can base their actions rightfully on the explanation on their side of the screen. This way there is as little room as possible for MI. Best regards. Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 22:58:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DCwU903981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:58:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DCwLH03977 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:58:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id svfavaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:45:09 +0200 Message-ID: <005b01c212d8$2794e320$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <110602162.23799@webbox.com> <000401c2126f$f5850300$1a3de150@dodona> <3D085E27.60908@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:45:10 +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 Herman De Wael wrote: > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >>There are > >> > > 128,745,650,347,030,683,120,231,926,111,609,371,363,122,697,557 > > > >>possible auctions, and I expect that some pairs may not quite > >>have discussed all of them. The number of auctions in which > >>insufficient bids occur is of course infinite. > >> > >> > > +=+ I suspect this last is not an accurate statement. > > Incalculable, perhaps, although with today's science > > even this seems unlikely. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > No Grattan, infinite is correct. > > The bidding can go > > 1He > 1Di > 1He > 1Di ad infintum > Herman, you only proved the existence of 1 auction, not of an infinite number of auctions. ;-) I agree though: the number of auctions is infinite. They are calculable though. Firstly I would disallow infinite auctions (such as your example), because they simply cannot happen. You can then calculate every auction as follows: There are 38 possible biddings (bid, pass, X, XX). Each auction can be represented by an integer number. Proof: This number can be calculated as 38^0 * x1 + 38^1 * x2 + 38^2 * x3 + ... x1 is the number of the first bid (pass 0, bids 1-35, X 36, XX 37), x2 of the second and so on. This means the number of finite auctions is the same as the number of integers. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 23:00:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DD0gh03997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 23:00:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DD0YH03993 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 23:00:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A45FCEA500B2; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 05:47:27 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: [BLML] Smoething bad is happening Message-Id: <130602164.20848@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 05:47:30 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I am getting a lot of old messages from Herman, Marvin, myself... Either the list is on the blink, or a virus is on the loose. 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 Jun 13 23:29:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DDTUE04018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 23:29:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DDTPH04014 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 23:29:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id cihavaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:16:15 +0200 Message-ID: <009b01c212dc$7fa378c0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <130602164.19236@webbox.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:16:15 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Burn" : > Tom wrote: > > > The term 'general bridge knowledge' should not be included > > in Law, because there is no such thing. > > Give me an example to prove otherwise. > > One might say, for example, that a double of a natural opening > bid of one spade is not, as a matter of general bridge knowledge, > a penalty double; not being a penalty double is not a good explanation. I know a lot of players who think it shows always the other majors. Whereas I think it shows support for the unbid suits. > whereas a double of a natural opening bid of > 1NT showing a balanced 10-12 hcp is, as a matter of general bridge > knowledge, a penalty double. Such "general" knowledge may, of > course, be counter-indicated by local specifics. Again I know a lot of players who would play the same defence against a weak NT as against a strong NT, thereby adopting other 'general bridge knowledge'. In both cases I won't accept 'general bridge knowledge' as an explanation. These auctions are far too common not to have been discussed. > The notion that 4NT on the fourth round of a Meckwell auction > might be Blackwood as a matter of "general bridge knoweldge" > is... well, it is not very sensible. My point exactly. Generel bridge knowledge never applies. I interpret under general bridge knowledge: 'no other meaning makes sence to the general bridge world'. Why would this be wrong? If not, when does it apply? In both examples it makes sence to play sth. else. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 23:30:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DDUfZ04030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 23:30:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5DDUZH04026 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 23:30:35 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g5DDHRk04474 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:17:27 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:17 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis 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: <001701c212ce$485a36f0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> Tom Cornelis wrote: > The fact that 4NT is BW or nat can be derived from logical conclusions. > The partner can interpret it wrongly, because he uses other general > principles to derive conclusions. The principles on which someone bases > his or her conclusions, is what I understand under 'general bridge > knwoledge' according to Law. The term 'general bridge knowledge' should > not be included in Law, because there is no such thing. I can't find the term 'general bridge knowledge' in the laws on disclosure at the moment. Law 75c says. When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from *his* general knowledge and experience. To give a practical example. I am playing with an unfamiliar partner and have agreed to play "weak twos". I believe I am obliged to disclose that a 2S bid can be made on a 5 card or longer suit and from 4-11 points. That information is inherent in our "agreement" (and my opponent may not know what "weak twos" means). If I am asked "When is it likely to be a 5 card suit rather than 6+?" I don't think I am obliged to say anything. The answer to this question would be based entirely on *my* general knowledge and experience. That said I think the circumstances in which I wouldn't try and give more detail are fairly limited. The more I have played with a partner the more I will be required to disclose (eg "I've never known Emily open a weak 2 on a 5 card suit at any vulnerability". Emily would not say the same about my own weak 2s!). YVMV. Tim. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 23:33:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DDXdo04042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 23:33:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from heimdal.softco.dk (heimdal.softco.dk [80.199.79.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DDXYH04038 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 23:33:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from JD.i.softco.dk (jd.i.softco.dk [10.160.1.46]) by heimdal.softco.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 0C94631E707; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:20:28 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Smoething bad is happening Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:20:28 +0200 Organization: Softco Message-ID: <2o6hgug63458cehtv5jrkgfkg0sqtfgs2k@heimdal.i.softco.dk> References: <130602164.20848@webbox.com> In-Reply-To: <130602164.20848@webbox.com> 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 g5DDXaH04039 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >I am getting a lot of old messages from Herman, Marvin, myself... >Either the list is on the blink, or a virus is on the loose. Yes, messages are being repeated. This is (at least for those messages I've looked at) caused by the mail server that receives mail for the subscriber jwiatrak1@nc.rr.com: it retransmits old messages to BLML. I've sent a message to Markus and to that address about it. The cause may be a server failure, following which the server is resending the queue incorrectly: not to the real recipient, but to the addresses found in the To: and Cc: headers, including BLML. It will probably stop by itself at some time. -- 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 Jun 13 23:39:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DDcua04055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 23:38:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5DDcpH04051 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 23:38:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from hare ([66.26.18.82]) by mail6.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:25:32 -0400 Message-ID: <002f01c212de$11410a30$6401a8c0@hare> From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: , "Tony Musgrove" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020613131358.00b6f5a0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:27:29 -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 It would be in my game. I guess that's what happens when you make rulings at the table in lieu of calling the director!! Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Musgrove" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:21 PM Subject: [BLML] Is this a trick? > This really happened: > > The diamond suit: > Q 10 2 > > J 7 4 K 8 5 > > A 9 6 3 > > 1) Declarer is in dummy but leads the 3 of diamonds from hand. > 2) West follows with the 4 > 3) East says "You're on the table" > 4) South says "OK, low diamond" > 5) Dummy plays the 2 of diamonds, East plays the 5 and then discovers > that his partner had already accepted the lead out of turn by playing the 4. > > All plays have been made in rotation, so is this a trick? > > Cheers, > > Tony > Sydney > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 23:53:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DDqXW04090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 23:52:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5DDqSH04086 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 23:52:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-17.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.17] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17IUoq-0000BP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:39:20 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020613093355.00aadc70@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:39:41 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <005501c212d5$3bb69270$6f3f23d5@cornelis> References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:24 AM 6/13/02, Tom wrote: >If you say undiscussed, and it is undiscussed, and the opponents take the >wrong action based on that, they are not protected by Law. (I suppose >that's >why you prefer to explain a bid as sth. in particular.) I feel this is >wrong. It encourages players not to make clear agreements. Law would >be much >more effective if a specific explanation would have to be given. The fact >that it doesn't, is because you're allowed not be on firm ground >(explanation 'undiscussed'). I think Law therefore encourages players >not to >be on firm ground. I would very much like that to change, because it would >leave a much smaller margin for errors and therefore preventing them, >because players are ON FIRM GROUND with the LAW. Players give MI because >they're not sure how to explain a bid. They should be made to make a >choice. Well, changing the law so that you were not allowed not to be on firm ground would certainly have some clear advantages: it would save our tournament volunteer coordinators the time and trouble of recruiting volunteers to staff partnership desks, and it would thin out the crowds hanging around the site before the first session by getting rid of all the players trolling for a pick-up partner for the event. 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 Jun 13 23:53:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DDqg204096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 23:52:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DDqaH04092 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 23:52:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A092EC4E00C4; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 06:39:30 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: RE: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Message-Id: <130602164.23970@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 06:39:32 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom wrote: >I agree though: the number of auctions is infinite. They are calculable though. >Firstly I would disallow infinite auctions (such as your example), because they simply cannot happen. That's a pity. The number of finite auctions containing n calls is finite for all n (and can be calculated easily enough). However large n becomes, as long as n remains finite, the total number of auctions containing n calls or fewer is still finite. Only when n = aleph_nought does the number of auctions consisting of n or fewer calls become 2^aleph_nought (how are we doing, Robin?). [snip of complete tosh] >This means the number of finite auctions is the same as the number of integers. No, it doesn't. But this is a sub-thread that has probably run its course. 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 Jun 14 00:09:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DE9C504120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:09:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5DE96H04116 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:09:07 +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 g5DDtvD17682 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:55:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:52:35 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? 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 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/13/02, Tony Musgrove wrote: >This really happened: > >The diamond suit: > Q 10 2 > > J 7 4 K 8 5 > > A 9 6 3 > >1) Declarer is in dummy but leads the 3 of diamonds from hand. >2) West follows with the 4 >3) East says "You're on the table" >4) South says "OK, low diamond" >5) Dummy plays the 2 of diamonds, East plays the 5 and then discovers >that his partner had already accepted the lead out of turn by playing the 4. > >All plays have been made in rotation, so is this a trick? 1) leading from the wrong hand is an irregularity. 2) following to an irregular lead accepts the lead 3) East's comment calls attention to the irregularity (but is technically incorrect at this point, because of (2)) so the director must be called. 4) the director isn't called. :-( 5) too late. It occurs to me that in this particular case, declarer has to lose a trick in this suit sometime, but if the cards were such that he might not, he might argue that East's comment is misinformation, and that he would not have played low from the table absent that misinformation. I'm not sure what the laws have to say about that. I'd thought that L47 might apply, but after reading it, I'm no longer sure. One other question occurs to me: did declarer attempt to change the card he played from his hand to this trick? I think it would be natural for him to do so (after all, he was told to lead from dummy), but since West already played to his LOOT, I don't think he can legally change his play. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp 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 Jun 14 00:15:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DEFme04136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:15:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail7.nc.rr.com (mail7.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DEFhH04132 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:15:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from hare ([66.26.18.82]) by mail7.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:28:08 -0400 Message-ID: <003f01c212de$6e236bd0$6401a8c0@hare> From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <002301c212ce$b63f9b60$6f3f23d5@cornelis> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:30:05 -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 This is what I learned in director school!!! Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Cornelis" To: Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 7:37 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice > >From Marvin L. French: > > In a competitive auction there is a distinct break in tempo at the four > > level. Rightly or wrongly, the opposing side immediately calls the TD, who > > determines that there was indeed a definite break in tempo. > > > > There is no infraction so far. > > > > Many ACBL TDs in this situation start advising the partner of the > > tempo-breaker that he/she must not take any action demonstrably suggested > by > > the UI if there is a logical alternative > > > > Is this correct TD procedure? > > I would say it's advisible, because it prevents an infraction (or at least > it tries to). > > Best regards, > > Tom. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 00:25:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DEPKw04149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:25:20 +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 (eurasianchemtech.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DEPFH04145 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:25:15 +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 QAA20310; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:10:14 +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 QAA03350; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:11:55 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020613161626.00ac4300@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:19:20 +0200 To: "Nancy T Dressing" , , "Tony Musgrove" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? In-Reply-To: <002f01c212de$11410a30$6401a8c0@hare> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020613131358.00b6f5a0@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 09:27 13/06/2002 -0400, Nancy T Dressing wrote: >It would be in my game. I guess that's what happens when you make rulings >at the table in lieu of calling the director!! >Nancy AG : Agreed. According to law 9B2 and the meaning of using the future form, I'll adjust the EW score so that they don't get a profit from their infraction to said law. Use L74B2 and L73C4 if needed. > > This really happened: > > > > The diamond suit: > > Q 10 2 > > > > J 7 4 K 8 5 > > > > A 9 6 3 > > > > 1) Declarer is in dummy but leads the 3 of diamonds from hand. > > 2) West follows with the 4 > > 3) East says "You're on the table" > > 4) South says "OK, low diamond" > > 5) Dummy plays the 2 of diamonds, East plays the 5 and then discovers > > that his partner had already accepted the lead out of turn by playing the >4. > > > > All plays have been made in rotation, so is this a trick? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Tony > > Sydney > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 00:43:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DEgw604166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:42:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DEgqH04162 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:42:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id rbmavaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:29:43 +0200 Message-ID: <00b801c212e6$c379e980$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:29:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Tim West-meads" > In-Reply-To: <001701c212ce$485a36f0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> > Tom Cornelis wrote: > > > The fact that 4NT is BW or nat can be derived from logical conclusions. > > The partner can interpret it wrongly, because he uses other general > > principles to derive conclusions. The principles on which someone bases > > his or her conclusions, is what I understand under 'general bridge > > knwoledge' according to Law. The term 'general bridge knowledge' should > > not be included in Law, because there is no such thing. > > I can't find the term 'general bridge knowledge' in the laws on disclosure > at the moment. Law 75c says. > > When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an > opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special > information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership > experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from *his* general > knowledge and experience. ... but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his *general (bridge) knowledge* and experience. This part should be removed. His general knowledge may include some advanced mathematical method. Of course he doesn't need to disclose inferences from his general knowledge. The significance of a call should not depend on the general knowledge of the partner. It doesn't. It has the significance attributed by the player who made the call. The partner who has to explain the call, should have to get it right. (he should be made to by Law) The word 'special' should be strikken as well, because it has no meaning at all in this context. Law should also prescribe a method to use when the call is undiscussed. My suggestion is that, in that case, the partner who explains the call has to get it right (guess or not). If he doesn't there's MI. If he does nothing has happened. I'll demonstrate with your example: > To give a practical example. I am playing with an unfamiliar partner and > have agreed to play "weak twos". I believe I am obliged to disclose that > a 2S bid can be made on a 5 card or longer suit and from 4-11 points. Ok, you're obliged to. > That information is inherent in our "agreement" (and my opponent may not > know what "weak twos" means). If I am asked "When is it likely to be a 5 > card suit rather than 6+?" I don't think I am obliged to say anything. You would have to say that that's impossible to know. (It would be ethical.) > The answer to this question would be based entirely on *my* general knowledge > and experience. Not true. Without another agreement, you simply cannot know. It's irrevelant whether it's likely or not. It's revelant wheter it's possible or not. > That said I think the circumstances in which I wouldn't > try and give more detail are fairly limited. The more I have played with > a partner the more I will be required to disclose (eg "I've never known > Emily open a weak 2 on a 5 card suit at any vulnerability". Emily would > not say the same about my own weak 2s!). Because you have an implicit agreement, not because you have more experience as a player (we're talking general knowledge, remember). Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 00:52:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DEqOp04178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:52:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DEqIH04174 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:52:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id btmavaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:39:08 +0200 Message-ID: <00c601c212e8$146940b0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613093355.00aadc70@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:39:09 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Eric Landau" > At 08:24 AM 6/13/02, Tom wrote: > > >If you say undiscussed, and it is undiscussed, and the opponents take the > >wrong action based on that, they are not protected by Law. (I suppose > >that's > >why you prefer to explain a bid as sth. in particular.) I feel this is > >wrong. It encourages players not to make clear agreements. Law would > >be much > >more effective if a specific explanation would have to be given. The fact > >that it doesn't, is because you're allowed not be on firm ground > >(explanation 'undiscussed'). I think Law therefore encourages players > >not to > >be on firm ground. I would very much like that to change, because it would > >leave a much smaller margin for errors and therefore preventing them, > >because players are ON FIRM GROUND with the LAW. Players give MI because > >they're not sure how to explain a bid. They should be made to make a > >choice. > > Well, changing the law so that you were not allowed not to be on firm > ground would certainly have some clear advantages: it would save our > tournament volunteer coordinators the time and trouble of recruiting > volunteers to staff partnership desks, and it would thin out the crowds > hanging around the site before the first session by getting rid of all > the players trolling for a pick-up partner for the event. Not necessarily. The game is made by the Law. If the Law says that the ace becomes the lowest card, it won't have any affect on the players. The players trolling for a pick-up partner come to play, not to be ruled. If they know the Law, there will be fewer rulings. They don't know the Law because it's too complicated. It's too complicated too give a correct explanation. Players don't mind rulings, they mind bad laws. The fact that there's so much disagreement about what explanation should be given, demonstrates my point very well. Law makes a very important part of the game (explanation) much too complicated for the players. This is not the same thing as a lead out of turn. It's something they have to know and to understand about. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 01:03:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DF30D04195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:03:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DF2tH04191 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:02:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id xmnavaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:49:48 +0200 Message-ID: <00d801c212e9$91ca9d50$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: <130602164.23970@webbox.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:49:32 +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: "David Burn" > Tom wrote: > > >I agree though: the number of auctions is infinite. They are > calculable though. > > >Firstly I would disallow infinite auctions (such as your example), > because they simply cannot happen. > > That's a pity. The number of finite auctions containing n calls > is finite for all n (and can be calculated easily enough). > > However large n becomes, as long as n remains finite, the total > number of auctions containing n calls or fewer is still finite. > Only when n = aleph_nought does the number of auctions consisting > of n or fewer calls become 2^aleph_nought (how are we doing, > Robin?). > > [snip of complete tosh] > You can then calculate every auction as follows: There are 38 possible biddings (bid, pass, X, XX). Each auction can be represented by an integer number. Proof: This number can be calculated as 38^0 * x1 + 38^1 * x2 + 38^2 * x3 + ... x1 is the number of the first bid (pass 0, bids 1-35, X 36, XX 37), x2 of the second and so on. > >This means the number of finite auctions is the same as the > number of integers. > > No, it doesn't. But this is a sub-thread that has probably run > its course. Yes it does: there is an infinite number of finite auctions, because n can be as big as you want. n cannot be infinite, but there are an infinite number of n's. The relation I used between an auction and an integer then proves the cardinality of the number of finite auctions. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 01:03:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DF3TP04207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:03:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout09.sul.t-online.com (mailout09.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.84]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DF3KH04197 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:03:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd07.sul.t-online.de by mailout09.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17IVvR-00087k-01; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:50:13 +0200 Received: from vwalther.de (320051711875-0001@[80.134.87.210]) by fmrl07.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 17IVvM-0GahxgC; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:50:08 +0200 Message-ID: <3D08AF1E.7D9D86F5@vwalther.de> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:41:34 +0200 From: "Volker R. Walther" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en]C-CCK-MCD QXW0323l (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: de,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Submissions Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? References: <002b01c212aa$f8b8dc00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 320051711875-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > > > >This really happened: > > > > > >The diamond suit: > > > Q 10 2 > > > > > > J 7 4 K 8 5 > > > > > > A 9 6 3 > > > > > >1) Declarer is in dummy but leads the 3 of diamonds from hand. > > >2) West follows with the 4 > > >3) East says "You're on the table" > > >4) South says "OK, low diamond" > > >5) Dummy plays the 2 of diamonds, East plays the 5 and then discovers > > > that his partner had already accepted the lead out of turn by > > > playing the 4. > > > > > >All plays have been made in rotation, so is this a trick? > > > > > >Cheers, > > > > > >Tony > > >Sydney > > > > No, it is a clear case of L47E1. > > East's statement was incorrect, so declarer (in dummy's role) was > > misinformed by an opponent that dummy was on lead. > > > > Dummy can therefore retract the diamond 2. > > Whatever it is it is not a case for Law 47E1 which concerns > lead out of turn. > "Definitions": Lead - The first card played to a trick. Shure it is: West asks south to _lead_ from the table. > > The applicable laws are 9A2a, 9B1 and 53A > > Yes, the trick has been completed. > > Sven > I woul like to know, wether there was any attempt of south to pick up the 3 again. I think we should also look at L 56B2. Unless nobody recognised the played card from West, it allows the declarer to pick up the 3 and lead a card from dummy. If RHO didn't realise that LHO has played a card, it is very probable that the declarer also missed this action. The 'OK' in his answer suggests that he didn't see the card played by West, too. In fact we now have the situation of L47E1: RHO tells that dummy has to lead a card, which is not true, because LHO has alreay played a card. Declarer acts on this information and tries to _lead_ a card from dummy. Now East draws attention to the whole problem (he should not play the 5, according to l47E1). It's obvious that declarer never intended to play low from dummy to the running trick; he only playd low because East asked him to lead from the table. I would allow a change of dummy's played card. It looks a little bit like an attempt of RHO to bamboozle the declarer (and perhaps the TD). Greetings, Volker > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- Adressen meiner Homepage: http://www.vwalther.de oder (schlechter zu merken, aber ohne Werbung) http://home.t-online.de/home/volker.r.walther -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 01:17:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DFHbO04224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:17:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout09.sul.t-online.com (mailout09.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.84]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DFHWH04220 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:17:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd07.sul.t-online.de by mailout09.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17IW9A-00087k-0E; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:04:24 +0200 Received: from vwalther.de (320051711875-0001@[80.134.87.210]) by fmrl07.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 17IW8w-1bqP0CC; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:04:10 +0200 Message-ID: <3D08B26F.F9CA808B@vwalther.de> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:55:43 +0200 From: "Volker R. Walther" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en]C-CCK-MCD QXW0323l (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: de,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 320051711875-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > In a competitive auction there is a distinct break in tempo at the four > level. Rightly or wrongly, the opposing side immediately calls the TD, who > determines that there was indeed a definite break in tempo. > > There is no infraction so far. > > Many ACBL TDs in this situation start advising the partner of the > tempo-breaker that he/she must not take any action demonstrably suggested by > the UI if there is a logical alternative > > Is this correct TD procedure? > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > Yes, according to L 81 C 5 Greetings, Volker -- Adressen meiner Homepage: http://www.vwalther.de oder (schlechter zu merken, aber ohne Werbung) http://home.t-online.de/home/volker.r.walther -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 01:45:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DFihX04242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:44:43 +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 g5DFicH04238 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:44:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id AAD47B860104; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:31:32 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: RE: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Message-Id: <130602164.30692@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:31:34 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom wrote: >Yes it does: there is an infinite number of finite auctions, because n can be as big as you want. n cannot be infinite Any colour you like, as long as it's black. > but there are an infinite number of n's. Put it this way, Tom. You tell me that you will not allow auctions of infinite length. Very well then - you tell me the longest auction you will allow, and I will tell you how many such auctions there are. The number will, I assure you, be finite. Unlike this thread, by the look of things. 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 Jun 14 01:51:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DForV04254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:50:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DFolH04250 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:50:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (80-200-12-178.adsl.powered-by.skynet.be [80.200.12.178]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5DFbQZ01281 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:37:26 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D08BC94.1010701@skynet.be> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:39:00 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <005501c212d5$3bb69270$6f3f23d5@cornelis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis wrote: > >>Which is why I believe that a player should not say "A, but perhaps B" >>because that is legally exactly the same as saying "A". >> > > There is very little difference with my point of view. If you say 'A, but > perhaps B', you are lying, because that states that you're simply not sure, > whether you discussed this auction or not, where as if you say 'undiscussed, > A or B, assuming A', Law will protect you whatever happens. It protects you > additionally because there's UI. Mind that doubt can be seen as UI. You > might as well inform and protect the opponents properly. > If you say undiscussed, and it is undiscussed, and the opponents take the > wrong action based on that, they are not protected by Law. (I suppose that's > why you prefer to explain a bid as sth. in particular.) I feel this is > wrong. It encourages players not to make clear agreements. Law would be much > more effective if a specific explanation would have to be given. The fact > that it doesn't, is because you're allowed not be on firm ground > (explanation 'undiscussed'). I think Law therefore encourages players not to > be on firm ground. I would very much like that to change, because it would > leave a much smaller margin for errors and therefore preventing them, > because players are ON FIRM GROUND with the LAW. Players give MI because > they're not sure how to explain a bid. They should be made to make a choice. > Well, I happen to believe that the Laws actually do this. Not in a direct manner, but by telling the TD that he must assume MI if the explanation does not fit the hand. Please note that I have never said that this is a legal requirement, only that I give as advice to players simply to state what they (believe/think/guess) the agreement is, without adding a lot of extra information which the opponents are not really entitled to and which creates UI to partner. And if you're wrong, so be it. Adding that you're unsure will not help your case afterwards anyway. > Best regards, > > Tom. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 14 01:54:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DFsPF04267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:54:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5DFsJH04263 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:54:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail4.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:18:39 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by mail4.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 04:10:15 -0400 Received: from ncmx02.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.67.222]) by mail4.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:02:29 -0400 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by ncmx02.mgw.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5AI2SIa008381 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:02:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AHwU700495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 03:58:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5AHwPH00491 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 03:58:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-4.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.4] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17HTEE-0003jo-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:45:18 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020610133404.00aa8490@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:45:32 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <3D04CF33.9060903@skynet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020610105042.00adb2a0@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:09 PM 6/10/02, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>When you hold a hand which cannot be directly described using any of >>your existing agreements, and which you have not previously >>encountered with this particular partner, how can it not be >>appropriate -- much less legal -- to attempt to convey your holding >>by choosing a sequence which, in the context of the agreements you do >>have, you hope will convey the nature of your holding to >>partner? Isn't that what good bidding based on a sound knowledge of >>bidding theory is supposed to be about? When did exercising one's >>creativity in attempting to come up with a sequence that will tell >>partner what you have turn into cheating? >No, no Eric, not at all. > >But when, in the course of your using your agreements to describe a >hand not previously thought of, and your partner understanding the >same, you actually develop a new piece of system at the table, you are >bound by the Laws to adequately inform your opponents of the same. When, in the course of your using your agreements to describe a hand not previously thought of, and your partner understanding the same, you actually develop a new piece of system at the table. (But it is not one that was there previously.) When, in the course of your using your agreements to describe a hand not previously thought of, and your partner not understanding the same, you do not develop a new piece of system at the table. Since in real life you do not know whether partner understood the same, you do not know which is the case. So, if Herman is correct, how can you ever know whether you are supposed to inform your opponents of this "agreement", which you do not know whether you actually have or not? You can, of course, *pretend* to have an agreement which you might well not have -- in which case you may well be misinforming (AKA lying to) your opponents. I understand that the "De Wael school" believes this to be proper procedure, but I -- and, I believe, the majority of this forum -- do not accept that proper procedure ever requires you to lie to your opponents. I cannot accept the idea that "full disclosure" requires you to pretend to something which you know is not true. But, as Herman said earlier, we have had this discussion before. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 01:56:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DFuOA04279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:56:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DFuIH04275 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:56:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (80-200-12-178.adsl.powered-by.skynet.be [80.200.12.178]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5DFgv927453 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:42:57 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D08BDDC.8000907@skynet.be> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:44:28 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613093355.00aadc70@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk No Eric, you misunderstood: Eric Landau wrote: > At 08:24 AM 6/13/02, Tom wrote: > >> leave a much smaller margin for errors and therefore preventing them, >> because players are ON FIRM GROUND with the LAW. Players give MI because >> they're not sure how to explain a bid. They should be made to make a >> choice. > > > Well, changing the law so that you were not allowed not to be on firm > ground would certainly have some clear advantages: it would save our > tournament volunteer coordinators the time and trouble of recruiting > volunteers to staff partnership desks, and it would thin out the crowds > hanging around the site before the first session by getting rid of all > the players trolling for a pick-up partner for the event. > Tom is not advocating that you are not allowed to leave manners undiscussed, only that you are not allowed to give that as an explanation. After all, it's not really true - is it? If we play together tomorrow, and we have not discussed two-suiter bids, and I overcall 1Sp with 3Cl, and they ask you what it means, you can of course say "undiscussed", but you'd better add what you mean by that - probably something along the lines of - "so it's probably clubs and I guess weak". I happen to believe that even now, without Tom's proposed law change, the legal requirement is that you add this. Even if it is indeed undiscussed. And if I turn up with a two-suiter after all, won't the director rule MI? Even if you manage to make him believe that I'm a silly ... who ...? > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 14 02:33:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DGX9J04307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 02:33:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DGX4H04303 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 02:33:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.98] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id toravaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 18:19:57 +0200 Message-ID: <001901c212f6$27e1cf00$623f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: <130602164.30692@webbox.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 18:19:55 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 5:31 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > Tom wrote: > > >Yes it does: there is an infinite number of finite auctions, > because n can be as big as you want. n cannot be infinite > > Any colour you like, as long as it's black. > > > but there are an infinite number of n's. > > Put it this way, Tom. You tell me that you will not allow auctions > of infinite length. Very well then - you tell me the longest > auction you will allow, and I will tell you how many such auctions > there are. The number will, I assure you, be finite. Unlike this > thread, by the look of things. I agree with that all along, David. I only wanted to point to out there's an infinite (countable) number of finite auctions. I see no reason too limit them. There is no longest auction. I also wanted to point out that an infinite number of auctions need not be incalculable. If you start counting the auctions you can break of at any time. You could break of the count when you've counted all auctions up to a certain length. All possible auctions up to a certain length n = 1 (length 0) + 38 + 38^2 + ... + 38^n = (38^(n+1) - 1)/37. I apologise for having it made appear as though this number is infinite. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 02:47:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DGkpk04327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 02:46:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DGkkH04323 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 02:46:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id MAA22129 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:33:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA15490 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:33:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:33:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200206131633.MAA15490@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >The diamond suit: > > Q 10 2 > > J 7 4 K 8 5 > > A 9 6 3 > >1) Declarer is in dummy but leads the 3 of diamonds from hand. > >2) West follows with the 4 > >3) East says "You're on the table" > >4) South says "OK, low diamond" > >5) Dummy plays the 2 of diamonds, East plays the 5 and then discovers > > that his partner had already accepted the lead out of turn by > > playing the 4. > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > No, it is a clear case of L47E1. > East's statement was incorrect, so declarer (in dummy's role) was > misinformed by an opponent that dummy was on lead. > > Dummy can therefore retract the diamond 2. This seems clear. If the TD had been called after step 4 but before 5, wouldn't we all rule this way? (Maybe all except Sven?) > L47D allows East to also retract the diamond 5, Yes, this also seems clear. > but L49 & L50 designate the diamond 5 as a major penalty card. But L47D says "without penalty." (Yes, there's an exception if the change of play involved a revoke, but that doesn't apply here.) Also, L49 specifies an exception for "application of law." I don't think the D-5 is a penalty card at all. The remaining question is how to rule under L16C. I think I'd rule that both sides are offending for failing to call the TD. Also, the initial infraction (leading from the wrong hand) was declarer's, and East's statement was also probably an infraction. If you buy this, L16C2 applies to both sides, and the D-5 is UI to both. I suppose you could also rule it is UI only to declarer if you think East's statement was not, in itself, an infraction. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 02:53:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DGrWP04340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 02:53:32 +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 g5DGrQH04336 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 02:53:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3665.bb.online.no [80.212.222.81]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA11629 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 18:40:13 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003d01c212f8$fdef4120$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020613131358.00b6f5a0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20020613161626.00ac4300@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 18:40:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > At 09:27 13/06/2002 -0400, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > >It would be in my game. I guess that's what happens when you make rulings > >at the table in lieu of calling the director!! > >Nancy Very right! > > AG : Agreed. According to law 9B2 and the meaning of using the future form, > I'll adjust the EW score so that they don't get a profit from their > infraction to said law. Use L74B2 and L73C4 if needed. L73C4? There is no such law in my book. But if you read Both laws 73 and 74 carefully I think you will have to agree neither of those is applicable to an accepted lead out of turn. The only loophole is if East can be convinced that he intentionally provided an extraneous remark that was likely to confuse declarer in such a way that East/West would gain from the situation. I cannot accept a claim that being the case here from what we have been told. Sven > > > > > > This really happened: > > > > > > The diamond suit: > > > Q 10 2 > > > > > > J 7 4 K 8 5 > > > > > > A 9 6 3 > > > > > > 1) Declarer is in dummy but leads the 3 of diamonds from hand. > > > 2) West follows with the 4 > > > 3) East says "You're on the table" > > > 4) South says "OK, low diamond" > > > 5) Dummy plays the 2 of diamonds, East plays the 5 and then discovers > > > that his partner had already accepted the lead out of turn by playing the > >4. > > > > > > All plays have been made in rotation, so is this a trick? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 03:11:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DHBDm04397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 03:11:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5DHB7H04393 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 03:11:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3665.bb.online.no [80.212.222.81]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA28386 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 18:57:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004301c212fb$76bbb6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <002b01c212aa$f8b8dc00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3D08AF1E.7D9D86F5@vwalther.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 18:57:55 +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: "Volker R. Walther" > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > >This really happened: > > > > > > > >The diamond suit: > > > > Q 10 2 > > > > > > > > J 7 4 K 8 5 > > > > > > > > A 9 6 3 > > > > > > > >1) Declarer is in dummy but leads the 3 of diamonds from hand. > > > >2) West follows with the 4 > > > >3) East says "You're on the table" > > > >4) South says "OK, low diamond" > > > >5) Dummy plays the 2 of diamonds, East plays the 5 and then discovers > > > > that his partner had already accepted the lead out of turn by > > > > playing the 4. > > > > > > > >All plays have been made in rotation, so is this a trick? > > > > > > > >Cheers, > > > > > > > >Tony > > > >Sydney > > > > > > No, it is a clear case of L47E1. > > > East's statement was incorrect, so declarer (in dummy's role) was > > > misinformed by an opponent that dummy was on lead. > > > > > > Dummy can therefore retract the diamond 2. > > > > Whatever it is it is not a case for Law 47E1 which concerns > > lead out of turn. > > "Definitions": Lead - The first card played to a trick. > > Shure it is: West asks south to _lead_ from the table. West did nothing of the kind, he followed suit and thereby accepted the lead out of turn. > > > > > The applicable laws are 9A2a, 9B1 and 53A > > > > Yes, the trick has been completed. > > > > Sven > > > > I woul like to know, wether there was any attempt of south to pick up > the 3 again. For that to be relevant he must attempt to do so before playing from dummy. > > I think we should also look at L 56B2. What is Law 56B2? It is not in my book. In fact law 56 is so short that no translation should be able to subdivide it whatsoever. I suppose however that this was a misprint for law 55B2, but then you must observe that this part of law 55 is never applicable after the lead has been accepted as prescrivbed in Law 55A > Unless nobody recognised the > played card from West, it allows the declarer to pick up the 3 and > lead a card from dummy. If RHO didn't realise that LHO has played a > card, it is very probable that the declarer also missed this action. > The 'OK' in his answer suggests that he didn't see the card played by > West, too. Again this makes me believe that you are referring to law 55B2. Whether the play from West has been noticed or not by the other players it is imperative that declarer restores the lead out of turn before leading from the correct hand. Otherwise his second "lead" is not a lead but a play to the trick in progress. > > In fact we now have the situation of L47E1: RHO tells that dummy has > to lead a card, which is not true, because LHO has alreay played a > card. Declarer acts on this information and tries to _lead_ a card > from dummy. Now East draws attention to the whole problem (he should > not play the 5, according to l47E1). Sorry - this is just plain nonsense. The situation has nothing whatever to do with L47E1. > > It's obvious that declarer never intended to play low from dummy to > the running trick; he only playd low because East asked him to lead > from the table. > > I would allow a change of dummy's played card. > The only foundation I can see for doing anything with this trick is as I stated in another post on this thread: If East can be convinced of having willfully tried to confuse declarer for the purpose of obtaining an advantage Note: The situation would have been completely different if any player at the table had summoned the director when East made his remark. It would also have made a lot of difference if declarer had actually retracted (or attempted to retract) his initially lead card before playing from dummy. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 03:20:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DHKJc04418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 03:20:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DHKBH04410 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 03:20:11 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g5DH73111430 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 18:07:03 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 18:07 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? 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: <5.1.0.14.0.20020613131358.00b6f5a0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> > This really happened: > > The diamond suit: > Q 10 2 > > J 7 4 K 8 5 > > A 9 6 3 > > 1) Declarer is in dummy but leads the 3 of diamonds from hand. > 2) West follows with the 4 > 3) East says "You're on the table" > 4) South says "OK, low diamond" > 5) Dummy plays the 2 of diamonds, East plays the 5 and then discovers > that his partner had already accepted the lead out of turn by playing > the 4. > > All plays have been made in rotation, so is this a trick? Quite probably, and a low-down dirty one at that! Personally I would rule, after East's misleading comment, that is was incontrovertibly not declarers intention to play the D2 to the trick in progress. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 03:20:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DHKHa04417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 03:20:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5DHKAH04408 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 03:20:10 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g5DH72U11397 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 18:07:02 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 18:07 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis 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: <00b801c212e6$c379e980$6f3f23d5@cornelis> Tom Cornelis wrote: > > > > > > I can't find the term 'general bridge knowledge' in the laws on > > disclosure at the moment. Law 75c says. > > > > When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply > > to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all > > special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or > > partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from > > *his* general knowledge and experience. > > ... but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his *general (bridge) > knowledge* and experience. Well sure. But that is very different. *My* "general bridge knowledge" is different to everyone else's "general bridge knowledge." It can't be seen as any sort of standard or absolute. In context it would seem fairly sensible to interpret it as "Subtract [all that I know about playing bridge that I know myself to hold in common with a specific partner] from [All that I know about bridge ] the remainder, however small/large is the "general bridge knowledge" I don't have to disclose. > This part should be removed. His general knowledge may include some > advanced mathematical method. Of course he doesn't need to disclose > inferences from his general knowledge. Then why should this part be removed? > The significance of a call should > not depend on the general knowledge of the partner. It doesn't. It has > the significance attributed by the player who made the call. > The partner who has to explain the call, should have to get it right. > (he should be made to by Law) The law already requires the explainer to "get it right". Thankfully the law also (IMO) accepts that an explanation like "We agreed to play Acol with transfers to majors so it is unlikely the 2S response to 1N is a weak take out to spades. People in this club play it in a number of different ways (all of them forcing) but I have no idea which my partner favours." *is* right. > The word 'special' should be strikken as well, because it has no > meaning at all in this context. I very much agree. > Law should also prescribe a method to use when the call is undiscussed. > My suggestion is that, in that case, the partner who explains the call > has to get it right (guess or not). If he doesn't there's MI. If he does > nothing has happened. If you are suggesting that giving an explanation such as the one above be regarded as MI then I think many people should give up the game right now. Forget playing on-line (we would need a TD at every table), forget individual tournaments, forget any chance of doing well with a new partner. Forget any chance of a good board if your partner is a novice. We can leave the world of bridge to the 37 partnerships capable of explaining their agreements correctly often enough to matter. > I'll demonstrate with your example: > > > To give a practical example. I am playing with an unfamiliar partner > > and have agreed to play "weak twos". I believe I am obliged to > > disclose that a 2S bid can be made on a 5 card or longer suit and from > > 4-11 points. > Ok, you're obliged to. > > > That information is inherent in our "agreement" (and my opponent may > > not know what "weak twos" means). If I am asked "When is it likely to > > be a 5 card suit rather than 6+?" I don't think I am obliged to say > > anything. > > You would have to say that that's impossible to know. (It would be > ethical.) I know that weak 2s are made on 5 card suits more often when non-vulnerable, less often on 5332 shapes, that many players look for better purity/suit quality when only 5 cards. I know that some people play 4-9 and others 5-10/6-11 and that few play 4-11. What I don't know is how much of the above my partner knows - or into which approach he falls. > > The answer to this question would be based entirely on *my* general > > knowledge and experience. > > Not true. Without another agreement, you simply cannot know. > It's irrevelant whether it's likely or not. > It's revelant wheter it's possible or not. If one of my opponents is unfamiliar with the system and wants to know more I can (and will) surely volunteer information as above. I don't want to gain an advantage by being unhelpful. Where I sit squarely in Marvin's camp is if I suspect an opponent of trying to communicate something about his own length/shortage/strength in the given suit to his partner. You can bet that I will have called the TD long before I co-operate with him in that little game. > > That said I think the circumstances in which I wouldn't > > try and give more detail are fairly limited. The more I have played > > with a partner the more I will be required to disclose (eg "I've never > > known Emily open a weak 2 on a 5 card suit at any vulnerability". > > Emily would not say the same about my own weak 2s!). > > Because you have an implicit agreement, not because you have more > experience as a player (we're talking general knowledge, remember). I often find I have an implicit disagreement instead. But I certainly have partnership experience with the player in question. It's not really important here whether it's experience/implicit or explicit agreement/understanding as long as I follow the principle that the more I play with (or even against, or in the same general milieu as) a given partner the smaller the undisclosable body of "my general bridge knowledge" becomes. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 03:28:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DHRuH04442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 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 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 g5DHRpH04438 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 03:27:51 +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 KAA14805; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:14:38 -0700 Message-Id: <200206131714.KAA14805@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Submissions CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:41:34 +0200." <3D08AF1E.7D9D86F5@vwalther.de> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:21:12 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Volker Walther wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > >This really happened: > > > > > > > >The diamond suit: > > > > Q 10 2 > > > > > > > > J 7 4 K 8 5 > > > > > > > > A 9 6 3 > > > > > > > >1) Declarer is in dummy but leads the 3 of diamonds from hand. > > > >2) West follows with the 4 > > > >3) East says "You're on the table" > > > >4) South says "OK, low diamond" > > > >5) Dummy plays the 2 of diamonds, East plays the 5 and then discovers > > > > that his partner had already accepted the lead out of turn by > > > > playing the 4. > > > > > > > >All plays have been made in rotation, so is this a trick? . . . > It looks a little bit like an attempt of RHO to bamboozle the declarer > (and perhaps the TD). So I guess the response to the original question should be: Yes, this is a trick. (But probably not the kind of trick Tony was asking about . . .) -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 03:30:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DHUk104456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 03:30:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5DHUeH04452 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 03:30:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3665.bb.online.no [80.212.222.81]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA25757 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 19:17:28 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <005b01c212fe$320cfba0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200206131633.MAA15490@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 19:17:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" > > >The diamond suit: > > > Q 10 2 > > > J 7 4 K 8 5 > > > A 9 6 3 > > >1) Declarer is in dummy but leads the 3 of diamonds from hand. > > >2) West follows with the 4 > > >3) East says "You're on the table" > > >4) South says "OK, low diamond" > > >5) Dummy plays the 2 of diamonds, East plays the 5 and then discovers > > > that his partner had already accepted the lead out of turn by > > > playing the 4. > > > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > No, it is a clear case of L47E1. > > East's statement was incorrect, so declarer (in dummy's role) was > > misinformed by an opponent that dummy was on lead. > > > > Dummy can therefore retract the diamond 2. > > This seems clear. If the TD had been called after step 4 but before 5, > wouldn't we all rule this way? (Maybe all except Sven?) Me too: If i were called to the table after step: 3 - I would simply rule Law 55B2 4 - I would give South a warning for violating law 9B2, cancel his request for a low diamond from dummy (Law 10B !) and again rule law 55B2 5 - If I find that the play of the 4D from West has not been observed by the other players I would request West to retract that card with no penalty and again rule Law 55B2 (allowing declarer to withdraw his 3D even after playing whatever card he desires from dummy). However, if I find that declarer has no excuse for not having observed the card played by West, nor has declarer attempted to retract his 3D I (as already made clear) rule that the trick is completed and won with the 5D. > > > L47D allows East to also retract the diamond 5, > > Yes, this also seems clear. Sure, if L47D had been applicable > > > but L49 & L50 designate the diamond 5 as a major penalty card. > > But L47D says "without penalty." (Yes, there's an exception if the > change of play involved a revoke, but that doesn't apply here.) Also, > L49 specifies an exception for "application of law." I don't think the > D-5 is a penalty card at all. No, and it is not even UI to partner! (Law 16C1) > > The remaining question is how to rule under L16C. I think I'd rule > that both sides are offending for failing to call the TD. Also, the > initial infraction (leading from the wrong hand) was declarer's, and > East's statement was also probably an infraction. If you buy this, > L16C2 applies to both sides, and the D-5 is UI to both. I suppose you > could also rule it is UI only to declarer if you think East's statement > was not, in itself, an infraction. If you understand my logic above you will now see that there is no need to invoke law 16 at all. (Except if you find that East has willfully tried to confuse declarer) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 03:34:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DHYPj04468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 03:34:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DHYKH04464 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 03:34:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.98] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id jpsavaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 19:21:09 +0200 Message-ID: <000901c212fe$b50015b0$623f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <005501c212d5$3bb69270$6f3f23d5@cornelis> <3D08BC94.1010701@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 19:21:07 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 5:39 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > Tom Cornelis wrote: > > > > >>Which is why I believe that a player should not say "A, but perhaps B" > >>because that is legally exactly the same as saying "A". > >> > > > > There is very little difference with my point of view. If you say 'A, but > > perhaps B', you are lying, because that states that you're simply not sure, > > whether you discussed this auction or not, where as if you say 'undiscussed, > > A or B, assuming A', Law will protect you whatever happens. It protects you > > additionally because there's UI. Mind that doubt can be seen as UI. You > > might as well inform and protect the opponents properly. > > If you say undiscussed, and it is undiscussed, and the opponents take the > > wrong action based on that, they are not protected by Law. (I suppose that's > > why you prefer to explain a bid as sth. in particular.) I feel this is > > wrong. It encourages players not to make clear agreements. Law would be much > > more effective if a specific explanation would have to be given. The fact > > that it doesn't, is because you're allowed not be on firm ground > > (explanation 'undiscussed'). I think Law therefore encourages players not to > > be on firm ground. I would very much like that to change, because it would > > leave a much smaller margin for errors and therefore preventing them, > > because players are ON FIRM GROUND with the LAW. Players give MI because > > they're not sure how to explain a bid. They should be made to make a choice. > > > > > Well, I happen to believe that the Laws actually do this. I don't. (see below) > Not in a direct manner, but by telling the TD that he must assume MI > if the explanation does not fit the hand. L75C tells us that a player isn't required to explain a call if he doesn't know it. He shall disclose special information (by agreement) and need not disclose inferences drawn from general knowledge. It doesn't say anything about information that's not special and that's wrong. There is no such thing as special information, because there's no general bridge knowledge. If the explanation is 'undiscussed' and they can prove it is, there is no MI, because such an explanation has to be interpreted as 'the significance can be derived from common bridge knowledge', which doesn't exist. The fact that a call is explained as undiscussed, comes from the fact that there is no common bridge knowledge. There would be no need to explain a call if everyone has the same opinion about common bridge knowledge. L75C expects everyone to have common bridge knowledge. Since there is no such thing, rulings will mostly be based on the bridge knowledge of the TD. In legal terms L75C overrides the Law you're speaking of, because L75C addresses the subject directly. So you can't be right about the inference you draw from the Law about MI. I insist that the problem of the Law in this instance is that it assumes common bridge knowledge (being different from special agreements), AND that everyone thinks there is such a thing. I'm still waiting for an example of general bridge knowledge. > Please note that I have never said that this is a legal requirement, > only that I give as advice to players simply to state what they > (believe/think/guess) the agreement is, without adding a lot of extra > information which the opponents are not really entitled to and which > creates UI to partner. And if you're wrong, so be it. Adding that > you're unsure will not help your case afterwards anyway. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 03:36:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DHaP204480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 03:36:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from front3.netvisao.pt ([213.228.128.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g5DHaHH04476 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 03:36:19 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 8998 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2002 17:22:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rui) (217.129.63.158) by pal-213-228-128-91.netvisao.pt with SMTP; 13 Jun 2002 17:22:55 -0000 From: "Rui Marques" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Your call (judgment case) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 18:22:56 +0100 Message-ID: <000301c212fe$f593ea20$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g5DHaLH04477 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is THE interesting aspect... Are TDs and Appeal Committees allowed to apply 12C3 on an hesitation case? I (and some of the other top european TDs) don´t think so, but this might be a case for discussing it. By the way, packing for Salsomaggiore so... Back in 15 days :-) -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Roger Pewick Sent: terça-feira, 11 de Junho de 2002 18:32 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Your call (judgment case) (...) It certainly appears that a player would tend to cue clubs before 5H unless he had reason to believe it was safe to do otherwise- such as UI. It appears that this would be a good place to apply 12C3. 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 Jun 14 03:49:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DHmx304504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 03:48:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DHmrH04500 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 03:48:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from jazz.meteo.fr (localhost.meteo.fr [127.0.0.1]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.3 (PHNE_22672)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA16953 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:35:40 GMT To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.07a May 14, 2001 Message-ID: From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 19:35:43 +0200 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Jazz/Meteo-France/FR(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 13.06.2002 17:35:40, Serialize complete at 13.06.2002 17:35:40 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 g5DHmuH04501 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "David Burn" Envoyé par : owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au 13/06/02 11:46 Pour : bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au cc : Objet : Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Herman wrote: >No Grattan, infinite is correct. > >The bidding can go > >1He >1Di >1He >1Di ad infintum Indeed it can, and the table will avoid a slow play penalty by adopting the following procedure: the first call is made after one minute, and each call subsequent call is made after half the length of time that it took to make the previous one. Of course, the director will need to rule on each insufficient bid in half the time taken to give his previous ruling, and so forth, but that is not difficult provided the tournament is held in Malament-Hogarth spacetime. But Herman's argument does not show that the number of auctions containing insufficient bids is infinite, only that there is at least one such auction of infinite length. As Robin Barker points out, however, the problem has been resolved thanks to the work of many eminent mathematicians. I would mention only Eddie Kantor's celebrated conjecture that the number 1430 is is some way "infinitely superior" to the number 3041, and Larry Cohen's "Totality Hypothesis", a refutation of Kurt Godel's principle that the number of tricks anyone will make on any give hand is undecidable. *** i agree when you say showing that the length of one auction may be infinite is not a proof that the number of possible auctions is infinite... but it may help to prove it: suppose that the number of auctions is finite; so you consider the set of all those auctions, then, from this set you select the auction (or one of those if there are ex-aequo) the length of it is the longest one. with this auction, you can construct another one (by inserting somewhere a supplementary round of bidding with an insufficient bid) which is longer (by 4 calls). this new auction should belong to the set of all possible auctions but is longer than the longest auction of the set. you can conclude that the initial hypothesis (finite number of auctions) is wrong. jp rocafort *** David Burn London, England __________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 03:49:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DHmoZ04499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 03:48:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5DHmjH04494 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 03:48:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-17.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.17] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17IYVV-00029H-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:35:37 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020613132849.00aa51e0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:35:59 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <3D08BDDC.8000907@skynet.be> References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613093355.00aadc70@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:44 AM 6/13/02, Herman wrote: >No Eric, you misunderstood: > >Tom is not advocating that you are not allowed to leave manners >undiscussed, only that you are not allowed to give that as an >explanation. After all, it's not really true - is it? I guess I still misunderstand. I'm allowed to leave [whatever] undiscussed. I do in fact leave it undiscussed. But I'm not allowed to say that it is undiscussed, because "it's not really true" that it is undiscussed. Huh? >If we play together tomorrow, and we have not discussed two-suiter >bids, and I overcall 1Sp with 3Cl, and they ask you what it means, you >can of course say "undiscussed", but you'd better add what you mean by >that - probably something along the lines of - "so it's probably clubs >and I guess weak". > >I happen to believe that even now, without Tom's proposed law change, >the legal requirement is that you add this. Even if it is indeed >undiscussed. > >And if I turn up with a two-suiter after all, won't the director rule >MI? Even if you manage to make him believe that I'm a silly ... who ...? So, according the "De Wael school" the Law requires that if I haven't discussed something and I truly haven't a clue what it means, I must make up a meaning the sole purpose and effect of which is so that I can penalized for an MI infraction when it turns out that what I made up isn't true. We have had this dicussion before. 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 Jun 14 04:20:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DIJuD04537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 04:19:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DIJoH04533 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 04:19:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.98] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id cftavaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 20:06:42 +0200 Message-ID: <001301c21305$122b0a50$623f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020610105042.00adb2a0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610133404.00aa8490@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 20:06:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 7:45 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > At 12:09 PM 6/10/02, Herman wrote: > > >Eric Landau wrote: > > > >>When you hold a hand which cannot be directly described using any of > >>your existing agreements, and which you have not previously > >>encountered with this particular partner, how can it not be > >>appropriate -- much less legal -- to attempt to convey your holding > >>by choosing a sequence which, in the context of the agreements you do > >>have, you hope will convey the nature of your holding to > >>partner? Isn't that what good bidding based on a sound knowledge of > >>bidding theory is supposed to be about? When did exercising one's > >>creativity in attempting to come up with a sequence that will tell > >>partner what you have turn into cheating? > >No, no Eric, not at all. > > > >But when, in the course of your using your agreements to describe a > >hand not previously thought of, and your partner understanding the > >same, you actually develop a new piece of system at the table, you are > >bound by the Laws to adequately inform your opponents of the same. > > When, in the course of your using your agreements to describe a hand > not previously thought of, and your partner understanding the same, you > actually develop a new piece of system at the table. (But it is not > one that was there previously.) > > When, in the course of your using your agreements to describe a hand > not previously thought of, and your partner not understanding the same, > you do not develop a new piece of system at the table. > > Since in real life you do not know whether partner understood the same, > you do not know which is the case. So, if Herman is correct, how can > you ever know whether you are supposed to inform your opponents of this > "agreement", which you do not know whether you actually have or not? > > You can, of course, *pretend* to have an agreement which you might well > not have -- in which case you may well be misinforming (AKA lying to) > your opponents. I understand that the "De Wael school" believes this > to be proper procedure, but I -- and, I believe, the majority of this > forum -- do not accept that proper procedure ever requires you to lie > to your opponents. I cannot accept the idea that "full disclosure" > requires you to pretend to something which you know is not true. > > But, as Herman said earlier, we have had this discussion before. They should be made to. That way, there's no need to pretend you have an agreement. Having an agreement is irrelevant for the opponents. Why should it be relevant for the Law? Full disclosure is only relevant to agreements. Therefore, if you have no agreement, and the Law makes you give a meaningful explanation, there's nothing to pretend. If it's correct there's no problem, if it's not correct, there will be nothing to do about it, whatever explanation you give. Let me ask you something else. Partership X comes from country A, partnership Y comes from country B. In country A and B, different common bridge knowledge applies. X and Y meet (whereever). One of the players is inventing a bid based on the common bridge knowledge, he relies on. His partner understands him, but explains the call as undiscussed, as he is required to do according to you. Their opponents think now the meaning of the call must be the one they think it is, because of their common bridge knowledge. Where's the fairness of that method? Which method 'lies'? There's a difference between lies and cheats. Lies shouldn't be avoided, because they can be detected. Cheats should be avoided because they're a lot harder to detect. If the Law would makes you give a meaningful explanation, you won't be required to lie, but to guess. That's not the same. To the opponents any meaningful explanation is as meaningful as another. It doesn't matter if it's true for the opponents. If it's not true, the Law sufficiently protects them. For your side there's no problem, because you're not telling a lie, but guessing (what you do anyway). Maybe you would like to come and play some national tournaments in Belgium sometimes. Because Flanders and Walloon have (very) different bidding methods, there's a lot of mistrust when you tell them you haven't discussed the sequence - only because you are more likely to get it right than your opponents. It's not a matter of lying. If there's a misunderstanding, the opponents will be misinformed, but at least they're protected. With your method there's a misunderstanding anyway. If there's no misunderstanding, why should you not explain the call meaningfully? If you would have to guess a queen left or right, why not explanation A or B? If I say 'A and not A' I'm lying. Am I cheating? You say 'A or not A'. You are never lying, but aren't you cheating? If you invent a bid you hope or expect partner to understand by implicit agreement. Shouldn't your partner inform the opponents of your implicit agreement then? Whether you get it wrong or right is irrelevant. Partner bases his call on an implicit agreement. You are required to disclose this agreement. If you get it right, nothing happened. If you get a wrong there's a misunderstanding, not a lie. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 04:33:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DIXMT04553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 04:33:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5DIXHH04549 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 04:33:17 +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 LAA15194; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:20:05 -0700 Message-Id: <200206131820.LAA15194@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:56:07 +0200." <3D085E27.60908@skynet.be> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:26:40 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >>There are > >> > > 128,745,650,347,030,683,120,231,926,111,609,371,363,122,697,557 > > > >>possible auctions, and I expect that some pairs may not quite > >>have discussed all of them. The number of auctions in which > >>insufficient bids occur is of course infinite. > >> > >> > > +=+ I suspect this last is not an accurate statement. > > Incalculable, perhaps, although with today's science > > even this seems unlikely. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > No Grattan, infinite is correct. > > The bidding can go > > 1He > 1Di > 1He > 1Di ad infintum No, it can't. Eventually, the SO's lease on the tournament site will expire. -- 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 Jun 14 04:40:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DIdqi04566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 04:39:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DIdlH04562 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 04:39:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g5DIQe216876 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:26:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004501c21307$c769e560$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3D08B26F.F9CA808B@vwalther.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:23:34 -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: "Volker R. Walther" > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > In a competitive auction there is a distinct break in tempo at the four > > level. Rightly or wrongly, the opposing side immediately calls the TD, who > > determines that there was indeed a definite break in tempo. > > > > There is no infraction so far. > > > > Many ACBL TDs in this situation start advising the partner of the > > tempo-breaker that he/she must not take any action demonstrably suggested by > > the UI if there is a logical alternative > > > > Is this correct TD procedure? > > > > Yes, according to L 81 C 5 > Which says one of the duties and powers of the TD is: "To administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder." I take this to say that the latter part is to be exercised within the former part, i.e., they go together. In this case no law is being administered in regard to the break in tempo, which is not in itself an infraction. Not saying myself that the TD practice is wrong, I'm just looking for verification that it is right. The reason I'm asking will be given later. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 04:50:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DInrt04582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 04:49:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DInmH04578 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 04:49:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g5DIaf220745 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:36:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005b01c21309$2d926f00$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <002301c212ce$b63f9b60$6f3f23d5@cornelis> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:34:24 -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: "Tom Cornelis" > From Marvin L. French: > > In a competitive auction there is a distinct break in tempo at the four > > level. Rightly or wrongly, the opposing side immediately calls the TD, who > > determines that there was indeed a definite break in tempo. > > > > There is no infraction so far. > > > > Many ACBL TDs in this situation start advising the partner of the > > tempo-breaker that he/she must not take any action demonstrably suggested > by > > the UI if there is a logical alternative > > > > Is this correct TD procedure? > > I would say it's advisible, because it prevents an infraction (or at least > it tries to). I can't find that right in the Laws. A TD sees a player about to play a card that constitutes a revoke. Should he prevent that? The TD can prevent the passing of boards to the wrong table, but that comes under L81C4 (to insure the orderly progress of the game). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 05:20:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DJJxm04605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 05:19:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DJJsH04601 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 05:19:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.98] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id yytavaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:06:41 +0200 Message-ID: <003601c2130d$7394cf30$623f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613093355.00aadc70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613132849.00aa51e0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:06:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 7:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > At 11:44 AM 6/13/02, Herman wrote: > > >No Eric, you misunderstood: > > > >Tom is not advocating that you are not allowed to leave manners > >undiscussed, only that you are not allowed to give that as an > >explanation. After all, it's not really true - is it? > > I guess I still misunderstand. I'm allowed to leave [whatever] > undiscussed. I do in fact leave it undiscussed. But I'm not allowed > to say that it is undiscussed, because "it's not really true" that it > is undiscussed. Huh? I think that Herman meant that you never leave nothing undiscussed. Either you discuss something, so you have or you don't, in which case you are so confident of your implicit agreements, that you don't need to. Please explain how you can make a call - that you're allowed to make - without hoping or expecting partner to understand. At least you hope he's getting it right. I feel that if you specifically risk a misunderstanding, the opponents should have the right that it is treated that way. Do you? You are basing your risk on your own general bridge knowledge or experience. If your partner uses the same knowledge for the situation in question, is there an agreement? Let's put it this way. An undiscussed call occurs. The maker of the call and his partner are going to base themselves on their general bridge knowledge. If there's a misunderstanding, why shouldn't it be treated that way? The maker of the call took the risk, didn't he? > >If we play together tomorrow, and we have not discussed two-suiter > >bids, and I overcall 1Sp with 3Cl, and they ask you what it means, you > >can of course say "undiscussed", but you'd better add what you mean by > >that - probably something along the lines of - "so it's probably clubs > >and I guess weak". > > > >I happen to believe that even now, without Tom's proposed law change, > >the legal requirement is that you add this. Even if it is indeed > >undiscussed. > > > >And if I turn up with a two-suiter after all, won't the director rule > >MI? Even if you manage to make him believe that I'm a silly ... who ...? > > So, according the "De Wael school" the Law requires that if I haven't > discussed something and I truly haven't a clue what it means, I must > make up a meaning You have to make up a meaning, whether you like it or not. Partner expects you to. > the sole purpose and effect of which is so that I can > penalized for an MI infraction when it turns out that what I made up > isn't true. Yes and your partnership should be, because your partner took the risk in the first place. Once he took the risk, you had to get it right. It's the responsibility of the maker of the call to make an undiscussed call, not of his partner. However, if one player of the partnership takes a risk and betted on the wrong horse, whatever (undiscussed call or agressive slam or ...) risk he takes, there's nothing to be done about. Let me repeat: * the normal way of explaining a call is giving a meaningful explanation - if the explanation is right, there's nothing wrong - if the explanation is wrong, there's been a misunderstanding - if there's been a misunderstanding, there's been MI or a wrong call - this is very well covered by Law * when a call is undiscussed - the player making a call takes a risk of misunderstanding - if there is a misunderstanding - explanation was 'undiscussed' - either the ruling will be MI - or the ruling will be 'general bridge knowledge' - explanation was not 'undiscussed' => MI - if there is no misunderstanding, there's an agreement - explanation was 'undiscussed' => MI - explanation was not 'undiscussed' => nothing wrong - this is very poorly covered by Law Let me ask you this as a player: what would you rather like: having a misunderstanding, and be penalized for it or the opponents have a misunderstanding and they get away with it. I cannot imagine that if the Law is changed in a more effective way, that players will complain or partnerships will fail to come into extistence. Partnerships come into extistence because people want to play bridge, not to have misunderstandings. People don't like misunderstandings. They regret it. But they should not be rewarded by getting away with it. That won't make them dislike misunderstandings even more. That won't make them regret them more. You cannot take away a misunderstanding by making them 'undiscussed'. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 05:29:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DJTLP04618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 05:29:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5DJTGH04614 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 05:29:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3665.bb.online.no [80.212.222.81]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA27976 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:16:03 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <009301c2130e$c2f37440$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <002301c212ce$b63f9b60$6f3f23d5@cornelis> <005b01c21309$2d926f00$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:16:03 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Marvin L. French" ....... > > > In a competitive auction there is a distinct break in tempo at the four > > > level. Rightly or wrongly, the opposing side immediately calls the TD, > who > > > determines that there was indeed a definite break in tempo. > > > > > > There is no infraction so far. > > > > > > Many ACBL TDs in this situation start advising the partner of the > > > tempo-breaker that he/she must not take any action demonstrably > suggested > > by > > > the UI if there is a logical alternative > > > > > > Is this correct TD procedure? > > > > I would say it's advisible, because it prevents an infraction (or at least > > it tries to). > > I can't find that right in the Laws. A TD sees a player about to play a card > that constitutes a revoke. Should he prevent that? The TD can prevent the > passing of boards to the wrong table, but that comes under L81C4 (to insure > the orderly progress of the game). We have discussed this on TD assemblies in Norway. Our concensus is that TD has a duty to react whenever he becomes aware of an irregularity (Law 81C6), but he must carefully avoid interfering with the activities at any table unless he has been summoned as long as the players (offending as well as non-offending) are in a position to themselves discover and act upon the irregularity. Examples: He must not on his own initiative act upon any revoke until the time limit prescribed in law 64B has expired. He must not at all interfere with a lead out of turn. He must interfere immediately if he becomes aware (from raised voices etc.) that attention has been called to an irregularity but nobody at the table appears "interested" in summoning the director. ("What is going on here?") Once the Director has been summoned on a particular (possible) irregularity he has a duty to make sure all four players are advised of their rights and responsibilities under the applicable law(s) (Law 81C5). IMO this includes warning the partner of a player who is "guilty" of break in tempo (no offence at this time) what his responsibilities are under Law 16A. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 05:44:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DJiYT04635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 05:44:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DJiSH04631 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 05:44:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.98] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id ffuavaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:31:19 +0200 Message-ID: <004101c21310$e4c00870$623f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:31:19 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 7:07 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > In-Reply-To: <00b801c212e6$c379e980$6f3f23d5@cornelis> > Tom Cornelis wrote: > > > > > > > > > I can't find the term 'general bridge knowledge' in the laws on > > > disclosure at the moment. Law 75c says. > > > > > > When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply > > > to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all > > > special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or > > > partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from > > > *his* general knowledge and experience. > > > > ... but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his *general (bridge) > > knowledge* and experience. > > Well sure. But that is very different. *My* "general bridge knowledge" > is different to everyone else's "general bridge knowledge." It can't be > seen as any sort of standard or absolute. In context it would seem fairly > sensible to interpret it as "Subtract [all that I know about playing > bridge that I know myself to hold in common with a specific partner] from > [All that I know about bridge ] the remainder, however small/large is the > "general bridge knowledge" I don't have to disclose. Indeed, except ... (see below) > > This part should be removed. His general knowledge may include some > > advanced mathematical method. Of course he doesn't need to disclose > > inferences from his general knowledge. > > Then why should this part be removed? your general knowledge is not agreed on, so according to the lines before, it doesn't have to be disclosed in the first place. > > The significance of a call should > > not depend on the general knowledge of the partner. It doesn't. It has > > the significance attributed by the player who made the call. > > The partner who has to explain the call, should have to get it right. > > (he should be made to by Law) > > The law already requires the explainer to "get it right". Thankfully the > law also (IMO) accepts that an explanation like "We agreed to play Acol > with transfers to majors so it is unlikely the 2S response to 1N is a weak > take out to spades. People in this club play it in a number of different > ways (all of them forcing) but I have no idea which my partner favours." > *is* right. Here I disagree. Firstly, this is a very confusing explanation for beginners. Secondly, you don't *get* it right, by saying that you have no clue. Why would partner make the bid if he wouldn't want it to make sense to you. > > The word 'special' should be strikken as well, because it has no > > meaning at all in this context. > > I very much agree. > > > Law should also prescribe a method to use when the call is undiscussed. > > My suggestion is that, in that case, the partner who explains the call > > has to get it right (guess or not). If he doesn't there's MI. If he does > > nothing has happened. > > If you are suggesting that giving an explanation such as the one above be > regarded as MI then I think many people should give up the game right now. > Forget playing on-line (we would need a TD at every table), forget > individual tournaments, forget any chance of doing well with a new > partner. Forget any chance of a good board if your partner is a novice. > We can leave the world of bridge to the 37 partnerships capable of > explaining their agreements correctly often enough to matter. If you're playing in a field with few agreements, you're on even footing. If you're not you were going to accept misunderstandings anyway. You can avoid misunderstandings. You can play or defend well. You can judge a competitive auction well. These are the things you are going to score on. I regard it very unethical to want to get good results by having misunderstandings. I don't understand why one would ever want to approve of misunderstandings. It encourages them. Maybe there'll someday be 'general bridge knowledge'. I surely hope so. There would be need for all those rulings. But today that's not the reality. It won't change if people are encouraged to have misunderstandings. > > I'll demonstrate with your example: > > > > > To give a practical example. I am playing with an unfamiliar partner > > > and have agreed to play "weak twos". I believe I am obliged to > > > disclose that a 2S bid can be made on a 5 card or longer suit and from > > > 4-11 points. > > Ok, you're obliged to. > > > > > That information is inherent in our "agreement" (and my opponent may > > > not know what "weak twos" means). If I am asked "When is it likely to > > > be a 5 card suit rather than 6+?" I don't think I am obliged to say > > > anything. > > > > You would have to say that that's impossible to know. (It would be > > ethical.) > > I know that weak 2s are made on 5 card suits more often when > non-vulnerable, less often on 5332 shapes, that many players look for > better purity/suit quality when only 5 cards. I know that some people > play 4-9 and others 5-10/6-11 and that few play 4-11. What I don't know > is how much of the above my partner knows - or into which approach he > falls. That's why you can't know. You don't know which category your partner falls in. This is a question of style, not of general knowledge. > > > The answer to this question would be based entirely on *my* general > > > knowledge and experience. > > > > Not true. Without another agreement, you simply cannot know. > > It's irrevelant whether it's likely or not. > > It's revelant wheter it's possible or not. > > If one of my opponents is unfamiliar with the system and wants to know > more I can (and will) surely volunteer information as above. I don't want > to gain an advantage by being unhelpful. Where I sit squarely in Marvin's > camp is if I suspect an opponent of trying to communicate something about > his own length/shortage/strength in the given suit to his partner. You > can bet that I will have called the TD long before I co-operate with him > in that little game. I completely agree. > > > That said I think the circumstances in which I wouldn't > > > try and give more detail are fairly limited. The more I have played > > > with a partner the more I will be required to disclose (eg "I've never > > > known Emily open a weak 2 on a 5 card suit at any vulnerability". > > > Emily would not say the same about my own weak 2s!). > > > > Because you have an implicit agreement, not because you have more > > experience as a player (we're talking general knowledge, remember). > > I often find I have an implicit disagreement instead. But I certainly > have partnership experience with the player in question. It's not really > important here whether it's experience/implicit or explicit > agreement/understanding as long as I follow the principle that the more I > play with (or even against, or in the same general milieu as) a given > partner the smaller the undisclosable body of "my general bridge > knowledge" becomes. I agree. That is any more experience with a certain player leads to implicit agreements with that player. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 06:05:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DK5NZ04652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 06:05:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5DK5HH04648 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 06:05:18 +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 g5DJq6X15774; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:52:06 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020613142802.00a596e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:52:37 -0500 To: "Tom Cornelis" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Cc: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" In-Reply-To: <003601c2130d$7394cf30$623f23d5@cornelis> References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613093355.00aadc70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613132849.00aa51e0@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 09:06 PM 6/13/02 +0200, Tom Cornelis wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 7:35 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > > > At 11:44 AM 6/13/02, Herman wrote: > > > > >No Eric, you misunderstood: > > > > > >Tom is not advocating that you are not allowed to leave manners > > >undiscussed, only that you are not allowed to give that as an > > >explanation. After all, it's not really true - is it? > > > > I guess I still misunderstand. I'm allowed to leave [whatever] > > undiscussed. I do in fact leave it undiscussed. But I'm not allowed > > to say that it is undiscussed, because "it's not really true" that it > > is undiscussed. Huh? > >I think that Herman meant that you never leave nothing undiscussed. >Either you discuss something, so you have or you don't, in which case you >are so confident of your implicit agreements, that you don't need to. This is, of course, just manifestly empirically false. I leave things undiscussed because either: a) I have only a limit time to discuss things, and so I choose only the most common to discuss, or, b) I cannot remember to discuss with partner every single one of the vastly many possible auctions against all of the vastly many opposing systems. I have, on many occasions, made undiscussed bids feverishly hoping partner will deduce what I have, and on some occasions I have thought it very likely that he would get it wrong--but sometimes, we haven't discussed _any_ calls I could make, and all of the reasonable ones are likely to be interpreted wrongly! >Please explain how you can make a call - that you're allowed to make - >without hoping or expecting partner to understand. At least you hope he's Of course I _hope_ partner understands. But from "I hope partner understands this" it would be rank absurdity to conclude "I have discussed this" or even "I have implicitly discussed this". >getting it right. I feel that if you specifically risk a misunderstanding, >the opponents should have the right that it is treated that way. Do you? Indeed. Just a couple of weeks ago my table opponents had an auction in which RHO bid 4NT after LHO had opened 1NT, and various calls had intervened. Now RHO knew they had not discussed this call, but she hoped that her partner would deduce that it was a quantitative raise and not Blackwood, because all their suit bids had been artificial, and so no fit had been uncovered. She was risking a misunderstanding, and hoping partner would get it right. He didn't. He answered to Blackwood. She, of course, knew that this was what he was doing, because one doesn't bid 5Hearts after denying a 4-card major in response to a quantitative NT invite. She put them in some slam or other, and went down. She risked a misunderstanding, got a misunderstanding, and got the reward that misunderstandings get the vast majority of the time--a cold bottom. Why on earth should we say that, if we had asked what their bids meant, they should have to pretend they have an agreement they haven't got? I think it would have been exactly right for LHO, if asked, to say that the 4NT bid was 'undiscussed', although he might offer information about whether their system did employ quantitative NT slam raises and what sort of Blackwood they played in Blackwood auctions. The fact is that he was left with a guess, he guessed wrongly, and he got a bottom. [BTW, my partner afterwards said that he would have interpreted the bid as Blackwood for the last bid suit, while I would have interpreted it as generic Blackwood, since no suit had been bid naturally--so we would have gotten it wrong, too.] >You are basing your risk on your own general bridge knowledge or experience. >If your partner uses the same knowledge for the situation in question, is >there an agreement? No, of course not. >Let's put it this way. An undiscussed call occurs. The maker of the call and >his partner are going to base themselves on their general bridge knowledge. >If there's a misunderstanding, why shouldn't it be treated that way? The >maker of the call took the risk, didn't he? Indeed. He took the risk of a bottom at the table. That's a huge enough risk right there. > > >If we play together tomorrow, and we have not discussed two-suiter > > >bids, and I overcall 1Sp with 3Cl, and they ask you what it means, you > > >can of course say "undiscussed", but you'd better add what you mean by > > >that - probably something along the lines of - "so it's probably clubs > > >and I guess weak". > > > > > >I happen to believe that even now, without Tom's proposed law change, > > >the legal requirement is that you add this. Even if it is indeed > > >undiscussed. > > > > > >And if I turn up with a two-suiter after all, won't the director rule > > >MI? Even if you manage to make him believe that I'm a silly ... who ...? > > > > So, according the "De Wael school" the Law requires that if I haven't > > discussed something and I truly haven't a clue what it means, I must > > make up a meaning > >You have to make up a meaning, whether you like it or not. Partner expects >you to. Sure he does. But it doesn't follow that this was an _agreed_ meaning. Even if it is the meaning he was hoping I'd make up! > > the sole purpose and effect of which is so that I can > > penalized for an MI infraction when it turns out that what I made up > > isn't true. > >Yes and your partnership should be, because your partner took the risk in >the first place. Once he took the risk, you had to get it right. It's the >responsibility of the maker of the call to make an undiscussed call, not of >his partner. However, if one player of the partnership takes a risk and >betted on the wrong horse, whatever (undiscussed call or agressive slam or >...) risk he takes, there's nothing to be done about. > >Let me repeat: >* the normal way of explaining a call is giving a meaningful explanation > - if the explanation is right, there's nothing wrong > - if the explanation is wrong, there's been a misunderstanding > - if there's been a misunderstanding, there's been MI or a wrong call > - this is very well covered by Law >* when a call is undiscussed > - the player making a call takes a risk of misunderstanding > - if there is a misunderstanding > - explanation was 'undiscussed' > - either the ruling will be MI > - or the ruling will be 'general bridge knowledge' > - explanation was not 'undiscussed' => MI > - if there is no misunderstanding, there's an agreement > - explanation was 'undiscussed' => MI > - explanation was not 'undiscussed' => nothing wrong > - this is very poorly covered by Law > >Let me ask you this as a player: what would you rather like: >having a misunderstanding, and be penalized for it or >the opponents have a misunderstanding and they get away with it. I would prefer to have my opponents have a misunderstanding, resulting in them going down 7 redoubled when they were cold for slam in NT. :) Misunderstandings penalize themselves 99% of them time. There's no need to penalize them by law on the rare occasions when they pay off. >I cannot imagine that if the Law is changed in a more effective way, that >players will complain or partnerships will fail to come into extistence. >Partnerships come into extistence because people want to play bridge, not to >have misunderstandings. People don't like misunderstandings. They regret it. >But they should not be rewarded by getting away with it. That won't make >them dislike misunderstandings even more. That won't make them regret them >more. You cannot take away a misunderstanding by making them 'undiscussed'. No, indeed. Nor can you turn a misunderstanding into an 'agreement'! Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 06:06:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DK6FU04664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 06:06:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DK6AH04660 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 06:06:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.98] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id hmuavaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:52:58 +0200 Message-ID: <004f01c21313$eb38cdb0$623f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <002301c212ce$b63f9b60$6f3f23d5@cornelis> <005b01c21309$2d926f00$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:52:58 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 8:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice > > From: "Tom Cornelis" > > > From Marvin L. French: > > > > In a competitive auction there is a distinct break in tempo at the four > > > level. Rightly or wrongly, the opposing side immediately calls the TD, > who > > > determines that there was indeed a definite break in tempo. > > > > > > There is no infraction so far. > > > > > > Many ACBL TDs in this situation start advising the partner of the > > > tempo-breaker that he/she must not take any action demonstrably > suggested > > by > > > the UI if there is a logical alternative > > > > > > Is this correct TD procedure? > > > > I would say it's advisible, because it prevents an infraction (or at least > > it tries to). > I can't find that right in the Laws. A TD sees a player about to play a card > that constitutes a revoke. Should he prevent that? The TD can prevent the > passing of boards to the wrong table, but that comes under L81C4 (to insure > the orderly progress of the game). I meant that the player should be informed of his rights and duties according to L81C5. A player who is about to revoke, is aware that it is prohibited to revoke, but not aware of it. A player who's partner conveyed UI, is aware of the situation, but may not be aware of the Law on this point. L81C5 applies because the TD was asked at the table to administer the Law, i.e. L16A. Administering the Law ins't the same as ruling. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 06:46:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DKjWo04687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 06:45:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail32.hq.webvisie.net [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DKjPH04683 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 06:45:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.98] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id pcvavaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:32:14 +0200 Message-ID: <005f01c21319$6773d5f0$623f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613093355.00aadc70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613132849.00aa51e0@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.1.20020613142802.00a596e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:32:14 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grant Sterling" To: "Tom Cornelis" Cc: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 9:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > At 09:06 PM 6/13/02 +0200, Tom Cornelis wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Eric Landau" > >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > >Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 7:35 PM > >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > > > > > > At 11:44 AM 6/13/02, Herman wrote: > > > > > > >No Eric, you misunderstood: > > > > > > > >Tom is not advocating that you are not allowed to leave manners > > > >undiscussed, only that you are not allowed to give that as an > > > >explanation. After all, it's not really true - is it? > > > > > > I guess I still misunderstand. I'm allowed to leave [whatever] > > > undiscussed. I do in fact leave it undiscussed. But I'm not allowed > > > to say that it is undiscussed, because "it's not really true" that it > > > is undiscussed. Huh? > > > >I think that Herman meant that you never leave nothing undiscussed. > >Either you discuss something, so you have or you don't, in which case you > >are so confident of your implicit agreements, that you don't need to. > > This is, of course, just manifestly empirically false. > I leave things undiscussed because either: > a) I have only a limit time to discuss things, and > so I choose only the most common to discuss, or, in which case you're confident you have made the right agreements. > b) I cannot remember to discuss with partner every > single one of the vastly many possible auctions against > all of the vastly many opposing systems. That's not what I meant. I meant that you have discussed some bids and not discussed others, but at least discussed some or at least are confident that no discussion is needed. > I have, on many occasions, made undiscussed bids > feverishly hoping partner will deduce what I have, and > on some occasions I have thought it very likely that > he would get it wrong--but sometimes, we haven't > discussed _any_ calls I could make, and all of the > reasonable ones are likely to be interpreted wrongly! That auction I would very much like to hear! > >Please explain how you can make a call - that you're allowed to make - > >without hoping or expecting partner to understand. At least you hope he's > > Of course I _hope_ partner understands. But from > "I hope partner understands this" it would be rank absurdity > to conclude "I have discussed this" or even "I have > implicitly discussed this". Giving a meaningful explanation is not the same as claiming you have discussed this. Whether a call has been discussed is irrelevant. > >getting it right. I feel that if you specifically risk a misunderstanding, > >the opponents should have the right that it is treated that way. Do you? > > Indeed. Just a couple of weeks ago my table > opponents had an auction in which RHO bid 4NT after > LHO had opened 1NT, and various calls had intervened. > Now RHO knew they had not discussed this call, but > she hoped that her partner would deduce that it was > a quantitative raise and not Blackwood, because all > their suit bids had been artificial, and so no > fit had been uncovered. She was risking a misunderstanding, > and hoping partner would get it right. > He didn't. He answered to Blackwood. She, > of course, knew that this was what he was doing, > because one doesn't bid 5Hearts after denying > a 4-card major in response to a quantitative NT > invite. She put them in some slam or other, and > went down. > She risked a misunderstanding, got a misunderstanding, > and got the reward that misunderstandings get the vast > majority of the time--a cold bottom. > Why on earth should we say that, if we had > asked what their bids meant, they should have to pretend > they have an agreement they haven't got? Because it might have been important for you. This is an example where it doesn't matter for you or for them what the explanation is. They wouldn't have to pretend, they would've haven to give an meaningful explanation. There's nothing to pretend. They're required to give an explanation, and whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant for you. For you it's relevant whether it's meaningful or not. Say a player is late and you fill in for him (not being the TD). You make some agreements but forget to agree on interventions over a weak 1NT. Your partner intervenes with 2Cl. RHO would like to know what it means. What is more interesting for them, an explanation that's either right or wrong, or a meaningless 'undiscussed', leaving everyone in the dark? Is it fair for them to be answered with 'undiscussed'? Should your side be punished if they get a bad score because of the intervention? > I think > it would have been exactly right for LHO, if asked, > to say that the 4NT bid was 'undiscussed', although > he might offer information about whether their system > did employ quantitative NT slam raises and what sort > of Blackwood they played in Blackwood auctions. The > fact is that he was left with a guess, he guessed > wrongly, and he got a bottom. > [BTW, my partner afterwards said that he > would have interpreted the bid as Blackwood for > the last bid suit, while I would have interpreted > it as generic Blackwood, since no suit had been > bid naturally--so we would have gotten it wrong, too.] > > >You are basing your risk on your own general bridge knowledge or experience. > >If your partner uses the same knowledge for the situation in question, is > >there an agreement? > > No, of course not. > > >Let's put it this way. An undiscussed call occurs. The maker of the call and > >his partner are going to base themselves on their general bridge knowledge. > >If there's a misunderstanding, why shouldn't it be treated that way? The > >maker of the call took the risk, didn't he? > > Indeed. He took the risk of a bottom at the table. > That's a huge enough risk right there. Is it? You may get a top if the opponents don't guess right. Isn't the risk for them twice as big as for you (since you have only your partner and they're with two)? Isn't it fair to grant them the same risk, as you would when you would risk a dangerous play? > > > >If we play together tomorrow, and we have not discussed two-suiter > > > >bids, and I overcall 1Sp with 3Cl, and they ask you what it means, you > > > >can of course say "undiscussed", but you'd better add what you mean by > > > >that - probably something along the lines of - "so it's probably clubs > > > >and I guess weak". > > > > > > > >I happen to believe that even now, without Tom's proposed law change, > > > >the legal requirement is that you add this. Even if it is indeed > > > >undiscussed. > > > > > > > >And if I turn up with a two-suiter after all, won't the director rule > > > >MI? Even if you manage to make him believe that I'm a silly ... who ...? > > > > > > So, according the "De Wael school" the Law requires that if I haven't > > > discussed something and I truly haven't a clue what it means, I must > > > make up a meaning > > > >You have to make up a meaning, whether you like it or not. Partner expects > >you to. > > Sure he does. But it doesn't follow that this > was an _agreed_ meaning. Even if it is the meaning > he was hoping I'd make up! If he gets it right, he agrees. It _becomes_ an agreement. > > > the sole purpose and effect of which is so that I can > > > penalized for an MI infraction when it turns out that what I made up > > > isn't true. > > > >Yes and your partnership should be, because your partner took the risk in > >the first place. Once he took the risk, you had to get it right. It's the > >responsibility of the maker of the call to make an undiscussed call, not of > >his partner. However, if one player of the partnership takes a risk and > >betted on the wrong horse, whatever (undiscussed call or agressive slam or > >...) risk he takes, there's nothing to be done about. > > > >Let me repeat: > >* the normal way of explaining a call is giving a meaningful explanation > > - if the explanation is right, there's nothing wrong > > - if the explanation is wrong, there's been a misunderstanding > > - if there's been a misunderstanding, there's been MI or a wrong call > > - this is very well covered by Law > >* when a call is undiscussed > > - the player making a call takes a risk of misunderstanding > > - if there is a misunderstanding > > - explanation was 'undiscussed' > > - either the ruling will be MI > > - or the ruling will be 'general bridge knowledge' > > - explanation was not 'undiscussed' => MI > > - if there is no misunderstanding, there's an agreement > > - explanation was 'undiscussed' => MI > > - explanation was not 'undiscussed' => nothing wrong > > - this is very poorly covered by Law > > > >Let me ask you this as a player: what would you rather like: > >having a misunderstanding, and be penalized for it or > >the opponents have a misunderstanding and they get away with it. > > I would prefer to have my opponents have a misunderstanding, > resulting in them going down 7 redoubled when they were cold > for slam in NT. :) > Misunderstandings penalize themselves 99% of them time. > There's no need to penalize them by law on the rare occasions > when they pay off. There's a rare occasion that there are three revokes as well, but the laws cater for that as well, do they not? Isn't the point of this forum to get the laws as good as possible? > >I cannot imagine that if the Law is changed in a more effective way, that > >players will complain or partnerships will fail to come into extistence. > >Partnerships come into extistence because people want to play bridge, not to > >have misunderstandings. People don't like misunderstandings. They regret it. > >But they should not be rewarded by getting away with it. That won't make > >them dislike misunderstandings even more. That won't make them regret them > >more. You cannot take away a misunderstanding by making them 'undiscussed'. > > No, indeed. Nor can you turn a misunderstanding > into an 'agreement'! I'm not turning it into an agreement. Either you guess it right, and there's an agreement, or there's a misunderstanding and there's no agreement. Stating that you know what it means, doesn't mean you know it. Giving a meaningful explanation equally doesn't state that you're right; so it doesn't state that you have an agreement. Whether you have an agreement or not is irrelevant. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 06:57:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DKv1Q04700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 06:57:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DKutH04696 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 06:56:56 +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 g5DKjgx02057 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:45:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 18:04:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020613131358.00b6f5a0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <002f01c212de$11410a30$6401a8c0@hare> <5.1.0.14.0.20020613161626.00ac4300@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020613161626.00ac4300@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <5.1.0.14.0.20020613161626.00ac4300@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 09:27 13/06/2002 -0400, Nancy T Dressing wrote: >>It would be in my game. I guess that's what happens when you make rulings >>at the table in lieu of calling the director!! >>Nancy > >AG : Agreed. According to law 9B2 and the meaning of using the future form, >I'll adjust the EW score so that they don't get a profit from their >infraction to said law. Use L74B2 and L73C4 if needed. > > > >> > This really happened: >> > >> > The diamond suit: >> > Q 10 2 >> > >> > J 7 4 K 8 5 >> > >> > A 9 6 3 >> > >> > 1) Declarer is in dummy but leads the 3 of diamonds from hand. >> > 2) West follows with the 4 >> > 3) East says "You're on the table" >> > 4) South says "OK, low diamond" >> > 5) Dummy plays the 2 of diamonds, East plays the 5 and then discovers >> > that his partner had already accepted the lead out of turn by playing the >>4. >> > there is an irregularity. West has condoned the LOOT and then told declarer the lead is in dummy. The trick stands. I adjust. cheers john >> > All plays have been made in rotation, so is this a trick? >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Tony >> > Sydney >> > >> > -- >> > ======================================================================== >> > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >> > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >> > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ >> > >> >> >>-- >>======================================================================== >>(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >>"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >>A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Jun 14 06:58:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DKwM504712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 06:58:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DKwGH04708 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 06:58:17 +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 g5DKl4x02061 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:47:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 18:05:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020613131358.00b6f5a0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20020613161626.00ac4300@pop.ulb.ac.be> <003d01c212f8$fdef4120$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <003d01c212f8$fdef4120$6700a8c0@nwtyb> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <003d01c212f8$fdef4120$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran writes >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > >> At 09:27 13/06/2002 -0400, Nancy T Dressing wrote: >> >It would be in my game. I guess that's what happens when you make >rulings >> >at the table in lieu of calling the director!! >> >Nancy > >Very right! > >> >> AG : Agreed. According to law 9B2 and the meaning of using the future >form, >> I'll adjust the EW score so that they don't get a profit from their >> infraction to said law. Use L74B2 and L73C4 if needed. > >L73C4? There is no such law in my book. > >But if you read Both laws 73 and 74 carefully I think you will have to agree >neither of those is applicable to an accepted lead out of turn. The only >loophole >is if East can be convinced that he intentionally provided an extraneous >remark it doesn't have to be intentional, it is only required that the player could have known (which he could) .... I adjust. cheers john >that was likely to confuse declarer in such a way that East/West would gain >from the situation. I cannot accept a claim that being the case here from >what >we have been told. > >Sven > >> >> >> >> > > This really happened: >> > > >> > > The diamond suit: >> > > Q 10 2 >> > > >> > > J 7 4 K 8 5 >> > > >> > > A 9 6 3 >> > > >> > > 1) Declarer is in dummy but leads the 3 of diamonds from hand. >> > > 2) West follows with the 4 >> > > 3) East says "You're on the table" >> > > 4) South says "OK, low diamond" >> > > 5) Dummy plays the 2 of diamonds, East plays the 5 and then discovers >> > > that his partner had already accepted the lead out of turn by playing >the >> >4. >> > > >> > > All plays have been made in rotation, so is this a trick? > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Jun 14 06:59:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DKwt004724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 06:58:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5DKwnH04720 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 06:58:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3665.bb.online.no [80.212.222.81]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA01601 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:45:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00a101c2131b$45220f60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <002301c212ce$b63f9b60$6f3f23d5@cornelis> <005b01c21309$2d926f00$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004f01c21313$eb38cdb0$623f23d5@cornelis> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:45:36 +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 > > A TD sees a player about to play a card > > that constitutes a revoke. Should he prevent that? > I meant that the player should be informed of his rights and duties > according to L81C5. A player who is about to revoke, is aware that it is > prohibited to revoke, but not aware of it. TD must not interfere on his own initiative at a table where he notices a revoke in progress unless he is summoned to that table. NOS has no duty to call attention to a revoke before it is established even when they are aware of the revoke in progress. If TD interferes on his own initiative he is actually depriving NOS of their rights. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 06:59:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DKxhd04736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 06:59:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DKxbH04732 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 06:59:38 +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 g5DKmPx02065 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:48:25 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 18:07:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes >In a competitive auction there is a distinct break in tempo at the four >level. Rightly or wrongly, the opposing side immediately calls the TD, who >determines that there was indeed a definite break in tempo. > >There is no infraction so far. > >Many ACBL TDs in this situation start advising the partner of the >tempo-breaker that he/she must not take any action demonstrably suggested by >the UI if there is a logical alternative > >Is this correct TD procedure? > i believe so. Certainly I believe so in the UK. cheers john >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > > > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 07:05:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DL4nt04752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 07:04:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DL4iH04748 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 07:04:45 +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 QAA11631 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:51:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA15772 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:51:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:51:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200206132051.QAA15772@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Your call (judgment case) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Rui Marques" > Are TDs and Appeal Committees allowed > to apply 12C3 on an hesitation case? L12C3 (in Zones where it applies at all) only applies _after_ there is a situation that merits an "assigned adjusted score," i.e., a score under L12C2. I missed this restriction until Grattan was kind enough to point it out, but it's clear in the text once you know to look for it. If such a situation arises, and the TD/AC believes the scores specified by L12C2 do not "do equity," then different scores can be given. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 07:29:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DLT1304781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 07:29:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5DLSpH04777 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 07:28:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3665.bb.online.no [80.212.222.81]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA04433 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 23:15:38 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00ab01c2131f$774dda60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020613131358.00b6f5a0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20020613161626.00ac4300@pop.ulb.ac.be> <003d01c212f8$fdef4120$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 23:15:38 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ............. > >The only loophole is if East can be convinced that he intentionally provided > >an extraneousremark > > it doesn't have to be intentional, it is only required that the player > could have known (which he could) .... I adjust. cheers john Law 72B1: Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side ...... True, it says "could have known" but it also says "likely to damage". If East could have known that the declarer was likely to be damaged by his (too late) notification that dummy was in turn to play it must have been because he intentionally tried to take advantage of how easily declarer could be confused. Applying L72B1 in this case is really pulling it too far. L72B1 requires some predictable connection between the irregularity and the subsequent damage, such a connection exists here only if "assisted" by declarer's confusion. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 09:23:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DNN2E04855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:23:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5DNMwH04851 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:22:58 +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 JAA00772 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:24:15 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:06:06 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:09:22 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 14/06/2002 09:05:52 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] Tim West-Meads wrote: >>The law already requires the explainer to "get it >>right". Thankfully the law also (IMO) accepts that >>an explanation like "We agreed to play Acol with >>transfers to majors so it is unlikely the 2S >>response to 1N is a weak take out to spades. >>People in this club play it in a number of different >>ways (all of them forcing) but I have no idea which >>my partner favours." *is* right. Tom Cornelis replied: >Here I disagree. Firstly, this is a very confusing >explanation for beginners. The law requires full disclosure. Avoiding confusion to beginners should *not* be by brief disclosure. Instead, ask the beginners, "Is there anything about the explanation you wish clarified?" >Secondly, you don't *get* it right, by saying that >you have no clue. Why would partner make the bid if >he wouldn't want it to make sense to you? In a particular sequence, the system notes I have agreed with my regular partner specifically define a 2S call as *non-systemic*. Last year, my regular partner made that *non-systemic* 2S call. When asked by an opponent for an explanation of the 2S call, I replied, "Non-systemic." How would the Cornelis/De Wael school require me to Lawfully reply? 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 Jun 14 09:41:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DNf2h04879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:41:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DNeuH04871 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:40:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g5DNRn209394 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:27:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <009c01c21331$d94813e0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:27:06 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Marvin L. French writes: > >In a competitive auction there is a distinct break in tempo at the four > >level. Rightly or wrongly, the opposing side immediately calls the TD, who > >determines that there was indeed a definite break in tempo. > > > >There is no infraction so far. > > > >Many ACBL TDs in this situation start advising the partner of the > >tempo-breaker that he/she must not take any action demonstrably suggested by > >the UI if there is a logical alternative > > > >Is this correct TD procedure? > > > i believe so. Certainly I believe so in the UK. cheers john Okay, then, this seems to be a unanimous opinion. The TD can't do anything at that time unless the existence of UI must be determined, so the only remaining task is to protect the hesitator's partner from committing an infraction, just in case he/she is unaware of the requirements of L16. Very well. I thought that in the UK the opponents were required to merely "reserve rights," calling the TD only if there is a disagreement about the break in tempo (L16A1). If it is important to protect the hesitating side, why shouldn't it be required to call the TD whether or not the UI is agreed?. After all, many players believe they should do what they think they would have done absent the UI, which is not the right criterion. That leads to the ACBL's non-acceptance of L16A1, which was revised in the ELECTIONS to say that opponents should not wait to call the TD in accordance with L16A1 (and L16A2, not an SO option), but should call the TD immediately when UI arises in a situation that could lead to later damage. Perhaps what the ACBL had in mind was the protection of the potential offender, as everyone seems to consider desirable. So what do we players do? Call the TD every time someone breaks tempo in a tempo-sensitive situation, in violation of L16A2? That doesn't seem practical. Follow L16A1, merely agreeing on the UI, leaving the opponent unprotected? Please give us an acceptable procedure. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 09:45:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5DNjhK04891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:45:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail8.nc.rr.com (fe8.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5DNjbH04887 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:45:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail8.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 19:31:35 -0400 Received: from ncmx02.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.67.222]) by mail8.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Wed, 12 Jun 2002 07:04:16 -0400 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by ncmx02.mgw.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5CB4Ga2013027 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 07:04:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5CAsW402561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:54:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5CAsQH02555 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:54:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (80-200-6-112.adsl.powered-by.skynet.be [80.200.6.112]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5CAfGH07629 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:41:16 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D0725AB.6090207@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:42:51 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <110602162.30614@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: > Herman wrote: > > >>What if A intends his bid to show hand X, and B explains it >> > as hand Y, but actually undiscussed. At the end of the hand, > A produces a piece of logic explaining why his undiscussed bid > does in fact show X. Is there MI? > Uhmm, sorry David. I meant that A actually holds hand X. > Yes. Unless A produces a piece of paper, rather than a piece > of logic, to support his contention that the bid shows hand X, > then one proceeds as if the bid did not in fact show hand X. > > You have misinformed your opponents if you have told them that > a bid corresponds to hand X when it is made with a hand that > is not-X, unless you can show beyond doubt that the bid does > indeed (in your methods) correspond to hand X and has been made > by mistake (or as a deliberate departure from an agreement). > > That isn't "the more difficult bit". That's the even easier bit. > > 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/ > > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 14 10:26:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E0Piu04914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:25:44 +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 g5E0PcH04910 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:25:39 +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 17IehZ-000Eyl-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:12:29 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:11:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads writes >To give a practical example. I am playing with an unfamiliar partner and >have agreed to play "weak twos". I believe I am obliged to disclose that >a 2S bid can be made on a 5 card or longer suit and from 4-11 points. >That information is inherent in our "agreement" (and my opponent may not >know what "weak twos" means). If I am asked "When is it likely to be a 5 >card suit rather than 6+?" I don't think I am obliged to say anything. The >answer to this question would be based entirely on *my* general knowledge >and experience. It is known by your special partnership experience and thus is disclosable. For example, if you were playing with me, you would know that if I have no honour higher than the jack then I would have a six- card suit. That is special knowledge. Furthermore, if I am vulnerable the chances of my having six cards become enormous: my partners know this, so my opponents should know it. On the other hand the fact that generally players take more care vulnerable is not something you need to disclose because that is general knowledge. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 10:31:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E0V6P04926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:31:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g5E0UxH04922 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:31:00 +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 17Ieml-0003G7-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:17:51 +0100 Message-ID: <2IfzCtAIXTC9EwKw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:16:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! References: <20020609200225.C8D0A595E@poczta.interia.pl> <+DzOBDCQh9A9Ew6M@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001101c211de$a0792120$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <001101c211de$a0792120$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" >....... >> Ok, very sensible answers. Now let me explain my problem. I have a >> player calling me a liar, telling me I am ruling in favour of my chums, >> and I am naturally annoyed. Let's be honest, I was *very* annoyed. >> >> Now my problem was this: I knew I was very annoyed, and I am not happy >> at the idea of giving a DP while I am very annoyed. I might cool off, >> and in about ten minutes think I only gave it because of bad temper. >> >> So I effectively told him to behave himself, and said I would come >> back to him later. Shortly afterwards, his partner apologised profusely >> for him. >> >> After I had cooled down and chatted to a colleague I realised that a >> disciplinary penalty of some sort was suitable. But now it seemed too >> late: if I go to him *now*, say half an hour later, I will be >> exacerbating a cool situation. So eventually I decided to let sleeping >> dogs lie, and he escaped unpunished. >> >> Comments? > >The way you handled this - I don't think you had any other choice >EXCEPT: (on afterthought) > >You could have considered yourself too involved to handle the case >and done exactly what we suggest players to do when they feel there >is an infraction of law 74: Call the Director! > >But you were the Director? Not the only one as I understand you. > >What do you think about immediately involving the chief Director >and let him handle the case while the temperature was on top on >the reason that you were too upset to handle it yourself? Basically impractical. The geography of the event would have made it difficult, and it would have been difficult for the DIC to come anyway because of his other duties. Sure, he would have come if he had to. >(And I think in the actual case a report to your SO might have been >in order even with no DP given on the scene) Our SO has said, and I strongly agree, that too many things get reported to them rather than dealt with by disciplinary methods at the time. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 10:35:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E0Z8004938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:35:08 +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-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 g5E0Z3H04934 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:35:04 +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 17Ieqe-000AuY-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:21:53 +0100 Message-ID: <$IMxy5AEbTC9EwLq@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:20:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! 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 >This sort of situation is why the Recorder system >has been adopted in national ABF events and many >Australian clubs. > >A quiet word by the TD with the Recorder would >not exacerbate a cool situation, and would make >sure that a serial offender would eventually >receive justice. > >If the WBU and/or EBU have not yet adopted the >Recorder system, then David could speak with >the-powers-that-be, using this example as an >argument in the Recorder system's favour. The WBU L&EC, of which I am a member, proposed such a system. No, said the WBU. The EBU L&EC, of which I am a member, has vaguely considered it and decided that it is probably illegal, against the declaration of human rights, and generally NOT A GOOD THING. Personally, I am all for it, but I do not think I am going to get it! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 11:10:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E1APS04970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:10:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5E1AKH04966 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:10:20 +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 RAA17570; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:57:05 -0700 Message-Id: <200206140057.RAA17570@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:27:06 PDT." <009c01c21331$d94813e0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 18:03:44 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > So what do we players do? Call the TD every time someone breaks tempo in a > tempo-sensitive situation, in violation of L16A2? That doesn't seem > practical. Follow L16A1, merely agreeing on the UI, leaving the opponent > unprotected? Please give us an acceptable procedure. Maybe we need another bidding card in our bidding boxes, labeled UI, that has the requirements of L16 printed on it. Then, when we think an opponent has made a tempo break, we make sure we all agree that there is UI, then we pull the UI card out of our bidding box and hand it to the hesitator's partner so that he knows what his requirements are without having to involve the TD. Just a wild thought. -- 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 Jun 14 11:16:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E1G9e04986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:16:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail8.nc.rr.com (fe8.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5E1G3H04982 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:16:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail8.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 20:46:26 -0400 Received: from ncmx02.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.67.222]) by mail8.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:45:13 -0400 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by ncmx02.mgw.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5BBn0od012103 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 07:49:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BBdEf01366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 21:39:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5BBd8H01362 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 21:39:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-47451.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.57.91]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5BBPeY24327 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:25:40 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D05DE93.20506@skynet.be> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:27:15 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <070602158.8906@webbox.com> <002b01c20e62$0f0ba340$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080851.00aa25a0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610112812.00adbac0@pop.starpower.net> <003701c21099$b3bf61e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006901c210d6$fc67c4e0$da9727d9@pbncomputer> <000f01c2112e$567262e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > To David: > I understand you disagree with me on that last part, but > I am not sure I understand in what way. > neither do I understand how anyone can have a different opinion about these Norwegian's actions. > Please clarify whether your opinion is that Arild and Helge > should (if asked) have "hidden behind" a statement that the > situation was undiscussed, full stop, or whether they should > present their understanding as an agreement. (And leave it > to opponents to try figure out how they could have had any > "agreement" for a situation like this). > The Norwegians had a clear partnership understanding that the first step showed .... and so on, and this understanding must be available to opponents. They also were on the same wavelength that the same principle would apply over an accepted insufficient call. Is there really anyone left who thinks it important whether this "same wavelength" is the result of a previous occurence or not. Whether it is important that they discussed this or not ? As DB pointed out, the first is impossibly difficult to prove or disprove, and the second totally impossible. Whether you call this an agreement or an implicit partnership understanding, it must fall under the heading of things that opponents are entitled to know. > To make it clear: My opinion is that with a partnership > understanding like the one that existed between them, > opponents are indeed entitled to be told how they > interpreted each others calls. > Of course. Who can disagree with that. > Sven > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 14 11:25:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E1PIG05024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:25:18 +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 g5E1P3H05008 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:25:03 +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 17Ifd3-000HDS-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 02:11:55 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:35:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020613131358.00b6f5a0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> >> This really happened: >> >> The diamond suit: >> Q 10 2 >> >> J 7 4 K 8 5 >> >> A 9 6 3 >> >> 1) Declarer is in dummy but leads the 3 of diamonds from hand. >> 2) West follows with the 4 >> 3) East says "You're on the table" >> 4) South says "OK, low diamond" >> 5) Dummy plays the 2 of diamonds, East plays the 5 and then discovers >> that his partner had already accepted the lead out of turn by playing >> the 4. >> >> All plays have been made in rotation, so is this a trick? > >Quite probably, and a low-down dirty one at that! > >Personally I would rule, after East's misleading comment, that is was >incontrovertibly not declarers intention to play the D2 to the trick in >progress. What misleading comment? When you are East, Tim, and declarer led from hand, have you never said "You're on the table"? I think you should consider what happened, not what Laws we could mull over. This is primarily a directing problem, not a Laws problem, in my view. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 11:25:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E1PN605026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:25:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g5E1P3H05007 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:25:03 +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 17Ifd3-000HDR-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 02:11:55 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:33:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020613131358.00b6f5a0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <002f01c212de$11410a30$6401a8c0@hare> <5.1.0.14.0.20020613161626.00ac4300@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article <5.1.0.14.0.20020613161626.00ac4300@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain >Gottcheiner writes >>> > This really happened: >>> > >>> > The diamond suit: >>> > Q 10 2 >>> > >>> > J 7 4 K 8 5 >>> > >>> > A 9 6 3 >>> > >>> > 1) Declarer is in dummy but leads the 3 of diamonds from hand. >>> > 2) West follows with the 4 >>> > 3) East says "You're on the table" >>> > 4) South says "OK, low diamond" >>> > 5) Dummy plays the 2 of diamonds, East plays the 5 and then discovers >>> > that his partner had already accepted the lead out of turn by playing the >>>4. >>> > >there is an irregularity. West has condoned the LOOT and then told >declarer the lead is in dummy. The trick stands. I adjust. If the facts were as you say, then of course we adjust. But, if you look back a few lines, West did no such thing: he just sleepily followed suit. East pointed out that the lead was in dummy. I do not think the answer to this is possible without being present. My best guess is that the TD would find that East said it so quickly that we can be sure that l72B1 does not apply. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 11:25:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E1PI805025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:25:18 +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 g5E1P4H05010 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:25:04 +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 17Ifd3-000HDT-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 02:11:56 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:44:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <009c01c21331$d94813e0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <009c01c21331$d94813e0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> Marvin L. French writes: >> >In a competitive auction there is a distinct break in tempo at the four >> >level. Rightly or wrongly, the opposing side immediately calls the TD, >who >> >determines that there was indeed a definite break in tempo. >> > >> >There is no infraction so far. >> > >> >Many ACBL TDs in this situation start advising the partner of the >> >tempo-breaker that he/she must not take any action demonstrably suggested >by >> >the UI if there is a logical alternative >> > >> >Is this correct TD procedure? >> > >> i believe so. Certainly I believe so in the UK. cheers john > >Okay, then, this seems to be a unanimous opinion. The TD can't do anything >at that time unless the existence of UI must be determined, so the only >remaining task is to protect the hesitator's partner from committing an >infraction, just in case he/she is unaware of the requirements of L16. Very >well. Personally, I would have said L73C, not L16A. As a practical matter, I think TDs judge how much explanation is required. >I thought that in the UK the opponents were required to merely "reserve >rights," calling the TD only if there is a disagreement about the break in >tempo (L16A1). If it is important to protect the hesitating side, why >shouldn't it be required to call the TD whether or not the UI is agreed?. >After all, many players believe they should do what they think they would >have done absent the UI, which is not the right criterion. We believe that the game should be played in a practical and sensible way. Calling the TD after every tempo break does not work. Players who need protection rarely reserve their rights without calling the TD. The system works quite well because of the absence of the heavy hand. >That leads to the ACBL's non-acceptance of L16A1, which was revised in the >ELECTIONS to say that opponents should not wait to call the TD in accordance >with L16A1 (and L16A2, not an SO option), but should call the TD immediately >when UI arises in a situation that could lead to later damage. Perhaps what >the ACBL had in mind was the protection of the potential offender, as >everyone seems to consider desirable. > >So what do we players do? Call the TD every time someone breaks tempo in a >tempo-sensitive situation, in violation of L16A2? That doesn't seem >practical. Follow L16A1, merely agreeing on the UI, leaving the opponent >unprotected? Please give us an acceptable procedure. The main thing is to stop the idea that every tempo break and every player should be treated and act the same. We have a practical approach: we allow reserving of rights, when we are called anyway we make what we believe to be a sufficient warning, which differs based on the people. From what I can discover much of the ACBL works the same way. Reserving of rights happens frequently. OK, the ACBL says it shouldn't, but the players do it anyway. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 11:25:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E1PIe05023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:25:18 +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 g5E1P3H05006 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:25:03 +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 17Ifd3-000HDP-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 02:11:54 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:27:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Your call (judgment case) References: <000301c212fe$f593ea20$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> In-Reply-To: <000301c212fe$f593ea20$9e3f81d9@netvisao.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 g5E1P6H05013 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Rui Marques writes >This is THE interesting aspect... Are TDs and Appeal Committees allowed >to apply 12C3 on an hesitation case? I (and some of the other top >european TDs) don´t think so, but this might be a case for discussing >it. I think this arose out of a misunderstanding. Of course you are allowed to apply L12C3 in a hesitation case, and it is common to do so - BUT - you are not allowed to use the disallowed action. Suppose the bidding goes 1H 1S 4H ...Dbl P 4S X AP The TD judges that the 4S bid was based on the UI from the slow double and disallows it. Now, he could give as a ruling 20% of 4H* +1 + 70% of 4H* = + 10% of 4H* -1 Why ever not? But he may *not* give 15% of 4H* +1 + 65% of 4H* = + 5% of 4H* -1 + 15% of 4S* -1 because he may not include the disallowed action. To do so is called a Reveley ruling because of a case that brought this to our attention. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 12:15:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E2Eoq05075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 12:14:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5E2EkH05071 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 12:14:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA05024 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 12:16:03 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:57:53 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Recorder system (was I am a TD!) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:58:51 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 14/06/2002 11:57:38 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] > The EBU L&EC, of which I am a member, has vaguely >considered it and decided that it is probably illegal, >against the declaration of human rights, and generally >NOT A GOOD THING. > > Personally, I am all for it, but I do not think I am >going to get it! > >-- >David Stevenson There is one aspect of the ACBL Recorder system that I would agree was "against the declaration of human rights". The ACBL used to, and may still, require the Recording of names of *all* parties at an AC, even those which the AC rules in favour of. The obvious inference is that the ACBL considers being involved in an appeal as something *necessarily* shameful. 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 Jun 14 12:54:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E2rxi05101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 12:53:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5E2rsH05097 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 12:53:55 +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 TAA18264; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 19:40:40 -0700 Message-Id: <200206140240.TAA18264@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] The Recorder system (was I am a TD!) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:58:51 +1000." Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 19:47:20 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard wrote: > There is one aspect of the ACBL Recorder system that I > would agree was "against the declaration of human rights". > > The ACBL used to, and may still, require the Recording > of names of *all* parties at an AC, even those which > the AC rules in favour of. The obvious inference is > that the ACBL considers being involved in an appeal > as something *necessarily* shameful. Now I'm completely lost. I've been trying to figure out how "we want to have your name for our records" in any way implies "we think you're doing something shameful", and have utterly failed at this effort. I suppose that a few years ago when I was called as a witness in a civil suit, and they asked me to state my name for the record, I should have taken the inference that I ought to be ashamed of myself for appearing as a witness. Strangely, I didn't feel any such shame. Perhaps I just don't possess the kind of sensitivity required to live in the New World Order and need to have my brain reprogrammed? Someone will have to explain this to me. -- 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 Jun 14 12:55:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E2tJk05113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 12:55:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail8.nc.rr.com (fe8.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5E2tDH05109 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 12:55:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail8.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:38:36 -0400 Received: from ncmx01.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.67.251]) by mail8.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:03:42 -0400 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by ncmx01.mgw.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5BM3gbC029744 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:03:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BM0s602096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:00:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5BM0mH02092 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:00:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by mailing.poczta.interia.pl (mailing) with ESMTP id 076335FDA for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:47:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by rav.antivirus (Mailserver) with SMTP id 9E0BA5933 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:47:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 462A75BD5; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:43:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from miauczur-gbq01f (pd87.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl [213.76.39.87]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 8368F5C46 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:43:23 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:42:54 +0100 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Konrad Ciborowski Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis X-Mailer: Opera 5.01 build 840 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <20020611214323.8368F5C46@poczta.interia.pl> X-EMID: 56e40acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk 2002-06-11 13:11:19, Eric Landau wrote: >The "De Wael school", as we know well, disagrees. It believes that >whether you are confident or in doubt, you must pretend to be >confident, and accept the MI penalty when partner, not at all >unexpectedly, turns out to justify the secret doubt you have neglected >to disclose. In effect, it says that you must lie to the opponents, >and then take the penalty when your failure to tell the truth is >revealed. IMO, it makes a lot more sense to just tell the truth in the >first place. Say that the auction starts as in David Kent's post: 1S 1NT 2H 4C and I ask opener (no screens) what the 4C bid means. As an opponent I *very* much prefer to play against the dWs players. If they are on the same wavelength then I lose nothing - I know the meaning of my opponents' calls so I am sure that me & my partner are on the same wavelength, too. It gives me the comfort of playing. If the explanation is wrong then I know for sure that I will get redress for MI - if one opponent explains that 4C is a splinter while the explanation should really be "natural, fit showing" then this will be an easy case for the TD to rule. It also gives me the comfort of playing as I know I will get the full protection from the TD. What I don't like is when I receive an explanation full of ornaments like "We have never discussed this auction but have decided to play splinters in most situations and fit bids only in competition or by a passed hand. But I think that partner might think that the number of situations where a splinter occurs in a minor after a 1S-1N-2H start is much fewer than the number of times a fit bid would occur." Yes, it all may very well be true. But now I am not on the firm ground. I have to do *twice as much* of mental work because I have to work out what my best action might be in both cases. Do I want to double 4C for the lead if it is natural? What is more - I am no longer certain that I am not going to be told by some TD that my opponents have "fully disclosed" their agreements so I really wasn't damaged. Or that I should have protected myself by asking further questions. Or that I will pick one of the possibilities (say splinter) and go by that (say I double 4C) and then be told that I did something "irrational, wild or gambling". They redoubled and made 4Cxx? It was foolish of you to double 4C when you were told that it might have been natural. I believe in dWs because I very much prefer to play against a dWs pair that against a pair who gives me but-I-am-in-doubt explanations. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mamy dla ciebie pamiatke z Mundialu! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f15e8 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 13:10:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E3AJ605130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 13:10:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail8.nc.rr.com (fe8.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5E3ADH05126 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 13:10:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail8.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:53:09 -0400 Received: from ncmx01.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.67.251]) by mail8.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:45:38 -0400 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by ncmx01.mgw.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5BKjcbC005168 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:45:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5BKdP902033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 06:39:25 +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.eduhi.at (mail.asn-linz.ac.at [193.170.68.251]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5BKdJH02029 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 06:39:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from pp-xp [10.90.16.33] by mail.eduhi.at (SMTPD32-7.10) id AC7A2AFA0062; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 22:24:26 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster OSB To: BLML Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 22:26:10 +0200 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-Id: Subject: [BLML] HUM? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" X-Mailer: Opera 6.03 build 1107 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I am not sure I quite understand the last item making a system a HUM: d) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows ... (b) either length in one suit or length in another 1. It is quite common, in the context of a strong club system, to open some balanced hands with 1D, even on a doubleton. Therefore, it could be said that this 1D opening shows "length in diamonds or length in another suit" (as one of them has to be of more than two cards). Obviously, it was not the intention that this should make a system HUM. 2. If the meaning is to be "length in a specific other suit or suits", it would still make a strong club system where you open 1D on hands with a weak club suit a HUM. Is that what is intended? Regards, Petrus -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 14:10:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E49QQ05160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:09:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5E49LH05156 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:09:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g5E3uD223864; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 20:56:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00cd01c21357$57fa5020$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200206140057.RAA17570@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 20:55:35 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Marvin French wrote: > > > So what do we players do? Call the TD every time someone breaks tempo in a > > tempo-sensitive situation, in violation of L16A2? That doesn't seem > > practical. Follow L16A1, merely agreeing on the UI, leaving the opponent > > unprotected? Please give us an acceptable procedure. > > Maybe we need another bidding card in our bidding boxes, labeled UI, > that has the requirements of L16 printed on it. Then, when we think > an opponent has made a tempo break, we make sure we all agree that > there is UI, then we pull the UI card out of our bidding box and hand > it to the hesitator's partner so that he knows what his requirements > are without having to involve the TD. > > Just a wild thought. > That might give offense. It's equivalent to asking an opponent, "Are you aware of your ethical responsibilities?" as a pro asked me once. Didn't care for that, but I got even another time when his client limit-raised him to 3D, then bid 4D, then (after pro's break in tempo) 5D. She had the first two bids, but not the last, as I saw when dummy came down. The TD adjusted and the pro appealed, losing. The AC made his client aware of her ethical responsibilities. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 14:29:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E4TSB05189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:29:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5E4TNH05185 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:29:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g5E4GE203291 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:16:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00e301c2135a$24178220$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] The Recorder system (was I am a TD!) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:12:59 -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] > > > The EBU L&EC, of which I am a member, has vaguely > >considered it and decided that it is probably illegal, > >against the declaration of human rights, and generally > >NOT A GOOD THING. > > > > Personally, I am all for it, but I do not think I am > >going to get it! > > > >-- > >David Stevenson > > There is one aspect of the ACBL Recorder system that I > would agree was "against the declaration of human rights". > > The ACBL used to, and may still, require the Recording > of names of *all* parties at an AC, even those which > the AC rules in favour of. The obvious inference is > that the ACBL considers being involved in an appeal > as something *necessarily* shameful. > This is hard to believe, and it's certainly not true now. ACBL Recorder Rich Colker would not be a party to anything like that. The names of AC parties are included in the NABC Appeals casebook for higher-level events. There is no shame attached to merely being a party, although shame is sometimes heaped on a pair whose appeal is without merit, resulting in an Appeal Without Merit Warning. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 14:33:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E4WpZ05203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:32:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5E4WkH05199 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:32:47 +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 OAA28331 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:34:05 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:15:55 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Accelerated Swiss To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:18:31 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 14/06/2002 14:15:40 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: [big snip] >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, [snip] 18 teams entered a recent 5-session Canberra Bridge Club teams event. The TD had a choice between two movements: 1. Split the field into two seeded halves and run a Mitchell movement of nine 9-board rounds, with four teams to qualify for knockout semi-finals. 2. Have one field play eight Swiss 14-board rounds, with two teams to qualify for a final. Option 2 was selected, and the two finalists had mostly beaten the other good teams in the Swiss qualifying. The exception was my team, which demolished one of the finalists, but in turn was demolished by the two other good teams, so failed to qualify. Such a non-transitive relationship (A beats B beats C beats A) is why I believe a serious Swiss may produce more consistent results than a serious knockout when the skill-level of the top teams is only marginally different. 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 Jun 14 14:51:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E4pAX05225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:51:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5E4p3H05216 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:51:03 +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 g5E4bsf09728 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:37:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:33:20 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis 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 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/13/02, Tom Cornelis wrote: >in which case you're confident you have made the right agreements. > Sorry, but that turns out not to be the case. I play with several different people, some more often than others. Most of them will not play what I consider to be the "right" agreements in many cases, usually because they are still stuck in Audrey Grant's book on bidding, which is perhaps good enough to teach raw beginners (though I have my doubts about that) but certainly not good enough for any reasonably regular and competent partnership. So with most of these partners, I'm fairly confident we have *not* made the right agreements. 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 Jun 14 14:51:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E4pCN05226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:51:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5E4p6H05221 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:51:06 +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 g5E4buf09778 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:37:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:25:07 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <004101c21310$e4c00870$623f23d5@cornelis> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/13/02, Tom Cornelis wrote: >Here I disagree. Firstly, this is a very confusing explanation for >beginners. Secondly, you don't *get* it right, by saying that you have >no clue. Why would partner make the bid if he wouldn't want it to make >sense to you. Pfui. The fact it's confusing is relevant how, under the law? And what partner wants isn't necessarily what he gets. 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 Jun 14 16:00:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E601o05280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:00:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blueyonder.co.uk (pcow035o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.121]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5E5xtH05272 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 15:59:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from pcow035o.blueyonder.co.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Fri, 14 Jun 2002 06:46:45 +0100 Received: from mikeamos (unverified [62.30.228.108]) by pcow035o.blueyonder.co.uk (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.9) with SMTP id ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 06:46:45 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c21366$ecd48da0$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> From: "mike amos" To: , "Tony Musgrove" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020613131358.00b6f5a0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 06:47:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk No Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Musgrove" To: Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 4:21 AM Subject: [BLML] Is this a trick? > This really happened: > > The diamond suit: > Q 10 2 > > J 7 4 K 8 5 > > A 9 6 3 > > 1) Declarer is in dummy but leads the 3 of diamonds from hand. > 2) West follows with the 4 > 3) East says "You're on the table" > 4) South says "OK, low diamond" > 5) Dummy plays the 2 of diamonds, East plays the 5 and then discovers > that his partner had already accepted the lead out of turn by playing the 4. > > All plays have been made in rotation, so is this a trick? > > Cheers, > > Tony > Sydney > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 16:08:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E68WW05302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:08:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blueyonder.co.uk (pcow057o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5E68RH05298 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:08:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from pcow057o.blueyonder.co.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Fri, 14 Jun 2002 06:54:52 +0100 Received: from mikeamos (unverified [62.30.228.108]) by pcow057o.blueyonder.co.uk (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.9) with SMTP id ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 06:54:52 +0100 Message-ID: <002401c21368$0fc30200$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> From: "mike amos" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 06:55:17 +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 in my opinion it's two half tricks One consisting 3 4 and the other 2 5 Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 6:07 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? > In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020613131358.00b6f5a0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> > > This really happened: > > > > The diamond suit: > > Q 10 2 > > > > J 7 4 K 8 5 > > > > A 9 6 3 > > > > 1) Declarer is in dummy but leads the 3 of diamonds from hand. > > 2) West follows with the 4 > > 3) East says "You're on the table" > > 4) South says "OK, low diamond" > > 5) Dummy plays the 2 of diamonds, East plays the 5 and then discovers > > that his partner had already accepted the lead out of turn by playing > > the 4. > > > > All plays have been made in rotation, so is this a trick? > > Quite probably, and a low-down dirty one at that! > > Personally I would rule, after East's misleading comment, that is was > incontrovertibly not declarers intention to play the D2 to the trick in > progress. > > Tim > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 16:16:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E6GFx05318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:16:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blueyonder.co.uk (pcow034o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5E6GAH05314 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:16:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from pcow034o.blueyonder.co.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Fri, 14 Jun 2002 07:03:01 +0100 Received: from mikeamos (unverified [62.30.228.108]) by pcow034o.blueyonder.co.uk (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.9) with SMTP id ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 07:03:01 +0100 Message-ID: <003a01c21369$336efa00$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> From: "mike amos" To: "Sven Pran" , "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <002b01c212aa$f8b8dc00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 07:03:27 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is silly in my humble opinion (sorry Sven) If Declarer had said "Ok I'll lead the S3 and East had followed with the SA are you going to rule there has been a revoke? Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 8:21 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? > > >This really happened: > > > > > >The diamond suit: > > > Q 10 2 > > > > > > J 7 4 K 8 5 > > > > > > A 9 6 3 > > > > > >1) Declarer is in dummy but leads the 3 of diamonds from hand. > > >2) West follows with the 4 > > >3) East says "You're on the table" > > >4) South says "OK, low diamond" > > >5) Dummy plays the 2 of diamonds, East plays the 5 and then discovers > > > that his partner had already accepted the lead out of turn by > > > playing the 4. > > > > > >All plays have been made in rotation, so is this a trick? > > > > > >Cheers, > > > > > >Tony > > >Sydney > > > > No, it is a clear case of L47E1. > > East's statement was incorrect, so declarer (in dummy's role) was > > misinformed by an opponent that dummy was on lead. > > > > Dummy can therefore retract the diamond 2. > > Whatever it is it is not a case for Law 47E1 which concerns > lead out of turn. > "Definitions": Lead - The first card played to a trick. > > The applicable laws are 9A2a, 9B1 and 53A > > Yes, the trick has been completed. > > Sven > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 16:17:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E6HO905330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:17:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blueyonder.co.uk (pcow034o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5E6HIH05326 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:17:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from pcow034o.blueyonder.co.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Fri, 14 Jun 2002 07:04:11 +0100 Received: from mikeamos (unverified [62.30.228.108]) by pcow034o.blueyonder.co.uk (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.9) with SMTP id for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 07:04:11 +0100 Message-ID: <004901c21369$5d0fb700$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> From: "mike amos" To: References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 07:04:37 +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 Marvin may have a trap for us here but it is certaomly my practice and I think that of EBU TDs to warn players where UI has been given (eg where a nonstop bid has been preceded by a Stop Card) They say "What's the penalty?" I say "None, but partner mustn't make a call suggested etc etc etc " mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 7:46 AM Subject: [BLML] TD Advice > In a competitive auction there is a distinct break in tempo at the four > level. Rightly or wrongly, the opposing side immediately calls the TD, who > determines that there was indeed a definite break in tempo. > > There is no infraction so far. > > Many ACBL TDs in this situation start advising the partner of the > tempo-breaker that he/she must not take any action demonstrably suggested by > the UI if there is a logical alternative > > Is this correct TD procedure? > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 17:16:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E7F7t05361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:15:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from front2.netvisao.pt ([213.228.128.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g5E7F2H05357 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:15:02 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 16855 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2002 05:13:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rui) (217.129.63.158) by front2.netvisao.pt with SMTP; 14 Jun 2002 05:13:55 -0000 From: "Rui Marques" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Your call (judgment case) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 06:14:20 +0100 Message-ID: <000501c21362$5734dc40$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g5E7F4H05358 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk That´s what I meant, sorry. -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of David Stevenson Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Junho de 2002 1:28 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Your call (judgment case) Rui Marques writes >This is THE interesting aspect... Are TDs and Appeal Committees allowed >to apply 12C3 on an hesitation case? I (and some of the other top >european TDs) don´t think so, but this might be a case for discussing >it. I think this arose out of a misunderstanding. Of course you are allowed to apply L12C3 in a hesitation case, and it is common to do so - BUT - you are not allowed to use the disallowed action. Suppose the bidding goes 1H 1S 4H ...Dbl P 4S X AP The TD judges that the 4S bid was based on the UI from the slow double and disallows it. Now, he could give as a ruling 20% of 4H* +1 + 70% of 4H* = + 10% of 4H* -1 Why ever not? But he may *not* give 15% of 4H* +1 + 65% of 4H* = + 5% of 4H* -1 + 15% of 4S* -1 because he may not include the disallowed action. To do so is called a Reveley ruling because of a case that brought this to our attention. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 17:17:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E7GoD05373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:16:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5E7GjH05369 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:16:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail6.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:47:42 -0400 Received: from ncmx01.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.67.251]) by mail6.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Mon, 10 Jun 2002 19:03:07 -0400 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by ncmx01.mgw.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5AMFBtH001837 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:15:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AM43n00766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:04:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5AM3vH00762 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:03:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.61.55] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17HX2W-000PW9-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:49:29 +0100 Message-ID: <001801c210c9$31903340$1e22e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <6190034.1023716788520.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.0.20020610174133.00ab2360@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610152850.00ae0270@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:52:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > "Agreement" isn't in the "Definitions" chapter, nor > does any definition of it appear in the body of the > laws or notes thereto (in contrast to, say, "normal"). > So whence comes the notion that "agreement" in "the > bridge-laws sense of the word" means anything > different from "agreement" in "the English sense of > the word"? If we make the assumption that > something not specifically defined means anything > other than "the English sense of the word" we are > in Wonderland, where words can mean whatever > we want them to. > > +=+ I have not been watching this thread before today, and I do not know where it is coming from, but what I read is full of knots. Law 40B refers, of course, to partnership understandings. Law 75 refers to agreements. It is double cover of the disclosure requirement. Any words not defined in the law book must be taken for their dictionary meaning. In my opinion, one of the most difficult words in this area of the laws is 'special'. Since I am not familiar with the thread I am not prepared to say this view necessarily agrees with what you have written. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 18:58:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E8vjV05423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 18:57:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5E8veH05419 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 18:57:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-80583.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.186.199]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5E8iN824812 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:44:23 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D09AD48.10402@skynet.be> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:46:00 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <005501c212d5$3bb69270$6f3f23d5@cornelis> <3D08BC94.1010701@skynet.be> <000901c212fe$b50015b0$623f23d5@cornelis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis wrote: > > L75C tells us that a player isn't required to explain a call if he doesn't > know it. No it doesn't. Ignorance is no excuse. If you forget your agreement, your opponents are still entitled to know it. > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 19:03:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E93NN05439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 19:03:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (rd-ir.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5E93HH05435 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 19:03:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id KAA26430; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:48:26 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id KAA25980; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:50:07 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020614105706.00ac8c30@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:57:33 +0200 To: "Sven Pran" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? In-Reply-To: <003d01c212f8$fdef4120$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020613131358.00b6f5a0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20020613161626.00ac4300@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 18:40 13/06/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > > At 09:27 13/06/2002 -0400, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > > >It would be in my game. I guess that's what happens when you make >rulings > > >at the table in lieu of calling the director!! > > >Nancy > >Very right! > > > > > AG : Agreed. According to law 9B2 and the meaning of using the future >form, > > I'll adjust the EW score so that they don't get a profit from their > > infraction to said law. Use L74B2 and L73C4 if needed. > >L73C4? There is no such law in my book. AG : sorry. 74C4. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 19:03:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E93XK05445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 19:03:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5E93QH05441 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 19:03:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-80583.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.186.199]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5E8oDH22543 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:50:13 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D09AEA7.9070407@skynet.be> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:51:51 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613093355.00aadc70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613132849.00aa51e0@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 11:44 AM 6/13/02, Herman wrote: > >> No Eric, you misunderstood: >> >> Tom is not advocating that you are not allowed to leave manners >> undiscussed, only that you are not allowed to give that as an >> explanation. After all, it's not really true - is it? > > > I guess I still misunderstand. I'm allowed to leave [whatever] > undiscussed. I do in fact leave it undiscussed. But I'm not allowed to > say that it is undiscussed, because "it's not really true" that it is > undiscussed. Huh? > Yes exactly. If I decide nnot to discuss something with a pick-up partner, it's because I know we have enough common background to fall back on. That common background is our "agreement" and it must be told opponents. Of course quite often these opponents will share your common background, and they will also know what your "undiscussed" means. But that's simply the "reasonably be expected" from L40B. The fact that in this special although quite common case "undiscussed" will be a full explanation does not mean that this is always the case. >> If we play together tomorrow, and we have not discussed two-suiter >> bids, and I overcall 1Sp with 3Cl, and they ask you what it means, you >> can of course say "undiscussed", but you'd better add what you mean by >> that - probably something along the lines of - "so it's probably clubs >> and I guess weak". >> >> I happen to believe that even now, without Tom's proposed law change, >> the legal requirement is that you add this. Even if it is indeed >> undiscussed. >> >> And if I turn up with a two-suiter after all, won't the director rule >> MI? Even if you manage to make him believe that I'm a silly ... who ...? > > > So, according the "De Wael school" the Law requires that if I haven't > discussed something and I truly haven't a clue what it means, I must > make up a meaning the sole purpose and effect of which is so that I can > penalized for an MI infraction when it turns out that what I made up > isn't true. > Indeed. And that's not the De Wael school. You can say what you want at the table, but if you say "undiscussed" and your partner had some intention with his bid, I'll be forced to rule against you. Remember that the DWs is not a school of directors but an advice to players. My advice is that when you're unsure it's still better to guess and tell something than to say "undiscussed". > We have had this dicussion before. > > > 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/ > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 14 19:15:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5E9F3U05468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 19:15:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5E9EwH05464 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 19:14:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-80583.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.186.199]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5E91Y900921 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:01:34 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D09B150.1040800@skynet.be> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:03:12 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Your call (judgment case) References: <000301c212fe$f593ea20$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Rui Marques writes > >>This is THE interesting aspect... Are TDs and Appeal Committees allowed >>to apply 12C3 on an hesitation case? I (and some of the other top >>european TDs) don´t think so, but this might be a case for discussing >>it. >> > > I think this arose out of a misunderstanding. > > Of course you are allowed to apply L12C3 in a hesitation case, and it > is common to do so - BUT - you are not allowed to use the disallowed > action. > > Suppose the bidding goes 1H 1S 4H ...Dbl > P 4S X AP > > The TD judges that the 4S bid was based on the UI from the slow double > and disallows it. > > Now, he could give as a ruling > > 20% of 4H* +1 > + 70% of 4H* = > + 10% of 4H* -1 > > Why ever not? > > But he may *not* give > > 15% of 4H* +1 > + 65% of 4H* = > + 5% of 4H* -1 > + 15% of 4S* -1 > > because he may not include the disallowed action. To do so is called a > Reveley ruling because of a case that brought this to our attention. > I am not sure if you're aware of the fact that at Oostende, in two cases such a ruling was actually made. I have to say that it was two of the few cases that I did not sit on, but were handled by an esteemed Liverpudlian. (not DWS) I am certain that the discussion on those cases is not yet over. > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 14 20:32:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5EAVHa05501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 20:31:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5EAVBH05497 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 20:31:11 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g5EAI2V08244 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:18:02 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:18 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: DWS wrote: > >Personally I would rule, after East's misleading comment, that is was > >incontrovertibly not declarers intention to play the D2 to the trick > in >progress. > > What misleading comment? > > When you are East, Tim, and declarer led from hand, have you never > said "You're on the table"? Of course, many times. But if I said it after West had followed I would regard it as misleading (on the grounds that it is no longer true). Inadvertently misleading if I was unaware that my pard had already played, deliberate cheating if I was so aware. In the "inadvertent" case I want to allow N and E to retract their cards without penalty. In the cheating case I want to disqualify East. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 20:47:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5EAlNQ05518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 20:47:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout08.sul.t-online.com (mailout08.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5EAlIH05514 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 20:47:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd10.sul.t-online.de by mailout08.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17IoPA-00052d-04; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 12:34:08 +0200 Received: from NBSCHWA2 (320038309723-0001@[62.224.131.37]) by fwd10.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17IoOr-1jBUwaC; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 12:33:49 +0200 Message-ID: <002101c2138e$f7c8f020$11ce06d4@NBSCHWA2> Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Schwarz?= From: j.c.schwarz@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Schwarz?=) To: Subject: [BLML] roman signals and roman carding (odd/even?) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 12:33:48 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001E_01C2139F.BB258000" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Sender: 320038309723-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C2139F.BB258000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable hi folks, sorry to disturb you with a non-legal matter, but could somebody = recommend a book concerning the issue roman signals and roman carding. many thx for your kind help j=F6rg schwarz ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C2139F.BB258000 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
hi folks,
 
sorry to disturb you with a non-legal = matter, but=20 could somebody recommend a book concerning the issue
 
roman signals and roman = carding.
 
many thx for your kind = help
 
j=F6rg = schwarz
------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C2139F.BB258000-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 21:38:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5EBbQm05541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 21:37:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g5EBbLH05537 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 21:37:22 +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 17IpBc-0000dY-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 12:24:12 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 12:22:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Your call (judgment case) References: <000301c212fe$f593ea20$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> <3D09B150.1040800@skynet.be> In-Reply-To: <3D09B150.1040800@skynet.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: >> because he may not include the disallowed action. To do so is called a >> Reveley ruling because of a case that brought this to our attention. >I am not sure if you're aware of the fact that at Oostende, in two >cases such a ruling was actually made. > >I have to say that it was two of the few cases that I did not sit on, >but were handled by an esteemed Liverpudlian. (not DWS) > >I am certain that the discussion on those cases is not yet over. I have heard of these, and some decisions apparently in contravention of the advice in the CoP about starting with a presumption of the TD being correct, and a split ruling where there seemed no apparent reason to split. The ACs at Ostend made many decisions that look very strange from outside. Have the decisions been posted yet? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 21:40:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5EBenm05554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 21:40:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5EBehH05550 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 21:40:44 +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 17IpEs-0004bb-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 12:27:34 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 12:26:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] The Recorder system (was I am a TD!) 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 > >[snip] > >> The EBU L&EC, of which I am a member, has vaguely >>considered it and decided that it is probably illegal, >>against the declaration of human rights, and generally >>NOT A GOOD THING. >> >> Personally, I am all for it, but I do not think I am >>going to get it! >> >>-- >>David Stevenson > >There is one aspect of the ACBL Recorder system that I >would agree was "against the declaration of human rights". > >The ACBL used to, and may still, require the Recording >of names of *all* parties at an AC, even those which >the AC rules in favour of. The obvious inference is >that the ACBL considers being involved in an appeal >as something *necessarily* shameful. Oh, come off it. I sat on appeals at Las Vegas. My name appears in the case book - why should anyone consider this shameful? I think it is the other way around: anyone who does not want to give his name in such a case is showing signs of paranoia. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 21:58:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5EBwC805571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 21:58:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5EBw6H05567 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 21:58:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.113] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id ydjbvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 13:44:54 +0200 Message-ID: <009301c21398$e778b700$713f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 13:44:55 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 6:33 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > On 6/13/02, Tom Cornelis wrote: > > >in which case you're confident you have made the right agreements. > > > > Sorry, but that turns out not to be the case. I play with several > different people, some more often than others. Most of them will not > play what I consider to be the "right" agreements in many cases, usually > because they are still stuck in Audrey Grant's book on bidding, which is > perhaps good enough to teach raw beginners (though I have my doubts > about that) but certainly not good enough for any reasonably regular and > competent partnership. So with most of these partners, I'm fairly > confident we have *not* made the right agreements. By the 'right' agreements I meant the agreements that are necessary to make, such as the system you're going to play as opposed to 'play the 5NT opening bid as 36 hcp'. Any set of agreements will not be sufficiently right in the way you are talking about. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 21:59:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5EBxjD05590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 21:59:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5EBxdH05586 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 21:59:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.113] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id pejbvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 13:46:27 +0200 Message-ID: <009901c21399$1ed2a300$713f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 13:46:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 6:25 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > On 6/13/02, Tom Cornelis wrote: > > >Here I disagree. Firstly, this is a very confusing explanation for > >beginners. Secondly, you don't *get* it right, by saying that you have > >no clue. Why would partner make the bid if he wouldn't want it to make > >sense to you. > > Pfui. The fact it's confusing is relevant how, under the law? And what > partner wants isn't necessarily what he gets. It sure is relevant. You are only allowed to mislead the opponents by merely the call itself or the play of a card. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 22:03:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5EC3B005606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 22:03:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5EC36H05602 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 22:03:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.113] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id ogjbvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 13:49:57 +0200 Message-ID: <00a301c21399$9c217e80$713f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <005501c212d5$3bb69270$6f3f23d5@cornelis> <3D08BC94.1010701@skynet.be> <000901c212fe$b50015b0$623f23d5@cornelis> <3D09AD48.10402@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 13:49:58 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 10:46 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > Tom Cornelis wrote: > > > > > L75C tells us that a player isn't required to explain a call if he doesn't > > know it. > > > No it doesn't. Ignorance is no excuse. If you forget your agreement, > your opponents are still entitled to know it. Apologies. I meant 'if he didn't (explicitly or implicitly) agree with it'. (because you're only required to disclose agreements) Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 22:40:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5ECeE005705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 22:40:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5ECe6H05701 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 22:40:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-17.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.17] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17IqAL-0004Xn-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 08:26:57 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020614081725.00afbb20@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 08:27:20 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <004101c21310$e4c00870$623f23d5@cornelis> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:31 PM 6/13/02, Tom wrote: >If you're playing in a field with few agreements, you're on even >footing. If >you're not you were going to accept misunderstandings anyway. You can >avoid >misunderstandings. You can play or defend well. You can judge a >competitive >auction well. These are the things you are going to score on. I regard it >very unethical to want to get good results by having misunderstandings. I >don't understand why one would ever want to approve of >misunderstandings. It >encourages them. Maybe there'll someday be 'general bridge knowledge'. I >surely hope so. There would be need for all those rulings. But today >that's >not the reality. It won't change if people are encouraged to have >misunderstandings. Tom's line of argument, IMO, simply ignores reality. Nobody *wants* to have misunderstandings. No partnership *deliberately* has a misunderstanding in an attempt to achieve a good score. The reality is that when you have a partnership misunderstanding, it is overwhelmingly likely to work out unfavorably. But, of course, when it does, the TD isn't called and no ruling is required. This debate is about the very small fraction of partnership misunderstandings in which the partnership gets a better score than they would have without them. IOW, misunderstandings punish themselves -- the more misunderstandings a partnership has, the worse it will do in any but the shortest run. The question is whether we want to punish misunderstandings still further by law, making it a principle of law that when you have a misunderstanding you *must* get a bad score (in the sense of the actual table result being subject to an adverse adjustment) every single time. This is hardly necessary to prevent people from "want[ing] to get good results by having misunderstandings". 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 Jun 14 23:04:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5ED3tr05737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 23:03:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5ED3kH05733 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 23:03:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-17.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.17] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17IqXF-0000SQ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 08:50:37 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020614084413.00afb590@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 08:51:00 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <005f01c21319$6773d5f0$623f23d5@cornelis> References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613093355.00aadc70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613132849.00aa51e0@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.1.20020613142802.00a596e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:32 PM 6/13/02, Tom wrote: >I'm not turning it into an agreement. Either you guess it right, and >there's >an agreement, or there's a misunderstanding and there's no agreement. >Stating that you know what it means, doesn't mean you know it. >Giving a meaningful explanation equally doesn't state that you're >right; so >it doesn't state that you have an agreement. Whether you have an agreement >or not is irrelevant. Partner flips a coin where I can't see it and turns a head. Opponents ask me what turned. Since I don't know, but Tom requires me to give a definitive answer, I flip my own coin, which comes up heads, and tell the opponents that partner turned a head. Now according to Tom, that constitutes a partnership agreement that our flipped coins will turn heads. Conversely, had my coin turned a tail, I would have been guilty of giving misinformation. 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 Jun 14 23:26:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5EDQUk05756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 23:26:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5EDQLH05752 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 23:26:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-17.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.17] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17Iqt7-00043O-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:13:13 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020614090453.00af31e0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:13:35 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! In-Reply-To: <$IMxy5AEbTC9EwLq@blakjak.demon.co.uk> 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 08:20 PM 6/13/02, David wrote: >richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > >If the WBU and/or EBU have not yet adopted the > >Recorder system, then David could speak with > >the-powers-that-be, using this example as an > >argument in the Recorder system's favour. > > The WBU L&EC, of which I am a member, proposed such a system. No, >said the WBU. > > The EBU L&EC, of which I am a member, has vaguely considered it and >decided that it is probably illegal, against the declaration of human >rights, and generally NOT A GOOD THING. > > Personally, I am all for it, but I do not think I am going to get it! It has been a recognized principle of English common law at least since the early 17th century (based on general principles that were committed to paper (parchment?) in 1215) that a person charged with a crime has the right to know the nature of the accusation against him. (This principle was also explicitly written into the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.) Given that the recorder system violates this principle, it comes as no surprise that the EBU might view it as generally not a good thing. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 23:47:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5EDl1j05773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 23:47:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5EDkpH05769 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 23:46:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-17.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.17] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17IrCx-0000Qu-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:33:43 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020614092816.00aa6b60@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:34:06 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <3D09AEA7.9070407@skynet.be> References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613093355.00aadc70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613132849.00aa51e0@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:51 AM 6/14/02, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>I guess I still misunderstand. I'm allowed to leave [whatever] >>undiscussed. I do in fact leave it undiscussed. But I'm not allowed >>to say that it is undiscussed, because "it's not really true" that it >>is undiscussed. Huh? > >Yes exactly. If I decide nnot to discuss something with a pick-up >partner, it's because I know we have enough common background to fall >back on. That common background is our "agreement" and it must be >told opponents. Apparently the disagreement on this point stems from the fact that Herman and I have had very different experiences in our discussions with our pick-up partners. When *I* decide not to discuss something with a pick-up partner, it is because a sufficiently thorough discussion of our methods to put us on firm ground in any auction would take an hour, but we only have 10 minutes before the game starts, so we choose to cover only that particular 1/6 of the possible auctions we would like to have agreements about that we believe to be most likely to occur. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 01:13:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5EFCcv05814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 01:12:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5EFCXH05810 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 01:12:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.113] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id jhnbvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:59:21 +0200 Message-ID: <00d301c213b4$1257f330$713f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020614081725.00afbb20@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:59:23 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 2:27 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > At 03:31 PM 6/13/02, Tom wrote: > > >If you're playing in a field with few agreements, you're on even > >footing. If > >you're not you were going to accept misunderstandings anyway. You can > >avoid > >misunderstandings. You can play or defend well. You can judge a > >competitive > >auction well. These are the things you are going to score on. I regard it > >very unethical to want to get good results by having misunderstandings. I > >don't understand why one would ever want to approve of > >misunderstandings. It > >encourages them. Maybe there'll someday be 'general bridge knowledge'. I > >surely hope so. There would be need for all those rulings. But today > >that's > >not the reality. It won't change if people are encouraged to have > >misunderstandings. > > Tom's line of argument, IMO, simply ignores reality. Nobody *wants* to > have misunderstandings. No partnership *deliberately* has a > misunderstanding in an attempt to achieve a good score. The reality is > that when you have a partnership misunderstanding, it is overwhelmingly > likely to work out unfavorably. But, of course, when it does, the TD > isn't called and no ruling is required. This debate is about the very > small fraction of partnership misunderstandings in which the > partnership gets a better score than they would have without them. IMO, you don't need to have misunderstandings. Not punishing them correctly therefore encourages them. Misunderstandings come from either lack of memory (always punished) or either insufficient agreements (not punished if they turn out well). However it's not always decidable whether the misunderstanding came from a failure of memory or whether the partnership made no agreements. I'm pointing out that if a partnership made no agreement, misunderstands and gets lucky, it isn't punished and a partnership that made an agreement and misunderstands, is going to be punished. Why should a partnership be able to get away with a misunderstanding? Misunderstanding of an agreement leads to MI. Why shouldn't any misunderstanding lead to MI? With on-line bridge, people explain their own bids. There can never be MI (unless deliberate). With screens, people explain their own and their partner's bids. There can only be MI from the other side of the screen (unless deliberate). Without screens, people explain only their partner's bids. There can always be MI. Why *should* people have less information depending on the formats mentioned above? Are they different kinds of bridge, such as IMPs differs from matchpoints? > IOW, misunderstandings punish themselves -- the more misunderstandings > a partnership has, the worse it will do in any but the shortest > run. The question is whether we want to punish misunderstandings still > further by law, making it a principle of law that when you have a > misunderstanding you *must* get a bad score (in the sense of the actual > table result being subject to an adverse adjustment) every single > time. This is hardly necessary to prevent people from "want[ing] to > get good results by having misunderstandings". I'm not saying people want to have misunderstandings, I'm saying people have more misunderstandings, because Law doesn't sufficiently punish them. I'm saying you can agree an all calls you're going to make, by applying some rules, such as, when in doubt, a call is not forcing (cfr. misunderstanding Meckstroch-Rodwell about 4NT being nat or BW). People don't make such agreements, because Law allows some misunderstandings. (those you supposedly cannot agree on) You link a misunderstanding with an explanation. If there's a wrong explanation, there's obviously been a misunderstanding of some kind. The fact that you allow more explanations to be right, punishes the opponents sometimes who face a misunderstanding (because you rule that way). It's the explanation however that wrong-footed the opponents. That's MI. The opponents have a right to a right explanation. Why would you allow for poor explanations in case there's a misunderstanding? An explanation can be right or wrong. A poor explanation is considered to be wrong if there was an agreement, but not if there was no agreement. Why not? Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 01:17:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5EFGtv05826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 01:16:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5EFGnH05822 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 01:16:50 +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 LAA12708 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:03:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA21634 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:03:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:03:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200206141503.LAA21634@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > It has been a recognized principle of English common law at least since > the early 17th century (based on general principles that were committed > to paper (parchment?) in 1215) that a person charged with a crime has > the right to know the nature of the accusation against him. (This > principle was also explicitly written into the 6th Amendment to the > U.S. Constitution.) Yes. > Given that the recorder system violates this > principle, it comes as no surprise that the EBU might view it as > generally not a good thing. How does the recorder system violate this principle? I guess there can be differences of opinion about exactly when "charged with a crime" begins, but surely private records and correspondence like the recorder's files don't count. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 01:26:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5EFQa805839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 01:26:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5EFQUH05835 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 01:26:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.113] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id urnbvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:13:17 +0200 Message-ID: <00d701c213b6$04dc3070$713f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613093355.00aadc70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613132849.00aa51e0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020614092816.00aa6b60@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:13:20 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 3:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > At 04:51 AM 6/14/02, Herman wrote: > > >Eric Landau wrote: > > > >>I guess I still misunderstand. I'm allowed to leave [whatever] > >>undiscussed. I do in fact leave it undiscussed. But I'm not allowed > >>to say that it is undiscussed, because "it's not really true" that it > >>is undiscussed. Huh? > > > >Yes exactly. If I decide nnot to discuss something with a pick-up > >partner, it's because I know we have enough common background to fall > >back on. That common background is our "agreement" and it must be > >told opponents. > > Apparently the disagreement on this point stems from the fact that > Herman and I have had very different experiences in our discussions > with our pick-up partners. > > When *I* decide not to discuss something with a pick-up partner, it is > because a sufficiently thorough discussion of our methods to put us on > firm ground in any auction would take an hour, but we only have 10 > minutes before the game starts, so we choose to cover only that > particular 1/6 of the possible auctions we would like to have > agreements about that we believe to be most likely to occur. Isn't the other 5/6 five times more likely to occur? You don't have to make *many* agreements to cover all auctions. Agreements usually imply conventions. If you play less conventions, you will have more time to discuss the other 5/6 of the auctions. Do you believe you *need* to play some form of Puppet-Stayman, more than you need to agree about the other 5/6 of the auctions? For example: I will never have any doubt about the meaning of 4NT with any partner. I will make a simple agreement such as 'always BW'. I know it's not the best agreement, but IMO it's better to agree on all auctions and not have any misunderstandings than agree on 1/6 of the auctions and risking 5/6 of the times a misunderstanding. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 01:42:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5EFfpC05856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 01:41:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5EFfjH05852 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 01:41:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5EFSWi28509 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:28:32 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200206141528.g5EFSWi28509@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:28:32 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Steve Willner" at Jun 14, 2002 11:03:40 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 Hmmm...at least in the MABC (Districts 6 & 7, Mid-Atlantic East Coast USA), part of the recorder's duty after receiving a recorder form is to consult with the player who has been "recorded" and to discuss with them the incident in question and get their response. The response is supposed to be recorded along with the "accusation". I don't know if this is handled this way in other areas or not, but this is part of our recorder procedure. This is specifically to deal with Eric's cited priciple. -Ted. > Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:03:40 -0400 (EDT) > From: Steve Willner > > > From: Eric Landau > > It has been a recognized principle of English common law at least since > > the early 17th century (based on general principles that were committed > > to paper (parchment?) in 1215) that a person charged with a crime has > > the right to know the nature of the accusation against him. (This > > principle was also explicitly written into the 6th Amendment to the > > U.S. Constitution.) > > Yes. > > > Given that the recorder system violates this > > principle, it comes as no surprise that the EBU might view it as > > generally not a good thing. > > How does the recorder system violate this principle? I guess there can > be differences of opinion about exactly when "charged with a crime" > begins, but surely private records and correspondence like the > recorder's files don't count. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 02:07:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5EG7V205875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 02:07:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5EG7QH05871 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 02:07:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id LAA15160 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:54:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA21694 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:54:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:54:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200206141554.LAA21694@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 exception was my team, which demolished one of > the finalists, but in turn was demolished by the > two other good teams, so failed to qualify. > > Such a non-transitive relationship (A beats B beats C > beats A) is why I believe a serious Swiss may > produce more consistent results than a serious > knockout when the skill-level of the top teams is > only marginally different. I don't think there is any good solution to the non-transitivity problem. On a somewhat related subject... It recently occurred to me that there is a new sort of scoring system one could use for Swisses. The method would have the advantages of: not needing an arbitrary VP scale but still taking account of margin of victory, being somewhat insensitive to which teams play which, producing good rankings for all the teams (not only the teams near the top and bottom), and producing rankings that are "best" in a mathematically definable way. (Not everyone, of course, would agree that this way is really best -- witness the transitivity problem -- but it is well defined and seems no worse than other definitions one can imagine.) The method easily accommodates matches of unequal length or matches that cannot be played for whatever reason. Finally, it's better to win: dumping or "Swiss gambit" is nearly always bad strategy. (There could theoretically be exceptions because of the transitivity problem, but I doubt they are of practical importance.) Unfortunately the method has one overwhelming disadvantage: it is quite opaque to players. It also would need some special computer programming (and of course having a computer available) because the rankings by this method are not reasonably computable by humans, at least if there are more than a very few teams. Still, it's conceivable that the method would have some use for important matches among top teams. My guess is that the disadvantage makes this method unacceptable, but I'll offer a very brief outline in case anyone is interested. The basic idea is to use "ratings" akin to player ratings in chess or used by some bridge organizations, but here the ratings are for each team as a whole. (The method could also be used in pair or individual games: for 'team' read 'contestant'.) Winning raises your rating, losing lowers it, and margin of victory counts. Beating a good team raises your rating more than beating a bad team, and losing to a bad team lowers your rating more than losing to a good team. At the end of the event, the ratings determine the final standings. Of course the input data for the ratings come only from the single event in question. Also, instead of starting everyone at some average rating and letting the ratings evolve in time, one computes the "best" ratings at the end of the event (and at intermediate stages as desired -- useful for matching teams). The formula is set up so that it doesn't matter whether a given result is achieved early or late in the event. (Or you could weight late matches more heavily if you wished to do so for some reason.) Computing the ratings is a straightforward "least squares" problem, although there are some specific details one would have to decide on. The output could include uncertainty estimates for each placing and indeed a complete "covariance matrix." (Roughly speaking the latter says "If team A had been luckier, how would the standings of team B have changed?") The computation, once programmed, should be reasonably quick for up to a few hundred teams. I'll be happy to correspond further if, contrary to my guess, there is interest. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 05:18:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5EJHRK05998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 05:17:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f134.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.134]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5EJHNH05994 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 05:17:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 12:04:09 -0700 Received: from 172.147.154.44 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 19:04:09 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.147.154.44] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 12:04:09 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jun 2002 19:04:09.0673 (UTC) FILETIME=[43884B90:01C213D6] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Not wanting to get too involved in this, I'm just going to throw out there that the set of all legal auctions is larger than the set of all bridge deals, though both are finite. Proof and use of this knowledge is left as an exercise to the reader. -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 Jun 15 06:04:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5EK4ZX06023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 06:04:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5EK4UH06019 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 06:04:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-17.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.17] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17Ix6O-0001C6-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 15:51:20 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020614155121.00af9460@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 15:51:44 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Fwd: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [ignore first set of indents] >Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 15:46:25 -0400 >To: Steve Willner >From: Eric Landau >Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! > >At 11:03 AM 6/14/02, Steve wrote: > >> > From: Eric Landau >> >> > Given that the recorder system violates this >> > principle, it comes as no surprise that the EBU might view it as >> > generally not a good thing. >> >>How does the recorder system violate this principle? I guess there can >>be differences of opinion about exactly when "charged with a crime" >>begins, but surely private records and correspondence like the >>recorder's files don't count. > >But the recorder's files are not at all "private records and >correspondence". The recorder is an official of the governing >body. His records reflect accusations of misconduct, formally made, >accepted, and placed in the official record for the specific purpose >of being used against the accused at some potential but unspecified >official proceeding in the future. Secret records are not the same >thing as private ones. 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 Jun 15 06:18:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5EKIRw06041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 06:18:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5EKIMH06037 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 06:18:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-17.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.17] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17IxJp-00040e-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:05:13 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020614155104.00a8df00@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:05:36 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <00d701c213b6$04dc3070$713f23d5@cornelis> References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613093355.00aadc70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613132849.00aa51e0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020614092816.00aa6b60@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:13 AM 6/14/02, Tom wrote: >I will make a simple agreement such as 'always BW'. I know it's not >the best >agreement, but IMO it's better to agree on all auctions and not have any >misunderstandings than agree on 1/6 of the auctions and risking 5/6 of the >times a misunderstanding. I envy Tom the ability to cover every possible auction with a new parnter in only 10 minutes; I'm just not that good. Of course I, like everyone else, make simple general agreements. As we rush to the table for the first session, I will tell my pickup partner that 4NT is always either quantitative or RKCB, never straight (four-ace) Blackwood. Now if I have the time, I will refine that considerably, by adding things like: (a) ...except for an opening bid of 4NT, which *is* straight Blackwood; (b) If we have bid and raised a suit, that is the presumed trump suit; (c) If we haven't bid and raised a suit, the last-bid suit is the presumed trump; (d) ...unless responder makes an initial strong jump shift and bids 4NT at his second turn, in which case the jump shift suit is the presumed trump; (e) If we have bid and raised two suits, there are six key cards... etc. But if I haven't had time for such a discussion, and pard bids 4NT, I will (in response to an inquiry, as mandated by my SO) describe it as RKCB when I am confident that my "general bridge knowledge" tells me that it isn't quantitative, and I expect pard to be on the same wavelength. But it they ask me whether I have any agreement as to the presumed trump, I will not misinform them by pretending to have refined my agreement as I would have done had I had the time; I will truthfully reply, "No." I will have fully described the nature of my agreement (both explicit and implicit), and the opponents will know everything I know about pard's intentions, as the Law requires. 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 Jun 15 06:32:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5EKWCr06059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 06:32:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5EKW7H06055 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 06:32:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-17.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.17] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17IxX8-0006md-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:18:58 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020614161043.00aff5f0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:19:22 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! In-Reply-To: <200206141528.g5EFSWi28509@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:28 AM 6/14/02, Ted wrote: >Hmmm...at least in the MABC (Districts 6 & 7, Mid-Atlantic >East Coast USA), part of the recorder's duty after receiving >a recorder form is to consult with the player who has been >"recorded" and to discuss with them the incident in question >and get their response. The response is supposed to be >recorded along with the "accusation". Moreover, the MABC recorder is empowered to decide, given the response of the accused, whether the accusation is sufficiently substantive to be entered into the permanent record. Which solves the problem, and is, IMO, entirely appropriate. >I don't know if this is handled this way in other areas or >not, but this is part of our recorder procedure. This is >specifically to deal with Eric's cited priciple. This was not the way the recorder system worked when it was originally established and promulgated by the ACBL (the accused was not consulted, and every accusation was retained), but I do believe that it works that way now -- ever since, specifically, the District 6 (and possibly MABC as well?) recorder was promoted to the position of chief recorder for all of the ACBL. I have no idea how the recorder system works -- or even whether it exists -- in jurisdictions other than the ACBL. 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 Jun 15 07:05:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5EL5HB06084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 07:05:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5EL5CH06080 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 07:05:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id QAA01995 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:52:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA21947 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:52:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:52:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200206142052.QAA21947@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > But the recorder's files are not at all "private records and > correspondence". The recorder is an official of the governing > body. His records reflect accusations of misconduct, formally made, > accepted, and placed in the official record for the specific purpose of > being used against the accused at some potential but unspecified > official proceeding in the future. Secret records are not the same > thing as private ones. OK, "secret" if you prefer. They are certainly not public. The records are (usually) accusations, but they are not "accepted" except insofar as they are placed in a file nor "formally made" except insofar as a specified form has been filled out. They are certainly not "placed in the official record" in the sense that phrase would normally be interpreted, i.e., attached to the player's record. An analogy would be police reports. If someone reports that I have committed a crime, the police take the report and may conduct an investigation. I am not entitled to be informed until action against me commences. This would be no later than when an indictment is issued but might be earlier, for example when a search warrant is issued (although concealed warrants are possible in some jurisdictions). After an indictment is issued, the various investigative files are made known to the defendant. If no indictment results, the files never become public, and I may never know I have been investigated. How does either the recorder procedure or the criminal procedure violate the principle that the defendant is entitled to be informed of the evidence when he is "charged with a crime?" Are you confusing "charged" with "accused?" -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 07:33:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5ELWnV06104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 07:32:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5ELWiH06100 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 07:32:44 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 11917 invoked by uid 504); 14 Jun 2002 21:19:31 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.16746 secs); 14 Jun 2002 21:19:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.131) by 0 with SMTP; 14 Jun 2002 21:19:30 -0000 Message-ID: <00dd01c213e8$dbf370a0$8316b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 09:17:13 +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 From: "Ed Reppert" To: Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 8:07 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > On 6/7/02, David Burn wrote: > > > > >Eric wrote: > > > I think that concern over what is "standard" may be misplaced. The > question is, what is "general bridge knowledge" about this 2NT overcall. > I don't think that's quite the same thing. The level of "general bridge > knowledge" among some of the people with whom I play is practically > non-existant. For some others, it includes the knowledge that the > "Unusual NT overcall" exists, but they have no clue when it applies. And > for yet others, they know it exists, and they know it applies, and they > "know" it means "both minors". The point to all this is that context is > important. I think you have to evaluate (or try to evaluate) the > "general bridge knowledge" of these two particular players, not refer to > some arbitrary, theoretical, and probably non-existant "standard". I > could be wrong. If I am, perhaps someone can explain to me why I am. :-) I think that it is helpful to think of 'General Bridge Knowledge' as it applies here as all that which is not 'Specific Partnership Understanding/Agreement/Experience'. In other words 'General Bridge Knowledge' is what a player has learned from general experience rather than what every player knows. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 07:40:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5ELePp06117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 07:40:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5ELeJH06113 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 07:40:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.157.42]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020614212709.SEPR19225.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 22:27:09 +0100 Message-ID: <007b01c213eb$39e2c380$299a68d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <130602164.30692@webbox.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 22:33:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom: there is an infinite number of finite auctions, because n can be as big as you want... David: Put it this way, Tom. You tell me that you will not allow auctions of infinite length. Very well then - you tell me the longest auction you will allow, and I will tell you how many such auctions there are. The number will, I assure you, be finite. Unlike this thread, by the look of things. Nigel: IMO Tom has won this one. We do not need to invoke Cantor's transfinites. Turn David's argument round. However many insufficient bid auctions, David submits, Tom can make more auctions by adding random calls to the end of each. So, according to common sense, the number of auctions is theoretically inifinite. A similar argument obviously applies to the length and number BLML threads. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 08:02:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5EM2Wk06152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 08:02:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5EM2RH06148 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 08:02:27 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5ELnDJ15332 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:49:13 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200206142149.g5ELnDJ15332@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:49:13 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Steve Willner" at Jun 14, 2002 04:52:02 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:52:02 -0400 (EDT) > From: Steve Willner > > > From: Eric Landau > > But the recorder's files are not at all "private records and > > correspondence". The recorder is an official of the governing > > body. His records reflect accusations of misconduct, formally made, > > accepted, and placed in the official record for the specific purpose of > > being used against the accused at some potential but unspecified > > official proceeding in the future. Secret records are not the same > > thing as private ones. > > OK, "secret" if you prefer. They are certainly not public. > > The records are (usually) accusations, but they are not "accepted" > except insofar as they are placed in a file nor "formally made" except > insofar as a specified form has been filled out. They are certainly > not "placed in the official record" in the sense that phrase would > normally be interpreted, i.e., attached to the player's record. > > An analogy would be police reports. If someone reports that I have > committed a crime, the police take the report and may conduct an > investigation. I am not entitled to be informed until action against > me commences. This would be no later than when an indictment is issued > but might be earlier, for example when a search warrant is issued > (although concealed warrants are possible in some jurisdictions). > > After an indictment is issued, the various investigative files are > made known to the defendant. If no indictment results, the files > never become public, and I may never know I have been investigated. > > How does either the recorder procedure or the criminal procedure > violate the principle that the defendant is entitled to be informed of > the evidence when he is "charged with a crime?" Are you confusing > "charged" with "accused?" TY: Except that the recorder system (to my experience) is not used the same way police records are used. When a recorder form is filed, the recorder and any local jurisdiction (the Unit, District, or League) of that level or higher can access those records. The recorder and/or the jurisdiction can use records in the recorder files to determine if they feel that a player should be recommended for a C&E committee action regarding their history of behaviour. The records in the recorder system have also been used in the past to set a history of certain types of actions, be they psychs, questionable ethics, etc. The problem is that much as Eric fears, there is often the case that recorded actions are deemed to be precedent setting and they really need to be verified. Since Rich Colker is one of the people who set up the precedent of getting response/rebuttal from the accused--and yes, the target of a recorder form is the accused in the current usage of recorder forms--for the MABC, I presume that he would be proactive in establishing the policy of confirming an account with the accused for the ACBL. And, Steve, I disagree that you are not the accused in a if someone reports you have committed a crime. Under certain situations, if you are the accused, the police have the legal right to arrest you and hold you under suspicion (if you don't think this is true, consult the relatively recent Wen Ho Lee case from Los Alamos). In addition, the arrest is formally on your record. This is so well-known that many shows have the standard comedic line like in the musical "Guys and Dolls" where the one gambler takes pride in "...43 arrests...and no convictions!" and yet, the implication there is that he is guilty of at least one if not all of those arrests. Some employment records ask in addition to if you have ever been convicted of a crime, if you have ever been arrested or detained for a crime. Although legally there may not be any stigma attached to being recorded (or arrested, or investigated), but your public reputation if/when it is known, is tainted. For instance, the cases of Gary Condit, the parents of Jon-Benet Ramsey, and others who have only been suspected and targeted by police investigation, never even arrested, but still become guilty in the eyes of many. And if you think that information about recorder forms does not get out, you are naive. Often the person who files the recorder form will talk to many people about "You'll never believe what X did to me..." -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 08:45:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5EMjN606182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 08:45:23 +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 g5EMjDH06173 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 08:45:14 +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 g5EMVxD27553; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 18:32:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 18:26:20 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: Tom Cornelis , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <009901c21399$1ed2a300$713f23d5@cornelis> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/14/02, Tom Cornelis wrote: >It sure is relevant. You are only allowed to mislead the opponents by >merely the call itself or the play of a card. Since when is "confusing" synonymous with "misleading"? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 08:45:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5EMjMe06181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 08:45:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5EMjEH06174 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 08:45:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g5EMW1D27590; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 18:32:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 18:24:03 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: Tom Cornelis , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <009301c21398$e778b700$713f23d5@cornelis> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/14/02, Tom Cornelis wrote: >By the 'right' agreements I meant the agreements that are necessary to >make, such as the system you're going to play as opposed to 'play the >5NT opening bid as 36 hcp'. This seems a somewhat pointless argument. You seem to be saying that if we have not discussed a bid, but one of us makes it, we must have discussed it. That's absurd. 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 Sat Jun 15 09:15:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5ENFRg06213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 09:15:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5ENFMH06209 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 09:15:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g5EN1xf05973; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 19:02:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 18:41:51 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: Tom Cornelis , 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 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/14/02, Tom Cornelis wrote: >IMO, you don't need to have misunderstandings. Not punishing them >correctly therefore encourages them. You can only claim a partnership has no need for understandings if you claim they must have sufficient time to discuss all possible auctions. You could, OTOH, claim that no partnership *wants* to have misunderstandings. >Misunderstandings come from either lack of memory (always punished) or >either insufficient agreements (not punished if they turn out well). That first assertion is not correct. Misunderstandings from lack of memory are only punished if the TD determines that there was a misexplanation. You may assert that when there is a misunderstanding, the explanation is *always* misinformation, but I don't buy it. >However it's not always decidable whether the misunderstanding came >from a failure of memory or whether the partnership made no agreements. >I'm pointing out that if a partnership made no agreement, >misunderstands and gets lucky, it isn't punished and a partnership that >made an agreement and misunderstands, is going to be punished. >Why should a partnership be able to get away with a misunderstanding? Why should a partnership who is having a misunderstanding be deemed to be trying to "get away with" anything? >Misunderstanding of an agreement leads to MI. Why shouldn't any >misunderstanding lead to MI? Why should it? Misunderstanding may or may not lead to MI. >I'm not saying people want to have misunderstandings, I'm saying people >have more misunderstandings, because Law doesn't sufficiently punish >them. If the law allowed the (Draconian, IMO) punishment you are advocating, there would be a lot fewer bridge players. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 09:33:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5ENWq506226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 09:32:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5ENWkH06222 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 09:32:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id TAA07910 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 19:19:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA22035 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 19:19:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 19:19:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200206142319.TAA22035@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Ted Ying > TY: Except that the recorder system (to my experience) is not > used the same way police records are used. There is quite a lot of confusion here. Please recall the original claim, which was that the recorder system violates the principle that one charged with a crime is entitled to know the charge and the evidence against him. My claim is that the recorder system does not violate this principle. To some extent this depends on the definition of "charged," by which I mean something involving official _action_. This is not to be confused with an accusation, which is something much milder. We can debate whether the original principle can or should be extended to a mere accusation, but in practice it is not. > When a recorder > form is filed, the recorder and any local jurisdiction > (the Unit, District, or League) of that level or higher can > access those records. The recorder and/or the jurisdiction > can use records in the recorder files to determine if they > feel that a player should be recommended for a C&E committee > action regarding their history of behaviour. "Any local jurisdiction" is vague. As I understand it, the C&E authorities can inquire of the recorder whether there are any relevant records. This is equivalent to the District Attorney consulting with the police to determine whether there is enough evidence to bring a case. At this stage, there is no "charge," although there may be an accusation. If the records are _used_ in a disciplinary proceeding, then of course the accused is entitled to know about them and attempt to rebut them. > The records > in the recorder system have also been used in the past to > set a history of certain types of actions, be they psychs, > questionable ethics, etc. This is too vague to respond to. By whom have such records been used, and how? If the records are being taken as evidence for C&E action, then it's the improper use that's the problem, not the existence of the records. For score adjustment matters, e.g. determining whether an action is a psych or a partnership agreement, the proper practice is much murkier. However, I would not in general expect recorder files to be available for that purpose. > The problem is that much as Eric fears, there is often the > case that recorded actions are deemed to be precedent setting > and they really need to be verified. By whom are they so "deemed?" If recorded actions are becoming public, that's a problem with the recorder's behavior (or someone else's) but not an inherent problem of the system. > And, Steve, I disagree that you are not the accused in a > if someone reports you have committed a crime. Certainly you are "accused," but that is very far from being "charged." > Under certain > situations, if you are the accused, the police have the legal > right to arrest you Only if they have "probable cause." Or at least that's the theory. As you indicate, the police can in practice go beyond that. A better example for your case would be the person who now stands accused of trying to build a "dirty bomb." In normal conditions, though, once a person is arrested (and that is within my definition of "charged"), sufficient evidence to justify the arrest has to be produced. > In addition, the arrest is formally on your record. Arrest records are not always public, although the circumstances vary by jurisdiction. > Some > employment records ask in addition to if you have ever been > convicted of a crime, if you have ever been arrested or > detained for a crime. I am fairly sure this is illegal, although that doesn't prevent employers from trying it. Legality may vary by jurisdiction. > Although legally there may not be any stigma attached to being > recorded (or arrested, or investigated), but your public > reputation if/when it is known, is tainted. There is a big difference between "arrested" and "investigated." Having an action recorded is equivalent to the latter, not the former. > Often the person > who files the recorder form will talk to many people about > "You'll never believe what X did to me..." And how is this related to the recorder system? Do you think the accuser would be less likely to make public comments if the recorder system did not exist? Bottom line: I know of no principle of justice that says accusations or investigations must be revealed to the accused before the moment when charges are brought. There is, however, a principle that such investigations and accusations should not be made public, precisely because the accusation may be unjustified. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 09:49:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5ENmbi06243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 09:48:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5ENmVH06239 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 09:48:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g5ENZMt02786 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:35:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002a01c213fc$11b8b840$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004901c21369$5d0fb700$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:34:43 -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: "mike amos" > Marvin may have a trap for us here Not a trap, I just want to get a proper procedure for both players and TD. So far I have seen nothing that clearly provides one. >but it is certaomly my practice and I > think that of EBU TDs to warn players where UI has been given (eg where a > nonstop bid has been preceded by a Stop Card) They say "What's the penalty?" > I say "None, but partner mustn't make a call suggested etc etc etc " > For the failure to observe the requirements of the STOP card, that's seems okay. Just not what I'm looking for. Very well, I'll propose a procedure myself, as a strawman to be knocked down. Sorry about the length, I want to be thorough. 1. If an opponent breaks tempo in a situation that isn't particularly tempo-sensitive, say nothing. E. g., first seat takes a long time to open the bidding. This could mean anything. 2. If the opponent is a novice, say nothing.unless an opponent has previously been nasty. : -)) 3. Otherwise, say something like "Can we agree that this call was considerably [slower][faster] than usual?" 3a, No agreement, call the TD, who determines if UI exists and if it does gives the standard spiel about it. After such spiel, the TD says, "You can call me later if you have substantial reason to believe that your opponent has taken a doubtful action suggested by the unauthorized information, which can only be at sight of dummy or at the end of play." 3b.Agreement, ask opponents if they want the TD to be called. If not, call the TD only when evidence of a likely UI infraction is later observed and attention is drawn to it, either at sight of dummy or at the end of play (L16A2). This is required whether or not the UI has caused damage, which is up to the TD to decide (L16A2). The TD must be called when attention is called to an irregularity, per L9B1(a). 4. If the TD has been called because of dummy's contents, he/she "stands ready" until play is over (L16A2), unless ruling before then that dummy has committed no infraction.. Notes. (a). It is not appropriate for the TD to say, "Call me later if you think you have been damaged." Existence of damage is a TD decision, not a player decision. (b) Even if not recalled to the table, the TD should always drop by later to check on the matter. (c) The OS has no right to claim that they didn't know their UI obligations if they declined the option of calling the TD when they agreed to the UI. (d) Item 4 above is arguable, because the last sentence of L16A2 is ambiguous, unclear as to whether the TD can rule before play is completed. (e) An opponent is not to call the TD when a possibly doubtful action is taken, but must wait until the end of play, or (if dummy's cards provides the evidence) when dummy is tabled. (f) There is no requirement to call the TD if no attention is drawn to a UI infraction, per L9B1(a). If there is obviously no damage, it is acceptable to say nothing. If, however, anything is said, the TD must be called. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 12:11:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5F2Aut06294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 12:10:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5F2AnH06290 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 12:10:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail6.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 21:54:11 -0400 Received: from ncmx02.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.67.222]) by mail6.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:52:17 -0400 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by ncmx02.mgw.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5AJqGIa015071 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:52:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AJgun00649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 05:42:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5AJgpH00645 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 05:42:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-4.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.4] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17HUrN-0006T1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:29:49 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020610152902.00aeab00@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:30:03 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [once again sloppily mis-send and forwarded -- I must be having a bad day; please ignore first level of indentation] >From: Eric Landau >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > >At 02:35 PM 6/10/02, Herman wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote: >> >>>I don't get it. You are required to disclose your agreements, >>>explicit or implicit. But how can you have any agreement, whether >>>explicit or implicit, about something you "never realized [was] there"? >>Isn't that what the word implicit implies ? > >"Implicit: (1) Implied or understood although not directly expressed." >[AHD] > >If you have an agreement and have directly expressed it, it is an >explicit agreement. If you have it, but haven't directly expressed >it, it is an implicit agreement. If you don't have it, it is not an >agreement at all. > >>Maybe you are staring yourself blind at the "agree" part of >>agreement. To me, the woird "agreement" in the bridge sense contains >>more than that which is simply "agreed". We never agreed to play >>Stayman, but still I am obliged to inform my opponents that based on >>my experience with this person, 2Cl is asking about my majors. > >If you never explicitly agreed to play Stayman, but you believe based >on your experience with this person that 2C is asking about majors, >ISTM that proper full disclosure is along the lines of, "We never >explicitly agreed to play Stayman, but I believe based on my >experience with this person that 2C is asking about majors." Seems >straightforward enough to me. > >Of course, the first time it comes up, you give that explanation, and >it turns out to be correct, you have established an implicit agreement >(you still haven't directly expressed it), so from then on you can >(and should) simply describe it as asking about majors. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 13:13:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5F3DQ606331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 13:13:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5F3DKH06327 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 13:13:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail6.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 23:00:10 -0400 Received: from ncmx01.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.67.251]) by mail6.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:46:40 -0400 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by ncmx01.mgw.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5AHvJtH027754 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:57:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AHp4A00469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 03:51:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smarthost2.mail.uk.easynet.net (smarthost2.mail.uk.easynet.net [212.135.6.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AHotH00462 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 03:50:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from tnt-14-74.easynet.co.uk ([212.134.24.74] helo=k6b8p4) by smarthost2.mail.uk.easynet.net with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17HT74-0007ul-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:37:54 +0100 From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Usenet Bridge abbreviations Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:35:59 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <005401c2109b$418c8a60$d85f003e@mycomputer> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Israel Erdnbaum writes: >> Brambledown wrote: >> JFTR & FWIW, ISTM that some commonly used ones are missing from David's >> list. > Can you please explain what those abbreviations stand for. > Thanks > Israel "Just for the record", "For what it's worth" and "It seems to me". Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 13:15:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5F3FHU06343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 13:15:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5F3FBH06339 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 13:15:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail6.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 23:01:22 -0400 Received: from ncmx01.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.67.251]) by mail6.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:12:23 -0400 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by ncmx01.mgw.rr.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5AMCLtH020434 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:12:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5AMAYT00779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:10:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5AMASH00775 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:10:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g5ALvRG24192 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:57:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006c01c210c9$ba5ca5a0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200206101900.PAA28517@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] IMP scoring Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:56:48 -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" > A very brief summary: cross-IMPs should always be used for serious > events (basically for the reasons you give plus others). However, some > players and TD's prefer Butler because the results appear more > transparent, and if so, organizers may decide to use it (or related > methods, of which there are several) in less serious events. > More transparent? Take a 10-table game. Results for N-S on board 1 are two 500's, two 430's, three 400s, a 180 and, two 150s. Using Butler one 500 and one 150 are thrown out, the rest averaged to get a "datum" of 361.25 rounded, as is usual, to 360. Comparing against this datum, the N-S pairs with +500 have a score of +140, for +4 imps Note that two pairs are comparing against a datum that does not include their scores. Moreover, the datum, which excludes two perfectly valid scores, is not a "bridge number." Also, Butler averages scores as if the imp-scale were linear, which it is not. With X-imps every score is compared with every other result. Pair 1 scores 0+2+2+3+3+3+8+8+8, a total of +37 imps, not a meaningful number. However, the computer option of dividing by the number of comparisons (9) gives a meaningful score of +4.11. The difference vs Butler is usually small, as in this case, but championships can be won or lost on the basis of very small numbers. Note that rounding with X-imps is done to two decimal places (usually). Anyway, the N-S Pair 1 who have Butler scoring see that they won +4 imps on board 1. They don't even look at the datum if a computer has been used, why should they? They know the significance of 4 imps. The N-S Pair 1 who have X-imp scoring see that they won +4.11 imps on board 1. They don't miss having a datum, why would they? They also know the significance of 4 imps. I really don't see anything to do with "transparency," whatever that means, so long as a computer is used for both methods, and the divisor option is exercised with X-imps. 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 Sat Jun 15 16:39:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5F6cx706414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 16:38:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5F6crH06410 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 16:38:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g5F6Pit05646 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 23:25:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004f01c21435$652f0e00$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020614090453.00af31e0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 23:22:53 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > It has been a recognized principle of English common law at least since > the early 17th century (based on general principles that were committed > to paper (parchment?) in 1215) that a person charged with a crime has > the right to know the nature of the accusation against him. (This > principle was also explicitly written into the 6th Amendment to the > U.S. Constitution.) Given that the recorder system violates this > principle, it comes as no surprise that the EBU might view it as > generally not a good thing. > Rich would probably argue that Player Memos (from which the Recorder gets such information) are not accusatory. If someone were to make an accusation on a PM it would be promptly returned. Rather, PMs are a documentation of facts. The PM form asks, "Please explain your concern in this matter." Which is to say, "Don't make any accusations, just state what has happened without drawing conclusions." The subject of the PM is given an opportunity to reply or rebut, according to the PM form anyway. The Recorder discusses the matter with the subject, and that is usually sufficient. The Recorder has no disciplinary authority, and must not give any indication to the contrary. The Recorder may end up filing a complaint with an appropriate disciplinary body, whose procedures will ensure that there is due process. Rather than go through the extensive regulations governing the Recorder, I refer those interested to www.acbl.org. Look under Governance, then ACBL Regulations, then Recorder. To my knowledge there is no ACBL-wide database for documenting PMs and any resulting actions, but there should be. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 18:34:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5F8Xj606462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 18:33:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5F8XbH06458 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 18:33:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0688.bb.online.no [80.212.210.176]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA19319 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 10:20:21 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001601c21445$7db4e020$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004901c21369$5d0fb700$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> <002a01c213fc$11b8b840$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 10:20:20 +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 Not every detail matches, but in the essentials you are describing the procedure we recommend in Norway! regards Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 1:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice > > From: "mike amos" > > > Marvin may have a trap for us here > > Not a trap, I just want to get a proper procedure for both players and TD. > So far I have seen nothing that clearly provides one. > > >but it is certaomly my practice and I > > think that of EBU TDs to warn players where UI has been given (eg where a > > nonstop bid has been preceded by a Stop Card) They say "What's the > penalty?" > > I say "None, but partner mustn't make a call suggested etc etc etc " > > > For the failure to observe the requirements of the STOP card, that's seems > okay. Just not what I'm looking for. > > Very well, I'll propose a procedure myself, as a strawman to be knocked > down. Sorry about the length, I want to be thorough. > > 1. If an opponent breaks tempo in a situation that isn't particularly > tempo-sensitive, say nothing. E. g., first seat takes a long time to open > the bidding. This could mean anything. > > 2. If the opponent is a novice, say nothing.unless an opponent has > previously been nasty. : -)) > > 3. Otherwise, say something like "Can we agree that this call was > considerably [slower][faster] than usual?" > > 3a, No agreement, call the TD, who determines if UI exists and if it does > gives the standard spiel about it. After such spiel, the TD says, "You can > call me later if you have substantial reason to believe that your opponent > has taken a doubtful action suggested by the unauthorized information, which > can only be at sight of dummy or at the end of play." > > 3b.Agreement, ask opponents if they want the TD to be called. If not, call > the TD only when evidence of a likely UI infraction is later observed and > attention is drawn to it, either at sight of dummy or at the end of play > (L16A2). This is required whether or not the UI has caused damage, which is > up to the TD to decide (L16A2). The TD must be called when attention is > called to an irregularity, per L9B1(a). > > 4. If the TD has been called because of dummy's contents, he/she "stands > ready" until play is over (L16A2), unless ruling before then that dummy has > committed no infraction.. > > Notes. > > (a). It is not appropriate for the TD to say, "Call me later if you think > you have been damaged." Existence of damage is a TD decision, not a player > decision. > > (b) Even if not recalled to the table, the TD should always drop by later to > check on the matter. > > (c) The OS has no right to claim that they didn't know their UI obligations > if they declined the option of calling the TD when they agreed to the UI. > > (d) Item 4 above is arguable, because the last sentence of L16A2 is > ambiguous, unclear as to whether the TD can rule before play is completed. > > (e) An opponent is not to call the TD when a possibly doubtful action is > taken, but must wait until the end of play, or (if dummy's cards provides > the evidence) when dummy is tabled. > > (f) There is no requirement to call the TD if no attention is drawn to a UI > infraction, per L9B1(a). If there is obviously no damage, it is acceptable > to say nothing. If, however, anything is said, the TD must be called. > > 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 Sat Jun 15 18:41:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5F8fUL06479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 18:41:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5F8fNH06475 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 18:41:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.79.12]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 0.3 (built May 13 2002)) with SMTP id <0GXQ00M7TN4XZS@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 11:19:47 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 11:19:19 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, David Stevenson Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <007601c2144d$bc1ab760$0c4f003e@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: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 2:35 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a trick? > Tim West-meads writes > >In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020613131358.00b6f5a0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> > >> This really "You're on the table"? > > I think you should consider what happened, not what Laws we could mull > over. This is primarily a directing problem, not a Laws problem, in my > view. Bravo !!! Israel > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 19:19:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5F9Ier06504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 19:18:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5F9IYH06500 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 19:18:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.79.12]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 0.3 (built May 13 2002)) with SMTP id <0GXQ0080SP7YYN@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 12:04:48 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 12:04:29 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, "Marvin L. French" Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <018901c21454$0d13b940$0c4f003e@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: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004901c21369$5d0fb700$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> <002a01c213fc$11b8b840$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 1:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice > > From: "mike amos" > > > Marvin may > committed no infraction.. > > Notes. > > (a). It is not appropriate for the TD to say, "Call me later if you think > you have been damaged." Existence of damage is a TD decision, not a player > decision. It's a players right to think * there was damage whether there was * damage is the TD's decision* Israel > (b) Even if not recalled to the table, the TD should always drop by later to > check on the matter. If he has nothing better to do Israel > (c) The OS has no right to claim that they didn't know their UI obligations > if they declined the option of calling the TD when they agreed to the UI. > > (d) Item 4 above is arguable, because the last sentence of L16A2 is > ambiguous, unclear as to whether the TD can rule before play is completed. > > (e) An opponent is not to call the TD when a possibly doubtful action is > taken, but must wait until the end of play, or (if dummy's cards provides > the evidence) when dummy is tabled. > > (f) . If, however, anything is said, the TD must be called. > > 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 Sat Jun 15 19:54:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5F9raL06523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 19:53:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net ([213.35.62.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5F9rVH06519 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 19:53:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.114] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id qewbvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 11:40:21 +0200 Message-ID: <001f01c21450$aaefb2d0$723f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 11:40:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Tom Cornelis" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 12:41 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > On 6/14/02, Tom Cornelis wrote: > > >IMO, you don't need to have misunderstandings. Not punishing them > >correctly therefore encourages them. > > You can only claim a partnership has no need for understandings if you > claim they must have sufficient time to discuss all possible auctions. > You could, OTOH, claim that no partnership *wants* to have > misunderstandings. You have always enough time to discuss all auctions. You mustn't discuss each and single one of them. You must discuss them in large groups. Such as, every bid of 4NT is ... Your methods need not be adequate, they need to be complete. > >Misunderstandings come from either lack of memory (always punished) or > >either insufficient agreements (not punished if they turn out well). > > That first assertion is not correct. Misunderstandings from lack of > memory are only punished if the TD determines that there was a > misexplanation. You may assert that when there is a misunderstanding, > the explanation is *always* misinformation, but I don't buy it. Of course I agree. I was referring to misunderstandings in the context of a wrong explanation. > >However it's not always decidable whether the misunderstanding came > >from a failure of memory or whether the partnership made no agreements. > >I'm pointing out that if a partnership made no agreement, > >misunderstands and gets lucky, it isn't punished and a partnership that > >made an agreement and misunderstands, is going to be punished. > >Why should a partnership be able to get away with a misunderstanding? > > Why should a partnership who is having a misunderstanding be deemed to > be trying to "get away with" anything? I'm not sure I understand you here. I feel that I'm making myself misunderstand. I'm talking of the cases where the opponents took action, based on incomplete information. E. g. a player makes a call his partner has to guess, his partner explains as undiscussed, but guesses correctly. Are the opponents now not misinformed? Allowing for this encourages players to take the risk, because if you have a misunderstanding, you either punish yourselves, but might also make the opponents misunderstand your bid. Whereas if you won't allow it, you are punished if the opponents misunderstand, therefore making the risk of a bad score bigger, and therefore discouraging players to either make such calls or give insufficient information. IMO, the opponents have a right to know the meaning of each of your calls. This doesn't mean you won't be able to make a tactical bid any more. It means you have to give a meaningful explanation, either right - in which case there's no problem - or wrong - in which case you will be punished for MI (if needed, even it is only in 1% of the cases). In your opinion, the opponents have a right to the explanation of the call. This means you don't have to give a meaningful explanation and that you won't be punished if it turns out the opponents took the wrong action based on that - which wouldn't be necessary if they were mado to give a meaningful explanation. > >Misunderstanding of an agreement leads to MI. Why shouldn't any > >misunderstanding lead to MI? > > Why should it? Misunderstanding may or may not lead to MI. I'm still talking in the context of the explanation. (see above) > >I'm not saying people want to have misunderstandings, I'm saying people > >have more misunderstandings, because Law doesn't sufficiently punish > >them. > > If the law allowed the (Draconian, IMO) punishment you are advocating, > there would be a lot fewer bridge players. The change is not Draconian. You won't be allowed to explain a call as undiscussed, which will lead to different rulings in - according to you, but also to me - a very low percentage of the cases. Is this a Draconian measure? Do you really think that changing the rulings in a few cases will make fewer people play bridge? I'm still talking in the context of the explanation. A wrong call should not be punished. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 20:18:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5FAIBH06546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 20:18:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net ([213.35.62.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5FAI6H06542 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 20:18:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.114] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id niwbvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 12:04:56 +0200 Message-ID: <004b01c21454$1a707060$723f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613093355.00aadc70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613132849.00aa51e0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020614092816.00aa6b60@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020614155104.00a8df00@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 12:04:56 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 10:05 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > At 11:13 AM 6/14/02, Tom wrote: > > >I will make a simple agreement such as 'always BW'. I know it's not > >the best > >agreement, but IMO it's better to agree on all auctions and not have any > >misunderstandings than agree on 1/6 of the auctions and risking 5/6 of the > >times a misunderstanding. > > I envy Tom the ability to cover every possible auction with a new > parnter in only 10 minutes; I'm just not that good. > > Of course I, like everyone else, make simple general agreements. As we > rush to the table for the first session, I will tell my pickup partner > that 4NT is always either quantitative or RKCB, never straight > (four-ace) Blackwood. Now if I have the time, I will refine that > considerably, by adding things like: (a) ...except for an opening bid > of 4NT, which *is* straight Blackwood; (b) If we have bid and raised a > suit, that is the presumed trump suit; (c) If we haven't bid and raised > a suit, the last-bid suit is the presumed trump; (d) ...unless > responder makes an initial strong jump shift and bids 4NT at his second > turn, in which case the jump shift suit is the presumed trump; (e) If > we have bid and raised two suits, there are six key cards... etc. > > But if I haven't had time for such a discussion, and pard bids 4NT, I > will (in response to an inquiry, as mandated by my SO) describe it as > RKCB when I am confident that my "general bridge knowledge" tells me > that it isn't quantitative, and I expect pard to be on the same > wavelength. But it they ask me whether I have any agreement as to the > presumed trump, I will not misinform them by pretending to have refined > my agreement as I would have done had I had the time; I will truthfully > reply, "No." I will have fully described the nature of my agreement > (both explicit and implicit), and the opponents will know everything I > know about pard's intentions, as the Law requires. This is illegal as you both have to play the same system and conventions. Agreeing 4NT being RKCB or quant without any further specifications is an illegal agreement. There is nothing general about this agreement, because it will mean rckb in some cases and quant in others, but which you won't be for sure. As such, this is an illegal agreement. L75A: Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). Information conveyed to partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal. Your agreement about 4NT can't be fully disclosed, therefore making it illegal. Also the information might arise from the hands and players, rather than from the calls, plays and conditions of the deal. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 20:24:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5FAOSJ06559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 20:24:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net ([213.35.62.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5FAOMH06555 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 20:24:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.114] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id dkwbvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 12:11:07 +0200 Message-ID: <005901c21454$f79dd680$723f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 12:11:07 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Tom Cornelis" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 12:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > On 6/14/02, Tom Cornelis wrote: > > >It sure is relevant. You are only allowed to mislead the opponents by > >merely the call itself or the play of a card. > > Since when is "confusing" synonymous with "misleading"? It isn't. But you can't mislead the opponents by confusing them with your explanation. You could explain a call as partner has either hand A or B or ... (up to say 100 hands), but this is misleading the opponents by confusing them. At which point you will confuse them will depend from the opponents, but it's irrelevant. This is not allowed. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 20:31:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5FAVRa06571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 20:31:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail32.hq.webvisie.net [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5FAVMH06567 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 20:31:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.114] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id alwbvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 12:18:10 +0200 Message-ID: <006301c21455$f4124950$723f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 12:18:11 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Tom Cornelis" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 12:24 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > On 6/14/02, Tom Cornelis wrote: > > >By the 'right' agreements I meant the agreements that are necessary to > >make, such as the system you're going to play as opposed to 'play the > >5NT opening bid as 36 hcp'. > > This seems a somewhat pointless argument. You seem to be saying that if > we have not discussed a bid, but one of us makes it, we must have > discussed it. That's absurd. For me it's not absurd. When making a call, you must fall back on your agreements or your personal knowledge. Partner doesn't need to explain your personal knowledge. However, when the meaning of a call is relevant, you must have discussed it. You may have implicitly discussed it, by playing for instance natural methods. If it's absurd, give me an example of an auction, you can't have discussed (because of lack of time for instance). Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 16 04:08:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5FI70l06789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jun 2002 04:07:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wolfbert.skynet.be (wolfbert.skynet.be [195.238.3.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5FI6sH06785 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2002 04:06:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by wolfbert.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-FALLBACK-2.19) with ESMTP id g5CATCA14630 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:29:13 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Received: from skynet.be (80-200-6-112.adsl.powered-by.skynet.be [80.200.6.112]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g5CASW927209 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:28:32 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D0722B0.1010102@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:30:08 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$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 Indeed an important part. Sven Pran wrote: > > This whole discussion has now IMO boiled down to a single question: > When disclosing the meaning of a call or an auction; shall the fact that > there is reason for some doubt be disclosed or concealed? > Exactly. > There are strong reasons to keep such facts concealed. Most important > opponents have only a definite declaration to consider and any > uncertainity is on the risk of the declaring party. > Indeed. Opponents should only listen to the "agreement" part, not the doubt part. If the agreement is correctly explained, and opponents then try to get a ruling based on "but he told me he was not sure", I am quickly to answer, "but he did tell you the correct meaning, did he not?". Doubt is extraneous information, usually not helpful, except to doublers. > There are also good reasons to require such uncertainity disclosed. Please tell me which. > Opponents have a better chance to participate in a game that otherwise > might be ruled as destroyed. After all, we want to play bridge whenever > at all possible, not to have results assigned more or less arbitrarily after > what is then deemed as a damaging irregularity. > OK. So a player says : it might be A, or it might be B. How does this help reach a bridge result? Or a player says : it might be A, but I'm not sure. Your argument says that a better bridge result is achieved when the opponent now chooses to believe it means B in stead ? And then it was A all along and opponent asks you ro rule it back ? Sorry. No bridge result can be better reached after expressing doubt than without it. Oh, yes; opponents are far happier if they have the added knowledge that there was doubt and they could now double. Certainly that's a better bridge result. But that is no reason to call the doubt "entitled" information. We are not there to help opponents double us, we just tell them our agreements. > Personally I fancy full disclosure to include the fact that there is some > uncertainity on the ground that it puts all four players on equal terms as > far as information is concerned. (Any declaration statement given by one > player is of course UI to his partner for as long as applicable according to > Law 75D2) > You start by saying that all four players are put at equal terms, and then you go on to exclude one of those four, who is now subject to UI. You have given lots of reasons why I as a player should prefer that my opponent tells me about his doubts, but you have given no reason why he should be legally obliged to do so. > Sven > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.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 Jun 16 04:29:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5FIT8406807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jun 2002 04:29:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f99.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.99]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5FIT3H06803 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2002 04:29:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 11:15:48 -0700 Received: from 172.170.37.228 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 18:15:47 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.170.37.228] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 11:15:47 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jun 2002 18:15:48.0384 (UTC) FILETIME=[ACA47A00:01C21498] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Tom Cornelis" >To: "Bridge Laws" >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis >Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 12:18:11 +0200 > >If it's absurd, give me an example of an auction, you can't have discussed >(because of lack of time for instance). 1. P - 1D - P - 1NT 2D is 2D natural or take-out for the majors? 2. 1D - P - 2C - P 3NT- P - 4C gerber or slam try in clubs? 3. 1D - X - 2NT strong or weak support for diamonds or something else entirely? 4. 2H (weak) - X - 2NT feature-asking, ogust, or something else? 5. 1D - 1H - 2S weak or strong? 6. 1NT - P - 2C - P 2D - P - 3D ? With sufficiently little time to discuss, more and more auctions become problematic. Not that I think it's a good idea to make bids you aren't confident your partner understands correctly, it happens. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 16 04:43:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5FIhTY06824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jun 2002 04:43:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5FIhOH06820 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2002 04:43:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g5FIUEU25724 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 11:30:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001f01c2149a$9b235ba0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3D0722B0.1010102@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 11:25:51 -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 Herman De Wael wrote: > > You have given lots of reasons why I as a player should prefer that my > opponent tells me about his doubts, but you have given no reason why > he should be legally obliged to do so. > The player's purpose is known as "CYA" over here, which ought to be explicitly forbidden, not required, by the Laws.. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 16 06:08:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5FK7EG06860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jun 2002 06:07:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5FK79H06856 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2002 06:07:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g5FJrsf02599; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 15:53:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 15:32:06 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: "Marvin L. French" , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <001f01c2149a$9b235ba0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/15/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >The player's purpose is known as "CYA" over here, which ought to be >explicitly forbidden, not required, by the Laws.. If I am not permitted to express doubt about the meaning of partner's call, then it seems to me the only rational thing to do when I am not absolutely certain of that meaning is to say "I don't know". Now, if the opponents or the TD can show, by an entry on the CC or in our system notes (I can't think of any other way, but there may be one - if so include that), that I *should* know, then "I don't know" is misinformation. However, there is a big problem if such evidence is not available. Law 75 says that in deciding whether a call is a misbid or has been misexplained he should assume misexplanation unless there is evidence to the contrary. This caters well to the situation where a player has provided an explanation - if the CC confirms it's correct, fine, otherwise it's misexplanation - but not at all to the situation I just described. Either TD can't conclude that I "misexplained" in the absence of evidence I should have known, or he must *always* conclude that "I don't know" is MI. That makes absolutely no sense to me. The ACBL's general conditions of contest say that a player is expected to know his partnership agreements in "to be expected sequences" (whatever that means). It does not say that he is expected to have an agreement for every possible sequence. Aside from that, I'm not so sure the regulation is legal anyway. :-) But in any case, if I am prohibited from saying "I don't know" and I'm prohibited from saying "undiscussed", then either I must make up an explanation, or I must sit mute. I don't like lying, so I would choose to sit mute. The dWS won't like that. Tough. It gets worse with opponents who, like one woman* I played against, insist "I don't look at convention cards, I ask questions." *Jubal: "Anne, have I ever been rude to a lady?" Anne: "I have seen you be intentionally rude to a woman. I have never seen you be rude to a lady." -- Robert A. Heinlein, _Stranger in a Strange Land_ Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 16 06:32:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5FKWhx06881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jun 2002 06:32:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp015.mail.yahoo.com (smtp015.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.173.59]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g5FKWcH06877 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2002 06:32:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from pooh-corner.demon.co.uk (HELO yahoo.co.uk) (gipsonp@194.222.80.124 with plain) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jun 2002 20:19:26 -0000 Message-ID: <3D0BA178.3080309@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 21:20:08 +0100 From: Paul Gipson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020512 Netscape/7.0b1 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <006301c21455$f4124950$723f23d5@cornelis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ed Reppert" >To: "Tom Cornelis" ; "Bridge Laws" > >Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 12:24 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > > > >>On 6/14/02, Tom Cornelis wrote: >> >> >> >>>By the 'right' agreements I meant the agreements that are necessary to >>>make, such as the system you're going to play as opposed to 'play the >>>5NT opening bid as 36 hcp'. >>> >>> >>This seems a somewhat pointless argument. You seem to be saying that if >>we have not discussed a bid, but one of us makes it, we must have >>discussed it. That's absurd. >> >> > >For me it's not absurd. When making a call, you must fall back on your >agreements or your personal knowledge. Partner doesn't need to explain your >personal knowledge. However, when the meaning of a call is relevant, you >must have discussed it. You may have implicitly discussed it, by playing for >instance natural methods. >If it's absurd, give me an example of an auction, you can't have discussed >(because of lack of time for instance). > >Best regards, > >Tom. > > As reported by David Burn in last month's Bridge Magazine, only one (of three) pairs playing in the Camrose (international matches between the countries in the British Isles) had discussed the meaning of 4H in the simple sequence: 1NT 2D (transfer) 2H 3D (natural, game-forcing) 4H What hope for us lesser mortals! Paul -- Paul Gipson http://members.lycos.co.uk/pooh_corner/paul The Last Gunslingers RIKO Team _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 17 05:09:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5GJ84O07433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 05:08:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5GJ7wH07429 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 05:07:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id ptfcvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 16 Jun 2002 20:54:38 +0200 Message-ID: <000501c21567$479950c0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <006301c21455$f4124950$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D0BA178.3080309@yahoo.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 12:04:45 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Gipson" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 10:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > > Tom Cornelis wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Ed Reppert" > >To: "Tom Cornelis" ; "Bridge Laws" > > > >Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 12:24 AM > >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > > > > > > > > >>On 6/14/02, Tom Cornelis wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>By the 'right' agreements I meant the agreements that are necessary to > >>>make, such as the system you're going to play as opposed to 'play the > >>>5NT opening bid as 36 hcp'. > >>> > >>> > >>This seems a somewhat pointless argument. You seem to be saying that if > >>we have not discussed a bid, but one of us makes it, we must have > >>discussed it. That's absurd. > >> > >> > > > >For me it's not absurd. When making a call, you must fall back on your > >agreements or your personal knowledge. Partner doesn't need to explain your > >personal knowledge. However, when the meaning of a call is relevant, you > >must have discussed it. You may have implicitly discussed it, by playing for > >instance natural methods. > >If it's absurd, give me an example of an auction, you can't have discussed > >(because of lack of time for instance). > > > >Best regards, > > > >Tom. > > > > > As reported by David Burn in last month's Bridge Magazine, only one (of > three) pairs playing in the Camrose (international matches between the > countries in the British Isles) had discussed the meaning of 4H in the > simple sequence: > > 1NT 2D (transfer) > 2H 3D (natural, game-forcing) > 4H This doesn't mean you can't have discussed it. If you haven't explicitly discussed it, you have to fall back on your implicit agreements. If you play the principle of fast arrival, 4H will be the weakest support bid for hearts. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 17 05:09:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5GJ7vH07427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 05:07:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net ([213.35.62.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5GJ7qH07423 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 05:07:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id mtfcvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 16 Jun 2002 20:54:38 +0200 Message-ID: <000401c21567$4752f8f0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 11:52:27 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 8:15 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > >From: "Tom Cornelis" > >To: "Bridge Laws" > >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > >Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 12:18:11 +0200 > > > >If it's absurd, give me an example of an auction, you can't have discussed > >(because of lack of time for instance). > > 1. P - 1D - P - 1NT > 2D > is 2D natural or take-out for the majors? If you agreed to play Michael's cuebid, it's for the majors. If you didn't make an agreement about direct cue-bids, it's natural. > 2. 1D - P - 2C - P > 3NT- P - 4C > gerber or slam try in clubs? Slam try in clubs. Gerber is intended for NT-opening bids (or a NT rebid after a strong artificial opening bid). If you didn't agree on this specific auction, it's slam try in clubs. It's not because it might be handier to play Gerber in a specific auction, that you can play it if you want to. You have to play what you're agreed on. Making no agreements about an auction, is agreeing to play it natural. > 3. 1D - X - 2NT > strong or weak support for diamonds or something else entirely? Depends what you're agreed on of course. If you play Truscott, it will be strong support, if you didn't agree on something in this type of auction, it's natural. (inviting to 3NT) > 4. 2H (weak) - X - 2NT > feature-asking, ogust, or something else? If you're agreed on 2H - pass - 2NT, it's the same as 2H - pass - 2NT. If you're not agreed on 2H - pass - 2NT, it's feature asking (standard with weak two's). > 5. 1D - 1H - 2S > weak or strong? same as 1D - pass - 2S (if no agreement, strong, i.e. standard) > 6. 1NT - P - 2C - P > 2D - P - 3D > ? A new suit of an unlimited hand is forcing. (standard) Partner is of course expected to show his major suit strength, since 3D is seeking a minor contract. Since 3H and 3S cannot show a 4-card suit, it must show strength if you didn't agree to play something in this auction. > With sufficiently little time to discuss, more and more auctions become > problematic. Not that I think it's a good idea to make bids you aren't > confident your partner understands correctly, it happens. I agree with that all along. My point is that whatever you haven't explicitly discussed, can be derived from inferences from that. (cfr. examples) Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 17 07:08:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5GL6nr07483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 07:06:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f120.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.120]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5GL6iH07479 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 07:06:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 16 Jun 2002 13:53:27 -0700 Received: from 172.156.169.241 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 16 Jun 2002 20:53:26 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.156.169.241] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 13:53:26 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2002 20:53:27.0148 (UTC) FILETIME=[DCEB12C0:01C21577] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Tom Cornelis" >To: >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis >Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 11:52:27 +0200 > > > > > > >If it's absurd, give me an example of an auction, you can't have >discussed > > >(because of lack of time for instance). > > > > 1. P - 1D - P - 1NT > > 2D > > is 2D natural or take-out for the majors? > >If you agreed to play Michael's cuebid, it's for the majors. I botched this one. The auction should have been: P - 1D - P - 1NT P - P - 2D Absent discussion, I'd assume it's natural, even if playing Michaels. I've been wrong. >If you didn't make an agreement about direct cue-bids, it's natural. So absent discussion, 1H - 2H is natural? I've only once encountered a player that played direct cue-bids as natural. If I didn't make an agreement, the odds are still unsurrountably against me that it's natural. I would assume Michaels unless I've previously noticed a "Salem double" (shows 12-16hcp on any distribution), in which case I'd think it was a strong take out (shows 17+hcp on any distribution). > > 2. 1D - P - 2C - P > > 3NT- P - 4C > > gerber or slam try in clubs? > >Slam try in clubs. Gerber is intended for NT-opening bids (or a NT rebid >after a strong artificial opening bid). If you didn't agree on this >specific >auction, it's slam try in clubs. It's not because it might be handier to >play Gerber in a specific auction, that you can play it if you want to. You >have to play what you're agreed on. I think the whole point of this discussion is that you don't have an explicit agreement and yet a bid has been made. If the NT bid was at the 2-level, 4C is a definite Gerber. Given the 3-level bid, many people are still guessing what that is. I bid 4C as a slam try in clubs asking for control cue bids, but now I don't know what to make of my partner's response to it. What are my ethical obligations when he bids 4D/4H/4S and I hold the ace of that suit? >Making no agreements about an auction, is agreeing to play it natural. I don't believe that statement even if it would be a sensible way to play. And even so, playing it natural doesn't make any statement about the strength of the hand. > > 3. 1D - X - 2NT > > strong or weak support for diamonds or something else entirely? > >Depends what you're agreed on of course. If you play Truscott, it will be >strong support, if you didn't agree on something in this type of auction, >it's natural. (inviting to 3NT) Playing on Wednesday nights, absent discussion it's weak support. Playing on Thursday nights, absent discussion it's a guess between strong support or a 11-12 HCP invitation to 3NT. (different crowds) > > 4. 2H (weak) - X - 2NT > > feature-asking, ogust, or something else? > >If you're agreed on 2H - pass - 2NT, it's the same as 2H - pass - 2NT. I would think it implies a spade stopper as well. >If you're not agreed on 2H - pass - 2NT, it's feature asking (standard >with weak two's). Standard is a matter of the company you keep. A different crowd may have a different understanding of what's standard. I always go with feature asking, but I've been wrong a few times. > > 5. 1D - 1H - 2S > > weak or strong? > >same as 1D - pass - 2S (if no agreement, strong, i.e. standard) Again, no. In my experience, absent discussion it has been weak in the scenario I gave, but strong in your example. > > [snipped 6, wasn't as good an example] > > With sufficiently little time to discuss, more and more auctions become > > problematic. Not that I think it's a good idea to make bids you aren't > > confident your partner understands correctly, it happens. > >I agree with that all along. My point is that whatever you haven't >explicitly discussed, can be derived from inferences from that. (cfr. >examples) That may work in theory, but in practice, the inferences are better derived from knowing what other players in your area play. You are not going to base your inferences on the agreements that you did have time to make. You're going to base you inferences on your experiences playing against that person. It is more often correct. I used to live about 5 minutes from a local bridge club and I would be called to fill in movements. Often by the time I arrived, the rest of the room would be 1 or 2 boards in. When you only have enough time before bidding your first hand to ask whether you're playing SAYC or 2/1, you find that you and your partner are (for the most part) playing the most common local conventions. Some treatments have nearly equal local favor, and you have to guess. I just have to disagree with your operating premise that you can/should guess based on the other agreements you have made or otherwise assume the bid is natural. That's too often wrong. Making inferences based on local customs is going to be more often right, but still not free of hitches. Given that there can and will be undiscussed auctions and misunderstandings about them, I don't believe your opponents are entitled to know the nature of your misunderstanding. Undiscussed auctions should just be disclosed as "undiscussed". -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 17 11:37:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5H1apA07595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 11:36:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5H1aZH07578 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 11:36:36 +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 17JlEh-0001aC-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 02:23:22 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 01:24:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] I am a TD! References: <200206142149.g5ELnDJ15332@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: <200206142149.g5ELnDJ15332@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ted Ying writes > Although legally there may not be any stigma attached to being > recorded (or arrested, or investigated), but your public > reputation if/when it is known, is tainted. For instance, the > cases of Gary Condit, the parents of Jon-Benet Ramsey, and > others who have only been suspected and targeted by police > investigation, never even arrested, but still become guilty in > the eyes of many. And if you think that information about > recorder forms does not get out, you are naive. Often the person > who files the recorder form will talk to many people about > "You'll never believe what X did to me..." One of the reasons that I wanted the Recorder system in Wales, and tried for it, is because people will talk about it anyway, and I think the player's reputation is destroyed more by people saying "A cheated, and got away with it, by ...." rather than "Because A cheated I reported him to the recorder". In the latter case people will at least consider what the Recorder will do, and will probably include the possibility that he will investigate and find no case to answer. I also believe that players will be less likely to tell stories about what players have done to them if they have reported it. Thus, overall, I believe the recorder system will lead to less gossip, not more. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 17 11:37:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5H1anJ07594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 11:36:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g5H1aXH07572 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 11:36:33 +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 17JlEh-0001a9-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 02:23:19 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 01:18:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020614081725.00afbb20@pop.starpower.net> <00d301c213b4$1257f330$713f23d5@cornelis> In-Reply-To: <00d301c213b4$1257f330$713f23d5@cornelis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis writes >With on-line bridge, people explain their own bids. There can never be MI >(unless deliberate). This is not correct. A player bids 4S, which he believes to show clubs. He says it shows clubs, which is MI. His partner, who knows it does not show clubs, takes some action, and the opponents are damaged. The fact that the explanation matches the player's hand does nto mean it is not MI. >With screens, people explain their own and their partner's bids. There can >only be MI from the other side of the screen (unless deliberate). Same scenario: same effect. MI is perfectly possible. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 17 11:37:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5H1ask07597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 11:36:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5H1aWH07571 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 11:36:33 +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 17JlEh-0001a8-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 02:23:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 01:13:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <000401c21567$4752f8f0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> In-Reply-To: <000401c21567$4752f8f0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis writes >> 1. P - 1D - P - 1NT >> 2D >> is 2D natural or take-out for the majors? >If you agreed to play Michael's cuebid, it's for the majors. If you didn't >make an agreement about direct cue-bids, it's natural. I play Michaels with a number of partners. I am sure that some would take this sequence as Michaels, and some would not. [s] >I agree with that all along. My point is that whatever you haven't >explicitly discussed, can be derived from inferences from that. (cfr. >examples) That is the problem: it just does not work. That way lies chaos, because what seems entirely logical to you does not necessarily to your partner. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 17 11:37:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5H1asE07598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 11:36:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5H1acH07586 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 11:36:38 +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 17JlEi-0001aG-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 02:23:24 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 01:34:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613093355.00aadc70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613132849.00aa51e0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020614092816.00aa6b60@pop.starpower.net> <00d701c213b6$04dc3070$713f23d5@cornelis> In-Reply-To: <00d701c213b6$04dc3070$713f23d5@cornelis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis writes >Isn't the other 5/6 five times more likely to occur? You don't have to make >*many* agreements to cover all auctions. This is not correct. Even when you think you have discussed everything auctions turn up where you have no agreement. It is just not that easy. > Agreements usually imply >conventions. If you play less conventions, you will have more time to >discuss the other 5/6 of the auctions. Do you believe you *need* to play >some form of Puppet-Stayman, more than you need to agree about the other 5/6 >of the auctions? I think to play a terribly inefficient and useless system because if I agree an efficient one I will not have covered absolutely everything is a serious 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 Jun 17 11:37:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5H1ap207596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 11:36:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5H1aYH07575 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 11:36:35 +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 17JlEi-0001aD-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 02:23:20 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 01:30:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004901c21369$5d0fb700$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> <002a01c213fc$11b8b840$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002a01c213fc$11b8b840$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes > >From: "mike amos" > >> Marvin may have a trap for us here > >Not a trap, I just want to get a proper procedure for both players and TD. >So far I have seen nothing that clearly provides one. > >>but it is certaomly my practice and I >> think that of EBU TDs to warn players where UI has been given (eg where a >> nonstop bid has been preceded by a Stop Card) They say "What's the >penalty?" >> I say "None, but partner mustn't make a call suggested etc etc etc " >> >For the failure to observe the requirements of the STOP card, that's seems >okay. Just not what I'm looking for. > >Very well, I'll propose a procedure myself, as a strawman to be knocked >down. Sorry about the length, I want to be thorough. > >1. If an opponent breaks tempo in a situation that isn't particularly >tempo-sensitive, say nothing. E. g., first seat takes a long time to open >the bidding. This could mean anything. > >2. If the opponent is a novice, say nothing.unless an opponent has >previously been nasty. : -)) > >3. Otherwise, say something like "Can we agree that this call was >considerably [slower][faster] than usual?" > >3a, No agreement, call the TD, who determines if UI exists and if it does >gives the standard spiel about it. After such spiel, the TD says, "You can >call me later if you have substantial reason to believe that your opponent >has taken a doubtful action suggested by the unauthorized information, which >can only be at sight of dummy or at the end of play." > >3b.Agreement, ask opponents if they want the TD to be called. If not, call >the TD only when evidence of a likely UI infraction is later observed and >attention is drawn to it, either at sight of dummy or at the end of play >(L16A2). This is required whether or not the UI has caused damage, which is >up to the TD to decide (L16A2). The TD must be called when attention is >called to an irregularity, per L9B1(a). > >4. If the TD has been called because of dummy's contents, he/she "stands >ready" until play is over (L16A2), unless ruling before then that dummy has >committed no infraction.. > >Notes. > >(a). It is not appropriate for the TD to say, "Call me later if you think >you have been damaged." Existence of damage is a TD decision, not a player >decision. No, Marv. If you believe as a player that no irregularity has occurred, why should you be forced to assume one? >(b) Even if not recalled to the table, the TD should always drop by later to >check on the matter. Bad policy. We do not want unnecessary increase in rulings. note that there may be reasons why a TD should - a very inexperienced pair at the table, for example - but it should not be automatic. Of course, good practice is that he should make himself readily available, preferably near the table, at the end of the hand. >(c) The OS has no right to claim that they didn't know their UI obligations >if they declined the option of calling the TD when they agreed to the UI. > >(d) Item 4 above is arguable, because the last sentence of L16A2 is >ambiguous, unclear as to whether the TD can rule before play is completed. > >(e) An opponent is not to call the TD when a possibly doubtful action is >taken, but must wait until the end of play, or (if dummy's cards provides >the evidence) when dummy is tabled. As you know, this is a matter of some disagreement. Our method leads to better relations between players and fewer TD calls. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 17 16:40:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5H6dpe07746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:39:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5H6dlH07742 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:39:47 +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 QAA08372 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:41:04 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:22:46 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:26:06 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 17/06/2002 04:22:30 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [big snip] >With sufficiently little time to discuss, more and >more auctions become problematic. Not that I think >it's a good idea to make bids you aren't confident >your partner understands correctly, it happens. > >-Todd I often play in a practice walk-in with a new partner prior to playing with that partner in a major event. In that walk-in, when I have a choice between logical alternatives, I deliberately select a call which pard may not understand correctly. [This accelerates the process of defining our agreements prior to the major event.] Since my intentions in making that non-understood call were to deliberately confuse partner, pard's explanation of "undiscussed" must be correct. :-) 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 Jun 17 16:46:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5H6kKq07765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:46:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5H6kFH07761 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:46:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g5H6X1P16071 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2002 23:33:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003901c215c8$be819100$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004901c21369$5d0fb700$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> <002a01c213fc$11b8b840$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 23:28:08 -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: "David Stevenson" < > Marvin L. French writes > > > > > >(a). It is not appropriate for the TD to say, "Call me later if you think > >you have been damaged." Existence of damage is a TD decision, not a player > >decision. > > No, Marv. If you believe as a player that no irregularity has > occurred, why should you be forced to assume one? I was thinking of the times when an irregularity has occurred but the NOS decides no damage has occurred. The NOS is authorized to judge on the existence of an irregularity regarding UI, but not on the existence of damage. Many (most?) players don't know L16 well enough to make that decision. That's why I prefer what I wrote below. > > >(b) Even if not recalled to the table, the TD should always drop by later to > >check on the matter. > > Bad policy. We do not want unnecessary increase in rulings. note > that there may be reasons why a TD should - a very inexperienced pair at > the table, for example - but it should not be automatic. Of course, > good practice is that he should make himself readily available, > preferably near the table, at the end of the hand. That's good enough. Too often the TD has disappears from view, never to return. Did he decide there was no irregularity on his own? Did he forget? Did he adjust the score? Sometimes my first notice of an adjusted score comes from the scoresheet. Things are bad in ACBL-land, David. Just today a pair bid a "Hesitation Blackwood" slam against me on about the fourth round. The TD took the information, went away, and never returned. We had to leave quickly after the game, so I don't know if he adjusted or not. Probably not. I do not see why checking back on a UI case would bring an unnecessary increase in rulings. If the TD has time, I appreciate a simple "Everything okay?" while passing by later. > > >(e) An opponent is not to call the TD when a possibly doubtful action is > >taken, but must wait until the end of play, or (if dummy's cards provides > >the evidence) when dummy is tabled. > > As you know, this is a matter of some disagreement. Our method leads > to better relations between players and fewer TD calls. Just going by L16A2 and its footnote. How could your methods differ? Maybe I've misunderstood. Let's see. The old way (around here, anyway) went like this: 1C-1H-1S-4H P*- P - 4S- "Director!" * Long pause for thought The TD comes, says please continue, and it turns out the 4S bidder had full values for the bid. He resents the implication that he would use the UI to advantage, and the TD has wasted his valuable time. This is the sort of unpleasant situation that L16A2 was designed to avoid. Or, the 4S bid was reasonable but not clear-cut, and a pass would not have been illogical. The bidder was unaware of the hesitation (he says), but the score is adjusted to 4H making an overtrick.The overtrick wasn't too likely, but L12C2 gives the NOS the benefit of that doubt. Had the 4S bidder been aware of the opponents' concern about the hesitation, he would have passed, scoring -420, avoiding the poor lead that would provide an overtrick. He's not too happy with his near-zero score.. The new way goes like this:: 1C-1H-1S-4H P* - "Can we agree on a break in tempo?" "Yes, of course." Again 4S is bid, but nothing is said. At the end of play, it is plain that there was no logical altnerative to the bid of 4S. Everyone is happy, and the TD hasn't been bothered. Or, the 4S bid is seen to have been doubtful. Now, for the first time, there is evidence of an irregularity, and the TD is called. His time is not wasted, there is a ruling to be made. I prefer the new way. It leads to better relations between players and fewer TD calls. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 17 17:03:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5H73iG07788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:03:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5H73eH07784 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:03:40 +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 RAA12544 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:04:58 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:46:39 +0000 (EST) Subject: RE: [BLML] Your call (judgment case) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:49:59 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 17/06/2002 04:46:22 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>Of course you are allowed to apply L12C3 in a >>hesitation case, and it is common to do so - BUT - >>you are not allowed to use the disallowed action. >> >> Suppose the bidding goes 1H 1S 4H ...Dbl >> P 4S X AP >> >> The TD judges that the 4S bid was based on the UI >>from the slow double and disallows it. >> >> Now, he could give as a ruling >> >> 20% of 4H* +1 >> + 70% of 4H* = >> + 10% of 4H* -1 >> >> Why ever not? >> >> But he may *not* give >> >> 15% of 4H* +1 >> + 65% of 4H* = >> + 5% of 4H* -1 >> + 15% of 4S* -1 >> >>because he may not include the disallowed action. To >>do so is called a Reveley ruling because of a case >>that brought this to our attention. >> >>-- >>David Stevenson In the Editorial of the June 2002 Bridge World, Jeff Rubens seems to be arguing for a Law change that would make a Reveley ruling standard practice. Rubens wrote: [big snip] >Suppose North hesitantly doubles five hearts in a >competitive auction, and South then faces a decision >that the relevant public rates, in the absence of >unauthorized information, as fifty-fifty between >passing and bidding five spades. The 12C3-deniers >fear that if a combination score were permitted, the >appeals committee will give both sides half the result >in five hearts doubled plus half the result after >South bids five spades. [snip] >The error in such thinking is that it is only an >artificial construction in the present Laws - a >foolishness in Law 12C2 - that proclaims that North's >huddle implies North-South deserve the score in five >hearts doubled [snip] >Equity, which should govern adjudications, says >otherwise. Both pairs are entitled to the expected >outcome, combination score or not, had there been no >irregularity. [big snip] In reply to Rubens, I note that the irregularity in his example is *not* North's hesitant double. Rather, it is South selecting from amongst logical alternatives the removal of the double. Therefore, 5Hx is the expected contract had there been no irregularity. Rubens' editorial notionally attacked L12C2, but it seems that his real target (which perhaps even Rubens did not realise) was the more fundamental L16 and L73C. 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 Jun 17 21:15:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HBEAO07889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 21:14:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5HBE4H07885 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 21:14:05 +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 17JuFZ-000Jiz-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 12:00:46 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 11:17:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004901c21369$5d0fb700$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> <002a01c213fc$11b8b840$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <003901c215c8$be819100$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <003901c215c8$be819100$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >From: "David Stevenson" < >> Marvin L. French writes >> >(b) Even if not recalled to the table, the TD should always drop by later >to >> >check on the matter. >> >> Bad policy. We do not want unnecessary increase in rulings. note >> that there may be reasons why a TD should - a very inexperienced pair at >> the table, for example - but it should not be automatic. Of course, >> good practice is that he should make himself readily available, >> preferably near the table, at the end of the hand. > >That's good enough. Too often the TD has disappears from view, never to >return. Did he decide there was no irregularity on his own? Did he forget? >Did he adjust the score? Sometimes my first notice of an adjusted score >comes from the scoresheet. Things are bad in ACBL-land, David. Just today a >pair bid a "Hesitation Blackwood" slam against me on about the fourth round. >The TD took the information, went away, and never returned. We had to leave >quickly after the game, so I don't know if he adjusted or not. Probably not. I think we were discussing what *should* happen. The methodology you ascribe to ACBL TDs is not good. >I do not see why checking back on a UI case would bring an unnecessary >increase in rulings. If the TD has time, I appreciate a simple "Everything >okay?" while passing by later. In practical terms this is not what happens if he returns. If it is then that comes to the same thing in effect as just being available at the correct time. >> >(e) An opponent is not to call the TD when a possibly doubtful action is >> >taken, but must wait until the end of play, or (if dummy's cards provides >> >the evidence) when dummy is tabled. >> >> As you know, this is a matter of some disagreement. Our method leads >> to better relations between players and fewer TD calls. > >Just going by L16A2 and its footnote. How could your methods differ? > >Maybe I've misunderstood. Let's see. The old way (around here, anyway) went >like this: > >1C-1H-1S-4H >P*- P - 4S- "Director!" > >* Long pause for thought > >The TD comes, says please continue, and it turns out the 4S bidder had full >values for the bid. He resents the implication that he would use the UI to >advantage, and the TD has wasted his valuable time. This is the sort of >unpleasant situation that L16A2 was designed to avoid. The players who consider this unpleasant are either [a] foolish enough to consider anything unpleasant to do with their hesitations or [b] reacting to their opponents bad manners, which is a separate problem ot be dealt with otherwise. >Or, the 4S bid was reasonable but not clear-cut, and a pass would not have >been illogical. The bidder was unaware of the hesitation (he says), but the >score is adjusted to 4H making an overtrick.The overtrick wasn't too likely, >but L12C2 gives the NOS the benefit of that doubt. Had the 4S bidder been >aware of the opponents' concern about the hesitation, he would have passed, >scoring -420, avoiding the poor lead that would provide an overtrick. He's >not too happy with his near-zero score.. Time they learnt L73C, perhaps. >The new way goes like this:: > >1C-1H-1S-4H >P* - "Can we agree on a break in tempo?" > >"Yes, of course." > >Again 4S is bid, but nothing is said. At the end of play, it is plain that >there was no logical altnerative to the bid of 4S. Everyone is happy, and >the TD hasn't been bothered. This is, of course, illegal in the ACBL. Just because the terminology "reserving your rights" has not been used does not alter the fact that that this is reserving their rights. >Or, the 4S bid is seen to have been doubtful. Now, for the first time, there >is evidence of an irregularity, and the TD is called. His time is not >wasted, there is a ruling to be made. What happens when the hesitation is not agreed? That is the problem you are ignoring! If you get a match between two teams, and in 16 boards one team hesitates on 24 occasions [about normal, I would say] the players have to agree on a hesitation 24 times. Let us say htat opponents disagree on the hesitation one time in four, which seems about right. Six director calls. Now consider what happens when you wait to see if there is a call that is potentially affected by the hesitation. This occurs about one time in six, maybe. That's four times, one director call. >I prefer the new way. It leads to better relations between players and fewer >TD calls. 24 discussions, six director calls is not a better game than four discussions, one director call, however many director calls there are at the rend of the hand - probably one in either case. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 17 21:20:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HBK9q07901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 21:20:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5HBK3H07897 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 21:20:04 +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 NAA14399; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:04:19 +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 NAA06784; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:06:47 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020617130709.00ac4d90@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:14:19 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice In-Reply-To: <002a01c213fc$11b8b840$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004901c21369$5d0fb700$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:34 14/06/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >Very well, I'll propose a procedure myself, as a strawman to be knocked >down. Sorry about the length, I want to be thorough. AG : nice job. I'd like to add one point : contrary to note (e), and in accordance with an old editorial in The Bridge World, I think the right moment to call can in some cases be : right after the doubtful bid is produced. Some bids have such a high probability to have been induced by the UI. Say the bidding goes : 1S 2NT (nat) 4C* 4D** ...4S 5y * BW ** no ace Traditionally, one might admit reentering the action after a slow BW when holding an unexpected -and useful- void. Here, East's only reason for bidding again is that he took the UI into account. In other words, it is surely an infraction, and L9 tells us to call the TD right now. Best regards, Alain. >1. If an opponent breaks tempo in a situation that isn't particularly >tempo-sensitive, say nothing. E. g., first seat takes a long time to open >the bidding. This could mean anything. > >2. If the opponent is a novice, say nothing.unless an opponent has >previously been nasty. : -)) > >3. Otherwise, say something like "Can we agree that this call was >considerably [slower][faster] than usual?" > >3a, No agreement, call the TD, who determines if UI exists and if it does >gives the standard spiel about it. After such spiel, the TD says, "You can >call me later if you have substantial reason to believe that your opponent >has taken a doubtful action suggested by the unauthorized information, which >can only be at sight of dummy or at the end of play." > >3b.Agreement, ask opponents if they want the TD to be called. If not, call >the TD only when evidence of a likely UI infraction is later observed and >attention is drawn to it, either at sight of dummy or at the end of play >(L16A2). This is required whether or not the UI has caused damage, which is >up to the TD to decide (L16A2). The TD must be called when attention is >called to an irregularity, per L9B1(a). > >4. If the TD has been called because of dummy's contents, he/she "stands >ready" until play is over (L16A2), unless ruling before then that dummy has >committed no infraction.. > >Notes. > >(a). It is not appropriate for the TD to say, "Call me later if you think >you have been damaged." Existence of damage is a TD decision, not a player >decision. > >(b) Even if not recalled to the table, the TD should always drop by later to >check on the matter. > >(c) The OS has no right to claim that they didn't know their UI obligations >if they declined the option of calling the TD when they agreed to the UI. > >(d) Item 4 above is arguable, because the last sentence of L16A2 is >ambiguous, unclear as to whether the TD can rule before play is completed. > >(e) An opponent is not to call the TD when a possibly doubtful action is >taken, but must wait until the end of play, or (if dummy's cards provides >the evidence) when dummy is tabled. > >(f) There is no requirement to call the TD if no attention is drawn to a UI >infraction, per L9B1(a). If there is obviously no damage, it is acceptable >to say nothing. If, however, anything is said, the TD must be called. > >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 Mon Jun 17 21:45:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HBj9H07919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 21:45:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5HBj3H07915 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 21:45:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0144.bb.online.no [80.212.208.144]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA06642 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:31:43 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00cb01c215f2$8e9b3340$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004901c21369$5d0fb700$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> <002a01c213fc$11b8b840$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <003901c215c8$be819100$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:31:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" in a discussion with > Marvin L. French ....... > >The new way goes like this:: > > > >1C-1H-1S-4H > >P* - "Can we agree on a break in tempo?" > > > >"Yes, of course." > > > >Again 4S is bid, but nothing is said. At the end of play, it is plain that > >there was no logical altnerative to the bid of 4S. Everyone is happy, and > >the TD hasn't been bothered. > > This is, of course, illegal in the ACBL. Just because the terminology > "reserving your rights" has not been used does not alter the fact that > that this is reserving their rights. > > >Or, the 4S bid is seen to have been doubtful. Now, for the first time, there > >is evidence of an irregularity, and the TD is called. His time is not > >wasted, there is a ruling to be made. > > What happens when the hesitation is not agreed? That is the problem > you are ignoring! If you get a match between two teams, and in 16 > boards one team hesitates on 24 occasions [about normal, I would say] > the players have to agree on a hesitation 24 times. Let us say htat > opponents disagree on the hesitation one time in four, which seems about > right. Six director calls. Marvin's "new way" is as far as I can see exactly the procedure we recommend in Norway. But David asks "What happens when the hesitation is not agreed"? The answer is: You call the Director immediately in order to establish the facts. No problem and no waste of time, at least not in Norway. I do wonder if this makes problems elsewhere, and if so how? > > Now consider what happens when you wait to see if there is a call that > is potentially affected by the hesitation. This occurs about one time > in six, maybe. That's four times, one director call. And then of course "Hesitation ????? NO WAY!!!!!!" After which the director has an impossible task of establishing what really happened five minutes ago. > > >I prefer the new way. It leads to better relations between players and fewer > >TD calls. Exactly our experience. > > 24 discussions, six director calls is not a better game than four > discussions, one director call, however many director calls there are at > the rend of the hand - probably one in either case. Theory? What is your experience from real life? (The Norwegian players cannot be THAT different in attitude compared to others?) 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 Jun 17 21:56:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HBuW507935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 21:56:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5HBuQH07931 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 21:56:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0144.bb.online.no [80.212.208.144]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA27939 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:43:06 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00d101c215f4$25a3f1e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004901c21369$5d0fb700$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> <5.1.0.14.0.20020617130709.00ac4d90@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:43:06 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Alain Gottcheiner" ...... > AG : nice job. I'd like to add one point : contrary to note (e), and in > accordance with an old editorial in The Bridge World, I think the right > moment to call can in some cases be : right after the doubtful bid is > produced. Some bids have such a high probability to have been induced by > the UI. > Say the bidding goes : > > 1S 2NT (nat) > 4C* 4D** > ...4S 5y > > * BW > ** no ace > > Traditionally, one might admit reentering the action after a slow BW when > holding an unexpected -and useful- void. Here, East's only reason for > bidding again is that he took the UI into account. In other words, it is > surely an infraction, and L9 tells us to call the TD right now. > > Best regards, > > Alain. And what should the Director do now? Look at the cards held by the responder and tell the table that in his opinion what he sees justifies, or it does not justify, the doubtful bid? In either case TD has destroyed the board by giving away too much information on the responder's hand to the other three players. The only thing TD can do without destroying the board is to tell them to play on without looking at ANY hand. So what is wrong (except ACBL rules) with opponents asking: Do we agree there was a hesitation here? Implying a possible later call for the Director when he can really do something useful? 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 Jun 17 21:58:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HBwde07953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 21:58:39 +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-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 g5HBwYH07949 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 21:58:34 +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 17JuwW-0003Sg-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 12:45:10 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 12:21:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] South Africa MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I am off to South Africa to play in the Pairs in the SA Championships. I hope to meet some of you there. If anyone wants to get in touch urgently in the next week try duplicating your email to -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 17 22:04:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HC4I607972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:04:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5HC4CH07968 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:04:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17Jv26-000NEB-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 12:50:55 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 12:49:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004901c21369$5d0fb700$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> <002a01c213fc$11b8b840$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <003901c215c8$be819100$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <00cb01c215f2$8e9b3340$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <00cb01c215f2$8e9b3340$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" in a discussion with >> Marvin L. French >....... >> >The new way goes like this:: >> > >> >1C-1H-1S-4H >> >P* - "Can we agree on a break in tempo?" >> > >> >"Yes, of course." >> > >> >Again 4S is bid, but nothing is said. At the end of play, it is plain >that >> >there was no logical altnerative to the bid of 4S. Everyone is happy, and >> >the TD hasn't been bothered. >> >> This is, of course, illegal in the ACBL. Just because the terminology >> "reserving your rights" has not been used does not alter the fact that >> that this is reserving their rights. >> >> >Or, the 4S bid is seen to have been doubtful. Now, for the first time, >there >> >is evidence of an irregularity, and the TD is called. His time is not >> >wasted, there is a ruling to be made. >> >> What happens when the hesitation is not agreed? That is the problem >> you are ignoring! If you get a match between two teams, and in 16 >> boards one team hesitates on 24 occasions [about normal, I would say] >> the players have to agree on a hesitation 24 times. Let us say htat >> opponents disagree on the hesitation one time in four, which seems about >> right. Six director calls. > >Marvin's "new way" is as far as I can see exactly the procedure we >recommend in Norway. But David asks "What happens when the >hesitation is not agreed"? The answer is: You call the Director >immediately in order to establish the facts. > >No problem and no waste of time, at least not in Norway. I do wonder >if this makes problems elsewhere, and if so how? > >> >> Now consider what happens when you wait to see if there is a call that >> is potentially affected by the hesitation. This occurs about one time >> in six, maybe. That's four times, one director call. > >And then of course "Hesitation ????? NO WAY!!!!!!" >After which the director has an impossible task of establishing what really >happened five minutes ago. It takes FIVE MINUTES to make two calls? Trust me, it is not much different to wait two calls! >> >I prefer the new way. It leads to better relations between players and >fewer >> >TD calls. > >Exactly our experience. > >> >> 24 discussions, six director calls is not a better game than four >> discussions, one director call, however many director calls there are at >> the rend of the hand - probably one in either case. > >Theory? > >What is your experience from real life? (The Norwegian players >cannot be THAT different in attitude compared to others?) I am talking real life: we do not agree on every hesitation, and the game would be much slower and more problematic if we did. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 17 22:09:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HC9PB07993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:09:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5HC9KH07989 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:09:21 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5HBumN01291 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 07:56:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200206171156.g5HBumN01291@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 07:56:48 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Jun 17, 2002 01:34:13 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 > > Tom Cornelis writes > > >Isn't the other 5/6 five times more likely to occur? You don't have to make > >*many* agreements to cover all auctions. > > This is not correct. Even when you think you have discussed > everything auctions turn up where you have no agreement. It is just not > that easy. Nobody works harder than Meckwell on this and they still have the occasional undiscussed auction. According to Rodwell they expect to be on the same page ~95% of the time in these situations. (Because of well thought out general rules) Even if you play a very uncomplicated style in a well-established partnership you'll still have the occasional undiscussed auction. I know I was kibitzing Hamman/Wolff when Wolff responded "I don't know" to the question about what a particular sequence showed. ( He followed up with "it's either ..." followed by a short list of very different hand types. Wolff looked annoyed, Hamman's face never changed. No discussion after the hand.) The opponents had no cause for complaint as they picked up a decent swing on the board. The usual fate for not knowing what you're doing. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 17 22:22:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HCMMh08066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:22:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5HCMHH08060 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:22:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-15.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.15] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17JvJe-0007k8-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 08:09:02 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020617080810.00aaaa30@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 08:09:32 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <00dd01c213e8$dbf370a0$8316b9d2@laptop> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:17 PM 6/14/02, Wayne wrote: >From: "Ed Reppert" >To: >Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 8:07 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > > > On 6/7/02, David Burn wrote: > > > > > > > >Eric wrote: FTR, none of what follows was written by me. > > > > > I think that concern over what is "standard" may be misplaced. The > > question is, what is "general bridge knowledge" about this 2NT > overcall. > > I don't think that's quite the same thing. The level of "general bridge > > knowledge" among some of the people with whom I play is practically > > non-existant. For some others, it includes the knowledge that the > > "Unusual NT overcall" exists, but they have no clue when it > applies. And > > for yet others, they know it exists, and they know it applies, and they > > "know" it means "both minors". The point to all this is that context is > > important. I think you have to evaluate (or try to evaluate) the > > "general bridge knowledge" of these two particular players, not > refer to > > some arbitrary, theoretical, and probably non-existant "standard". I > > could be wrong. If I am, perhaps someone can explain to me why I > am. :-) > >I think that it is helpful to think of 'General Bridge Knowledge' as it >applies here as all that which is not 'Specific Partnership >Understanding/Agreement/Experience'. > >In other words 'General Bridge Knowledge' is what a player has learned >from >general experience rather than what every player knows. > >Wayne Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 17 22:22:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HCMRf08070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:22:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5HCMLH08065 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:22:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id OAA25926; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 14:06:40 +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 OAA00408; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 14:09:05 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020617140744.00acd520@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 14:16:37 +0200 To: "Sven Pran" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice In-Reply-To: <00d101c215f4$25a3f1e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004901c21369$5d0fb700$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> <5.1.0.14.0.20020617130709.00ac4d90@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 13:43 17/06/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >...... > > AG : nice job. I'd like to add one point : contrary to note (e), and in > > accordance with an old editorial in The Bridge World, I think the right > > moment to call can in some cases be : right after the doubtful bid is > > produced. Some bids have such a high probability to have been induced by > > the UI. > > Say the bidding goes : > > > > 1S 2NT (nat) > > 4C* 4D** > > ...4S 5y > > > > * BW > > ** no ace > > > > Traditionally, one might admit reentering the action after a slow BW when > > holding an unexpected -and useful- void. Here, East's only reason for > > bidding again is that he took the UI into account. In other words, it is > > surely an infraction, and L9 tells us to call the TD right now. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Alain. > >And what should the Director do now? Look at the cards held by the >responder and tell the table that in his opinion what he sees justifies, >or it does not justify, the doubtful bid? > >In either case TD has destroyed the board by giving away too much >information on the responder's hand to the other three players. > >The only thing TD can do without destroying the board is to tell them >to play on without looking at ANY hand. AG : I don't see how this contradicts the fact that the TD should be called as soon as possible. Many opponents will be less aggrieved if you call _in tempore non suspecto_ rather than after they have scored a cold top, which you *now* tell them you contest. Do you want to appear lawyering ? OTOH, pointing at every hesitation will put improper pressure on naturally slow players. I very much prefer the present attitude : a) it is very probable that the UI influenced the bid (uncommon occurrence) : call as soon as the bid occurs ; b) else, wait until the hand of the (potentially influenced) bidder can be seen, that is either as he tables it as dummy or after the play ceases (13th trick or claim). Best ragards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 17 22:48:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HCmYu08134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:48:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5HCmTH08130 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:48:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-15.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.15] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17Jvj1-00039E-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 08:35:15 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020617083100.00b0a880@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 08:35:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <000401c21567$4752f8f0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:52 AM 6/16/02, Tom wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Todd Zimnoch" >To: >Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 8:15 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > > >From: "Tom Cornelis" > > >To: "Bridge Laws" > > >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > >Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 12:18:11 +0200 > > > > > >If it's absurd, give me an example of an auction, you can't have >discussed > > >(because of lack of time for instance). > > > > 1. P - 1D - P - 1NT > > 2D > > is 2D natural or take-out for the majors? > >If you agreed to play Michael's cuebid, it's for the majors. If you didn't >make an agreement about direct cue-bids, it's natural. > > > 2. 1D - P - 2C - P > > 3NT- P - 4C > > gerber or slam try in clubs? > >Slam try in clubs. Gerber is intended for NT-opening bids (or a NT rebid >after a strong artificial opening bid). If you didn't agree on this >specific >auction, it's slam try in clubs. It's not because it might be handier to >play Gerber in a specific auction, that you can play it if you want >to. You >have to play what you're agreed on. Making no agreements about an auction, >is agreeing to play it natural. > > > 3. 1D - X - 2NT > > strong or weak support for diamonds or something else entirely? > >Depends what you're agreed on of course. If you play Truscott, it will be >strong support, if you didn't agree on something in this type of auction, >it's natural. (inviting to 3NT) > > > 4. 2H (weak) - X - 2NT > > feature-asking, ogust, or something else? > >If you're agreed on 2H - pass - 2NT, it's the same as 2H - pass - 2NT. >If you're not agreed on 2H - pass - 2NT, it's feature asking (standard >with >weak two's). > > > 5. 1D - 1H - 2S > > weak or strong? > >same as 1D - pass - 2S (if no agreement, strong, i.e. standard) > > > 6. 1NT - P - 2C - P > > 2D - P - 3D > > ? > >A new suit of an unlimited hand is forcing. (standard) Partner is of >course >expected to show his major suit strength, since 3D is seeking a minor >contract. Since 3H and 3S cannot show a 4-card suit, it must show strength >if you didn't agree to play something in this auction. Tom appears to have clarified the essence of his position. He would apparently like the Law to state that a partnership which has not had any discussion or agreement about a particular auction should be presumed to have "agreed" to play that particular auction as meaning whatever it would mean if Tom had taken it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 17 22:49:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HCnLO08146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:49:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5HCnFH08142 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:49:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0144.bb.online.no [80.212.208.144]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA12868 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 14:35:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001101c215fb$8676c360$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004901c21369$5d0fb700$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> <002a01c213fc$11b8b840$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <003901c215c8$be819100$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <00cb01c215f2$8e9b3340$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 14:35:54 +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" ....... > >> Now consider what happens when you wait to see if there is a call that > >> is potentially affected by the hesitation. This occurs about one time > >> in six, maybe. That's four times, one director call. > > > >And then of course "Hesitation ????? NO WAY!!!!!!" > >After which the director has an impossible task of establishing what really > >happened five minutes ago. > > It takes FIVE MINUTES to make two calls? Two calls? I am talking about waiting until all cards of the doubtful hand are known. That will most often be at the end of the play (declarer or either defender). Of course if you are so lucky that it was the dummy who hesitated, and just before the end of the auction, but how often is that the case? > > Trust me, it is not much different to wait two calls! > > >> >I prefer the new way. It leads to better relations between players and > >fewer > >> >TD calls. > > > >Exactly our experience. > > > >> > >> 24 discussions, six director calls is not a better game than four > >> discussions, one director call, however many director calls there are at > >> the rend of the hand - probably one in either case. > > > >Theory? > > > >What is your experience from real life? (The Norwegian players > >cannot be THAT different in attitude compared to others?) > > I am talking real life: we do not agree on every hesitation, and the > game would be much slower and more problematic if we did. Nor do we agree upon every hesitation, but when the question is raised immediately we have much less discussion about the fact, and as I said much less overall waste of time. OK, Norwegian players must show a different attitude than others? Have a nice trip to South Africa! regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 00:11:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HEBLN08222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 00:11:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu (PACIFIC-CARRIER-ANNEX.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5HEBFH08218 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 00:11:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from grand-central-station.mit.edu (GRAND-CENTRAL-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.82]) by pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id JAA01714 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 09:58:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.86]) by grand-central-station.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id JAA28720 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 09:58:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Herot (TANG-ELEVEN-EIGHTY-TWO.MIT.EDU [18.186.6.159]) by melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id JAA29138 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 09:58:00 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "richard willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 09:58:01 -0400 Organization: mit Message-ID: <000801c21606$fe9815f0$9f06ba12@Herot> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 In-Reply-To: <200206171156.g5HBumN01291@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Ron Johnson Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 6:57 AM To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis >> Tom Cornelis writes >> >> >Isn't the other 5/6 five times more likely to occur? You don't have >> >to make >> >*many* agreements to cover all auctions. >> >> This is not correct. Even when you think you have discussed >> everything auctions turn up where you have no agreement. It is just >> not that easy. >Nobody works harder than Meckwell on this and they still have the occasional >undiscussed auction. According to Rodwell they expect to be on the same >page ~95% of the time in these situations. (Because of well thought out >general rules) Meckwell had a major oopsie last night playing against Zia and Rosenberg. Rosenburg oppened a weak NT and the uction proceeded (1N) - P - (P) - 2C 2C = Spades and another suit (X) - P - (3C) - P (P) - 3D The 3D bidder intended 3D as bid your better major. The 2D bidder interpreted 3D as natural Luckily the 4-3 Diamond fit was playable, though it was clearly inferior to the 5-3 heart fit that was available. This is one of the most polished partnerships in the world and they are still encountering major problems. It seems strange to expect that any partnership can achieve much based on 10 minutes of discussion. In particular, please recall that there is not common consensus regarding "standard" bidding, even within wrelatively well defined systems like SAYC. Half the SAYC mentors teach that the auction 1C - 2N shows 11-12 HCP and a balanced hand. The other half teach that this is a forcing bid. I think that Tom and Herman are wildly optimistic. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 00:15:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HEFI908234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 00:15:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net ([213.35.62.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5HEFBH08230 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 00:15:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id pnucvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:01:51 +0200 Message-ID: <002b01c21607$8c12a710$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:01:57 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 10:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > >From: "Tom Cornelis" > >To: > >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > >Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 11:52:27 +0200 > > > > > > > > > >If it's absurd, give me an example of an auction, you can't have > >discussed > > > >(because of lack of time for instance). > > > > > > 1. P - 1D - P - 1NT > > > 2D > > > is 2D natural or take-out for the majors? > > > >If you agreed to play Michael's cuebid, it's for the majors. > > I botched this one. The auction should have been: > > P - 1D - P - 1NT > P - P - 2D > > Absent discussion, I'd assume it's natural, even if playing Michaels. I've > been wrong. It doesn't make sense to play it as natural. If you have opening values with a decent diamond suit, you should double (not T/O), if you have no opening values you should pass. > >If you didn't make an agreement about direct cue-bids, it's natural. > > So absent discussion, 1H - 2H is natural? I was referring to the auction P - 1D - P - 1NT - P - P - 2D. A direct cuebid without explicit agreement is strong (hands you cue with after you double when playing Michael's and such). In the given auction this was impossible, so the bid had to be natural. > > > > 2. 1D - P - 2C - P > > > 3NT- P - 4C > > > gerber or slam try in clubs? > > > >Slam try in clubs. Gerber is intended for NT-opening bids (or a NT rebid > >after a strong artificial opening bid). If you didn't agree on this > >specific > >auction, it's slam try in clubs. It's not because it might be handier to > >play Gerber in a specific auction, that you can play it if you want to. You > >have to play what you're agreed on. > > I think the whole point of this discussion is that you don't have an > explicit agreement and yet a bid has been made. Exactly. That's why your implicit agreements take over. > If the NT bid was at the 2-level, 4C is a definite Gerber. Given the > 3-level bid, many people are still guessing what that is. I bid 4C as a > slam try in clubs asking for control cue bids, but now I don't know what to > make of my partner's response to it. What are my ethical obligations when > he bids 4D/4H/4S and I hold the ace of that suit? Partner has the right to bid 4D/4H/4S without the ace of that suit. If you conclude partner responded to Gerber, and he did, you may not take an action, based on that knowledge. At this point, a misunderstanding is a fact. Either your next action is obvious (without the inferences from 4D/4H/4S) or you will have the possibilities to 1) take the best action according to your judgement - possibly facing an unfavorable ruling or 2) take not the best action according to your judgement - the actively ethical action. > >Making no agreements about an auction, is agreeing to play it natural. > > I don't believe that statement even if it would be a sensible way to > play. Why not? If you didn't agree to play a specific convention, why should you try it? What you didn't agree, you cannot play. Note that a lot of auctions are covered by a simple statement such as 'we play Acol'. I would assume for instance Stayman, the 4th suit convention and simple BW implied. Not remembering what that statement implies for a specific auction, doesn't give you the right to explain it as undiscussed. It's implied. > And even so, playing it natural doesn't make any statement about the > strength of the hand. It does. The system you agreed to play stipulates this. Also, more complicated auctions will leave little doubt about the strength of a hand. > > > 3. 1D - X - 2NT > > > strong or weak support for diamonds or something else entirely? > > > >Depends what you're agreed on of course. If you play Truscott, it will be > >strong support, if you didn't agree on something in this type of auction, > >it's natural. (inviting to 3NT) > > Playing on Wednesday nights, absent discussion it's weak support. > Playing on Thursday nights, absent discussion it's a guess between strong > support or a 11-12 HCP invitation to 3NT. (different crowds) If you didn't agree it on a Thursday night, you should assume an invitation yo 3NT, since this is the meaning of 2NT according the system you're playing. It's implied. > > > 4. 2H (weak) - X - 2NT > > > feature-asking, ogust, or something else? > > > >If you're agreed on 2H - pass - 2NT, it's the same as 2H - pass - 2NT. > > I would think it implies a spade stopper as well. Why? Doesn't your partner have the right to make an inquiry about your hand, to decide between 3H and 4H. Does he need a spade stopper for that (according to the metods)? > >If you're not agreed on 2H - pass - 2NT, it's feature asking (standard > >with weak two's). > > Standard is a matter of the company you keep. A different crowd may > have a different understanding of what's standard. I always go with feature > asking, but I've been wrong a few times. Your partner was wrong. If you're not agreed, you don't play something else. If you meet so many standards, I would advise to ask for the standard before seeking a partner. It will save you time, because you don't need to make certain agreements because of the standard. It will save you more time if you play more in the company you keep - with the specific standard. > > > 5. 1D - 1H - 2S > > > weak or strong? > > > >same as 1D - pass - 2S (if no agreement, strong, i.e. standard) > > Again, no. In my experience, absent discussion it has been weak in the > scenario I gave, but strong in your example. Your personal experience is no part of your agreement. > > > [snipped 6, wasn't as good an example] > > > With sufficiently little time to discuss, more and more auctions become > > > problematic. Not that I think it's a good idea to make bids you aren't > > > confident your partner understands correctly, it happens. > > > >I agree with that all along. My point is that whatever you haven't > >explicitly discussed, can be derived from inferences from that. (cfr. > >examples) > > That may work in theory, but in practice, the inferences are better > derived from knowing what other players in your area play. You are not > going to base your inferences on the agreements that you did have time to > make. You're going to base you inferences on your experiences playing > against that person. It is more often correct. It's the same thing. That's why I say there's no general bridge knowledge. There's only local bridge knowledge - which I regard to be general bridge knowledge, because a frame of reference is needed. > I used to live about 5 minutes from a local bridge club and I would be > called to fill in movements. Often by the time I arrived, the rest of the > room would be 1 or 2 boards in. When you only have enough time before > bidding your first hand to ask whether you're playing SAYC or 2/1, you find > that you and your partner are (for the most part) playing the most common > local conventions. Some treatments have nearly equal local favor, and you > have to guess. You don't. If there's not enough local bridge knowledge, you have to expand your frame of reference, to your area, district, state or country. They apply if the local bridge knowledge fails to give you a standard. It makes perfect sense. There are a lot of different standards. The more local one applies first. > I just have to disagree with your operating premise that you can/should > guess based on the other agreements you have made or otherwise assume the > bid is natural. That's too often wrong. Making inferences based on local > customs is going to be more often right, but still not free of hitches. I meant that if there is no frame of reference. > Given that there can and will be undiscussed auctions and > misunderstandings about them, I don't believe your opponents are entitled to > know the nature of your misunderstanding. Undiscussed auctions should just > be disclosed as "undiscussed". If you disclose it as 'undiscussed', the opponents don't know whether there's a misunderstanding. And how could they know about the nature of a misunderstanding if there is none? For them there is no nature of misunderstanding; there's only MI. When deciding whether there was MI, the Law bases itself upon the nature of the misunderstanding. If it's a wrong explanation, there's MI, if there's a wrong call, there's no MI. How can the Law be correctly administered if there's room to debate whether a call or an explanation is the cause? There is no room for debate. If a pair can't prove the call was wrong, the TD must assume MI. I see the point of allowing 'undiscussed' for an explanation. There's no immediate need to disallow it. It will only make the Law clearer. However, if you interpret the Law in such a way, that you allow a pair to go unpunished if they intentionally wrong-footed the opponents, I feel the Law should be modified in such a way that there's no room for allowing such rulings. Players don't mind the Law very much IMO as long as it allows them to play bridge without too much too think of (I'm talking of the general bridger, not of all of them). Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 00:31:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HEViT08247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 00:31:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail32.hq.webvisie.net [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5HEVdH08243 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 00:31:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id vzucvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:18:18 +0200 Message-ID: <004f01c21609$d89efcd0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020614081725.00afbb20@pop.starpower.net> <00d301c213b4$1257f330$713f23d5@cornelis> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:18:26 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 2:18 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > Tom Cornelis writes > > >With on-line bridge, people explain their own bids. There can never be MI > >(unless deliberate). > > This is not correct. A player bids 4S, which he believes to show > clubs. He says it shows clubs, which is MI. His partner, who knows it > does not show clubs, takes some action, and the opponents are damaged. How can the opponents be damaged? As he has clubs, there's no MI. If his partner bases his action on something else, surely the opponents can't be damaged by MI? L40C: If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score. The MI should be the cause of the damage. (cfr. if they didn't ask for an explanation) What his partner does is irrelevant as long as he didn't hear the explanation (he will assume the right one). If the opponents are damaged because he based his action on 4S not showing clubs, they can't be rectified. > The fact that the explanation matches the player's hand does nto mean > it is not MI. > > >With screens, people explain their own and their partner's bids. There can > >only be MI from the other side of the screen (unless deliberate). > > Same scenario: same effect. MI is perfectly possible. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 00:38:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HEcKX08259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 00:38:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5HEcEH08255 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 00:38:15 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5HEPhn04374 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:25:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200206171425.g5HEPhn04374@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:25:43 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <000801c21606$fe9815f0$9f06ba12@Herot> from "richard willey" at Jun 17, 2002 09:58:01 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 > > In particular, please recall that there is not common consensus > regarding "standard" bidding, even within wrelatively well defined > systems like SAYC. Half the SAYC mentors teach that the auction 1C - 2N > shows 11-12 HCP and a balanced hand. The other half teach that this is > a forcing bid. I think that Tom and Herman are wildly optimistic. > Sure. Just look at the Master Solver's Club in the Bridge World. Jeff Rubens occasionally rehashes old problems from the other side (IE take the plurality solution and present the auction as a problem to as plausable partner's hand). Occasionally the results are very strange. In other words, Rubens has demonstrated that even in a relatively simple system such as BWS68 or BWS84 it's quite possible to have a misunderstanding with yourself. (And the are no bad players on the bidding panel) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 00:42:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HEgac08276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 00:42:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net ([213.35.62.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5HEgVH08272 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 00:42:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id olvcvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:29:13 +0200 Message-ID: <005501c2160b$5f09bc00$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613093355.00aadc70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613132849.00aa51e0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020614092816.00aa6b60@pop.starpower.net> <00d701c213b6$04dc3070$713f23d5@cornelis> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:29:20 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 2:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > Tom Cornelis writes > > >Isn't the other 5/6 five times more likely to occur? You don't have to make > >*many* agreements to cover all auctions. > > This is not correct. Even when you think you have discussed > everything auctions turn up where you have no agreement. It is just not > that easy. Yes it is. Making no agreements about an auction is agreeing that you're going to play whatever your other agreements imply for that auction. If you think otherwise, please give an example. > > Agreements usually imply > >conventions. If you play less conventions, you will have more time to > >discuss the other 5/6 of the auctions. Do you believe you *need* to play > >some form of Puppet-Stayman, more than you need to agree about the other 5/6 > >of the auctions? > > I think to play a terribly inefficient and useless system because if I > agree an efficient one I will not have covered absolutely everything is > a serious mistake. How can it be so inefficient if it cover 6 times more of the auctions? You are a lot less likely to have misunderstandings (none if your partner understand what I imply). Think about it. Try it. Being in the right contract is more a matter of judgement on what contract you want to play, than a matter of judgement on what convention you will use to get there. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 00:54:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HErox08295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 00:53:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail32.hq.webvisie.net [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5HErjH08291 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 00:53:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id iuvcvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:40:23 +0200 Message-ID: <005b01c2160c$eedffaf0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: <000401c21567$4752f8f0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:40:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 2:13 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > Tom Cornelis writes > > >> 1. P - 1D - P - 1NT > >> 2D > >> is 2D natural or take-out for the majors? > > >If you agreed to play Michael's cuebid, it's for the majors. If you didn't > >make an agreement about direct cue-bids, it's natural. > > I play Michaels with a number of partners. I am sure that some would > take this sequence as Michaels, and some would not. If yo don't know which, what will you do? Assume Michael's? Assume natural? Look at your hand? Why not assume what the Law prescribes? You agreed to play Michael's, so play it. > >I agree with that all along. My point is that whatever you haven't > >explicitly discussed, can be derived from inferences from that. (cfr. > >examples) > > That is the problem: it just does not work. That way lies chaos, > because what seems entirely logical to you does not necessarily to your > partner. That's my point! You cannot use your own experience to explain a call. You have to apply a logic that works for everyone, undebatable logic. No-one can proove what you personal experience is (that includes you). Everyone can proove undebatable logic. If everyone would know that that's the way it has to be (because of a Law), there would be no more problems. They would know they would have not to base themselves on their personal experience, but on the agreements. There's no room for doubt. Your agreements will imply some meaning for every specific auction. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 01:05:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HF5Kc08317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 01:05:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail32.hq.webvisie.net [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5HF5EH08313 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 01:05:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id ecwcvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:51:57 +0200 Message-ID: <006f01c2160e$8c1513e0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020617083100.00b0a880@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:52:04 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > At 05:52 AM 6/16/02, Tom wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Todd Zimnoch" > >To: > >Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 8:15 PM > >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > > > > >From: "Tom Cornelis" > > > >To: "Bridge Laws" > > > >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > > >Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 12:18:11 +0200 > > > > > > > >If it's absurd, give me an example of an auction, you can't have > >discussed > > > >(because of lack of time for instance). > > > > > > 1. P - 1D - P - 1NT > > > 2D > > > is 2D natural or take-out for the majors? > > > >If you agreed to play Michael's cuebid, it's for the majors. If you didn't > >make an agreement about direct cue-bids, it's natural. > > > > > 2. 1D - P - 2C - P > > > 3NT- P - 4C > > > gerber or slam try in clubs? > > > >Slam try in clubs. Gerber is intended for NT-opening bids (or a NT rebid > >after a strong artificial opening bid). If you didn't agree on this > >specific > >auction, it's slam try in clubs. It's not because it might be handier to > >play Gerber in a specific auction, that you can play it if you want > >to. You > >have to play what you're agreed on. Making no agreements about an auction, > >is agreeing to play it natural. > > > > > 3. 1D - X - 2NT > > > strong or weak support for diamonds or something else entirely? > > > >Depends what you're agreed on of course. If you play Truscott, it will be > >strong support, if you didn't agree on something in this type of auction, > >it's natural. (inviting to 3NT) > > > > > 4. 2H (weak) - X - 2NT > > > feature-asking, ogust, or something else? > > > >If you're agreed on 2H - pass - 2NT, it's the same as 2H - pass - 2NT. > >If you're not agreed on 2H - pass - 2NT, it's feature asking (standard > >with > >weak two's). > > > > > 5. 1D - 1H - 2S > > > weak or strong? > > > >same as 1D - pass - 2S (if no agreement, strong, i.e. standard) > > > > > 6. 1NT - P - 2C - P > > > 2D - P - 3D > > > ? > > > >A new suit of an unlimited hand is forcing. (standard) Partner is of > >course > >expected to show his major suit strength, since 3D is seeking a minor > >contract. Since 3H and 3S cannot show a 4-card suit, it must show strength > >if you didn't agree to play something in this auction. > > Tom appears to have clarified the essence of his position. He would > apparently like the Law to state that a partnership which has not had > any discussion or agreement about a particular auction should be > presumed to have "agreed" to play that particular auction as meaning > whatever it would mean if Tom had taken it. I'm not that bigheaded. My point is that your agreements and your frame of reference will allways imply a meaning for an auction. Your frame of reference is the same for your partner, i.e. a club may have a custom standard system, so may a higher authority. Whatever auction's meaning can be derived (in that order of priority): 1) directly from your agreements 2) indirectly from your agreements and your frame of reference 3) from your frame of reference 4) from a bigger frame of reference (your NCBO for example) Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 01:25:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HFOal08341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 01:24:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net ([213.35.62.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5HFOUH08337 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 01:24:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id zrwcvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:11:15 +0200 Message-ID: <008101c21611$3e8a47a0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: <200206171156.g5HBumN01291@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:11:23 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Johnson" To: Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 1:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > > > Tom Cornelis writes > > > > >Isn't the other 5/6 five times more likely to occur? You don't have to make > > >*many* agreements to cover all auctions. > > > > This is not correct. Even when you think you have discussed > > everything auctions turn up where you have no agreement. It is just not > > that easy. > > Nobody works harder than Meckwell on this and they still have the occasional > undiscussed auction. According to Rodwell they expect to be on the same > page ~95% of the time in these situations. (Because of well thought out > general rules) I'm quite sure, they find some agreement afterwards. (there was in a previous example doubt about 4NT in some auction, nat or BW, but they agreed it should be nat) My point is the Law should assume an explanation of 'natural' to be the right explanation, so there's no confusion about which explanations are wrong and which are right. > Even if you play a very uncomplicated style in a well-established > partnership you'll still have the occasional undiscussed auction. I > know I was kibitzing Hamman/Wolff when Wolff responded "I don't know" > to the question about what a particular sequence showed. ( He followed up > with "it's either ..." followed by a short list of very different > hand types. Wolff looked annoyed, Hamman's face never changed. No > discussion after the hand.) > > The opponents had no cause for complaint as they picked up a decent > swing on the board. The usual fate for not knowing what you're doing. The problem is, and I think I'm making you miss the point here, is that when the opponents would like or have to take an action, based on the explanation of a bid, they cannot take any action that makes sense. So they do take some action, because they have to - the bidding can't stop out of the blue - and therefore they're damaged. Now, according to you there was no MI and therefore they remain damaged. It's not so likely you'll get a bad board, if your opponents have to make decisions based on your explanation. You stress the fact that there's enough damage by having a misunderstanding, but that's not always the case. Of course, most misunderstandings don't involve the relevant action of the opponents afterwards. But that's not important. What's important is, when they do, they're damaging the opponents - unrightfully IMO. You should get good results because of your calls and your play, not because of your explanations. Surely this must make sense? Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 01:32:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HFWnJ08356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 01:32:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fort-point-station.mit.edu (FORT-POINT-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.7.76]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5HFWhH08352 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 01:32:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from central-city-carrier-station.mit.edu (CENTRAL-CITY-CARRIER-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.7.72]) by fort-point-station.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id LAA22443 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 11:19:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.86]) by central-city-carrier-station.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id LAA18942 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 11:14:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Herot (TANG-ELEVEN-EIGHTY-TWO.MIT.EDU [18.186.6.159]) by melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id LAA06586 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 11:14:23 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "richard willey" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 11:14:24 -0400 Organization: mit Message-ID: <000a01c21611$aa6fbd60$9f06ba12@Herot> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 In-Reply-To: <002b01c21607$8c12a710$6f3f23d5@cornelis> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Tom Cornelis Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 9:02 AM To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis >> That may work in theory, but in practice, the inferences are >> better derived from knowing what other players in your area play. You >> are not going to base your inferences on the agreements that you did >> have time to make. You're going to base you inferences on your >> experiences playing against that person. It is more often correct. >It's the same thing. That's why I say there's no general bridge knowledge. >There's only local bridge knowledge - which I regard to be general bridge >knowledge, because a frame of reference is needed. ... >If there's not enough local bridge knowledge, you have to expand your >frame of reference, to your area, district, state or country. >They apply if the local bridge knowledge fails to give you a standard. >It makes perfect sense. There are a lot of different standards. >The more local one applies first. First, this requires that both players have the same concept regarding what agreements are encapsulated with the local standards versus district standards. Second, this requires that both players understand when they need to migrate from their local standard to the district standard or from the district standard to the state standard. Of course, this still dodges the basic issue. People have asymmetric notions of what is standard. Saying that they should "know better" is nothing more that wishful thinking. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 01:48:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HFlmK08373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 01:47:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5HFlhH08369 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 01:47:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id fexcvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:34:22 +0200 Message-ID: <008b01c21614$79c732d0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: <000801c21606$fe9815f0$9f06ba12@Herot> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:34:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "richard willey" To: Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 3:58 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Ron Johnson > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 6:57 AM > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > >> Tom Cornelis writes > >> > >> >Isn't the other 5/6 five times more likely to occur? You don't have > >> >to make > >> >*many* agreements to cover all auctions. > >> > >> This is not correct. Even when you think you have discussed > >> everything auctions turn up where you have no agreement. It is just > >> not that easy. > > >Nobody works harder than Meckwell on this and they still have the > occasional > >undiscussed auction. According to Rodwell they expect to be on the same > > >page ~95% of the time in these situations. (Because of well thought out > > >general rules) > > Meckwell had a major oopsie last night playing against Zia and > Rosenberg. > > Rosenburg oppened a weak NT and the uction proceeded > > (1N) - P - (P) - 2C 2C = Spades and another suit > (X) - P - (3C) - P > (P) - 3D > > The 3D bidder intended 3D as bid your better major. > The 2D bidder interpreted 3D as natural > > Luckily the 4-3 Diamond fit was playable, though it was clearly inferior > to the 5-3 heart fit that was available. This is one of the most > polished partnerships in the world and they are still encountering major > problems. It seems strange to expect that any partnership can achieve > much based on 10 minutes of discussion. The problem is that our intentions conflict with the availability of calls. That's not the problem of the Law. I'm not saying you have to make specific agreements about all the auctions. I'm saying you have to explain accordingly. If you didn't agree, explain it as natural (in the most meaningful sense). I'm not familiar with the agreements of Meckwell, but they should also explain undiscussed auctions as natural, not undiscussed (cfr. example where 3D was interpreted as nat). > In particular, please recall that there is not common consensus > regarding "standard" bidding, even within relatively well defined > systems like SAYC. Half the SAYC mentors teach that the auction 1C - 2N > shows 11-12 HCP and a balanced hand. The other half teach that this is > a forcing bid. I think that Tom and Herman are wildly optimistic. I know this problem, but it shouldn't be a problem for the Law. Each SO can draw up rules that will apply when ruling about an explanation about what's standard. In that case there will be no problems for the Law. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 01:50:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HFoq008388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 01:50:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5HFolH08384 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 01:50:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id ofxcvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:37:27 +0200 Message-ID: <009301c21614$e812fa30$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: <200206171425.g5HEPhn04374@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:37:36 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Johnson" To: Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 4:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > > > In particular, please recall that there is not common consensus > > regarding "standard" bidding, even within wrelatively well defined > > systems like SAYC. Half the SAYC mentors teach that the auction 1C - 2N > > shows 11-12 HCP and a balanced hand. The other half teach that this is > > a forcing bid. I think that Tom and Herman are wildly optimistic. > > > Sure. Just look at the Master Solver's Club in the Bridge World. > Jeff Rubens occasionally rehashes old problems from the other side > (IE take the plurality solution and present the auction as a problem > to as plausable partner's hand). Occasionally the results are very > strange. In other words, Rubens has demonstrated that even in a > relatively simple system such as BWS68 or BWS84 it's quite possible > to have a misunderstanding with yourself. (And the are no bad players on > the bidding panel) What proves my proposition that players' intentions conflict with the availability of bids. They don't always accept it. The Law should though. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 01:55:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HFtke08401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 01:55:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (mta06-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5HFtfH08397 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 01:55:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.153.29]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020617154225.LUQV4119.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:42:25 +0100 Message-ID: <006d01c21616$9348ab60$3b9d68d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <000801c21606$fe9815f0$9f06ba12@Herot> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:48:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk An opponent asks about your partner's bid in an auction that you do not remember discussing. You infer meaning(s) but are unsure of your deductions. Among your possible statements are: 1. "No agreement." 2. "Undiscussed, but, if you want, I'll tell you what I think. With probability estimates?" 3. "It means... [your deductions]". The first option seems a cunning prevarication since your understanding of the meaning is likely to be better than your opponents even just from negative inferences. The second option dumps the problem squarely (and unfairly?) on your opponents and may seem a devious way of trying to avoid misinformation penalties. You can never be 100% sure about a meaning but you are rarely 100% in the dark, so the the third option is best (and simplest). At least it would save player and TD time. We should change the Law to make it compulsory. Regards, Nigel -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 02:12:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HGCLv08426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 02:12:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5HGCFH08422 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 02:12:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id xoxcvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:58:59 +0200 Message-ID: <00a301c21617$e9f34b90$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "'Bridge Laws'" References: <000a01c21611$aa6fbd60$9f06ba12@Herot> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:59:07 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "richard willey" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 5:14 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Tom Cornelis > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 9:02 AM > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > > >> That may work in theory, but in practice, the inferences are > >> better derived from knowing what other players in your area play. > You > >> are not going to base your inferences on the agreements that you did > >> have time to make. You're going to base you inferences on your > >> experiences playing against that person. It is more often correct. > > >It's the same thing. That's why I say there's no general bridge > knowledge. > >There's only local bridge knowledge - which I regard to be general > bridge > >knowledge, because a frame of reference is needed. > > ... > > >If there's not enough local bridge knowledge, you have to expand your > >frame of reference, to your area, district, state or country. > >They apply if the local bridge knowledge fails to give you a standard. > >It makes perfect sense. There are a lot of different standards. > >The more local one applies first. > > First, this requires that both players have the same concept regarding > what agreements are encapsulated with the local standards versus > district standards. They have to be made available. Then they would only would have to know that that's the way it works. > Second, this requires that both players understand when they need to > migrate from their local standard to the district standard or from the > district standard to the state standard. (see above) > Of course, this still dodges the basic issue. > People have asymmetric notions of what is standard. Saying that they > should "know better" is nothing more that wishful thinking. That's why the standards should be made available. Note that this way, it will be a lot easier to play with an occasional partner. All you have to do is consult the standard. I'm not saying they should know better, only that it would be made easier for them if they would, and that they could. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 02:52:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HGqFk08456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 02:52:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5HGqAH08452 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 02:52:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.157.8]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020617163854.UFSH295.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:38:54 +0100 Message-ID: <008b01c2161e$77af43c0$3b9d68d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:44:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Should we ban oral explanations? Should we insist instead on... I written explanations or II references to CCs and system manuals III ask explainer's partner to leave the table (this last is what we did in the past). We hope to avoid a frequent kind of occurrence... LHO opens 2H (weak). Partner overcalls 3H. RHO asks you the meaning of the cue-bid. With... xxx AJ9 Qxx Jxxx you say "asks for stops" xxx Ax Qxxx Qxxx you say "asks for a stop" xxx Qx KJxx Qxxx you say "asks for half stop" KJxx xxx Axx Jxx you say "Michaels, may be weak" Jxxx xxx xxx xxx you say "Michaels usually sound" (: Nigel :) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 03:42:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HHgM308522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 03:42:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5HHgGH08518 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 03:42:16 +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 g5HHT1W12400 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:29:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002801c21624$623d1840$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004901c21369$5d0fb700$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> <5.1.0.14.0.20020617130709.00ac4d90@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:27:35 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Very well, I'll propose a procedure myself, as a strawman to be knocked > >down. Sorry about the length, I want to be thorough. > > AG : nice job. I'd like to add one point : contrary to note (e), and in > accordance with an old editorial in The Bridge World, I think the right > moment to call can in some cases be : right after the doubtful bid is > produced. Some bids have such a high probability to have been induced by > the UI. High probability is not enough. > Say the bidding goes : > > 1S 2NT (nat) > 4C* 4D** > ...4S 5y > > * BW > ** no ace > > Traditionally, one might admit reentering the action after a slow BW when > holding an unexpected -and useful- void. Here, East's only reason for > bidding again is that he took the UI into account. In other words, it is > surely an infraction, and L9 tells us to call the TD right now. > Technically speaking, no infraction has been observed. L16A2 does say that when a player has "substantial reason to believe..." the TD should be called "forthwith." Had that been the total of L16A2, you would be right. However, someone realized that actions that seem illegal may not be so, and had the footnote added to clarify when it is possible to have "substantial reason," which can only be when the offender's hand has been revealed. Last night I wrote that hesitation BW had been committed at my table. The "offender" (if he was one) did not have a useful void, contrary to your belief, but felt that he had an undisclosed high card that justified the 6S bid. His hand was AKxxx -- Jxx AKxxx, and the bidding went 1S=3H=4C=4NT (RKCB for clubs, by agreement)=5C=5S after long thought. Since opener had not shown the king of spades by his response, he felt justified in continuing. All I did was get agreement on the hesitation before leading the ace of diamonds. Violating my own rule, I didn't call the TD until declarer ruffed my partner's diamond king. I thought there had been an infraction, not knowing that the RKCB was for clubs, and that damage had resulted. I doubt that I would have appealed an adverse ruling, but that's moot because the TD didn't return with a ruling. Anyway, I don't see how calling the TD "right now" accomplishes anything. Is the TD going to stop all action and adjust the contract "to do equity" immediately? That might make sense, eliminating the need to figure how the play would have gone in an adjusted contract, but the Laws do not permit that. All the TD can do is "require the auction to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score" if damage results (L16A2). Why waste TDs' time by requiring that they stand by? Someone should fix L16A2. How can the TD "require the auction and play to continue" if called only after the opening lead has been made? That goof fortifies my belief that the footnote came as an afterthought, without sufficient attention to its effect on the paragraph to which it applies. Note that the footnote is not preceded by "E. g.", which would make its words merely an example. If the TD may be called in such circumstance as you describe, that "E.g." should be added. I once had a problem with the footnote too. Why call the TD at sight of an offending dummy when nothing can be done until play ends? I guess the answer is that the TD can more easily decide on the damage issue if he observes the play while "standing ready." That is an argument for your position, which IMO is not supported by the Laws. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 03:57:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HHvNP08536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 03:57:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5HHvHH08532 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 03:57:17 +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 g5HHi2W19972 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:44:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003501c21626$7b918d60$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004901c21369$5d0fb700$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> <5.1.0.14.0.20020617130709.00ac4d90@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020617140744.00acd520@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:40:27 -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: "Alain Gottcheiner" > Many opponents will be less aggrieved if you call _in tempore non suspecto_ > rather than after they have scored a cold top, which you *now* tell them > you contest. Do you want to appear lawyering ? There is something to that, however proper procedure is not to "contest" the result, but to call the TD to see if it was tainted. No accusations, no unpleasantness. Something like: "We agreed on the break in tempo, and now I need to call the Director. No doubt everything is okay, I know you are very ethical, but let's see what he says." Players can get quite upset when the TD is called at the time of a suspicious action, interpreting that as an accusation of cheating. Often there is no logical alternative to the action, and the ruffling of feelings was unnecessary. 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 Jun 18 04:07:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HI7MO08552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 04:07:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5HI7HH08548 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 04:07:18 +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 g5HHs3W24899 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:54:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003b01c21627$e1ba1700$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004901c21369$5d0fb700$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> <002a01c213fc$11b8b840$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <003901c215c8$be819100$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <00cb01c215f2$8e9b3340$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:49:46 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > > I am talking real life: we do not agree on every hesitation, and the > game would be much slower and more problematic if we did. > I stress that hesitations should be agreed only in tempo-sensitive situations. Most breaks in tempo do not provide useful UI. My policy is to get agreement on a break only in obviously tempo-sensitive situations, taking my chances that the UI, if misused, will be more difficult to establish later on. I think the TD will understand: "Why didn't you call me when the supposed break in tempo occurred?" "I didn't think the situation was tempo-sensitive, sorry." "Okay, now let's establish whether there was unauthorized information before I decide on any damage." There were numerous hesitations in opposing auctions during the game I played yesterday, but only one that called for mutual agreement (hesitation Blackwood). 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 Jun 18 04:12:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HICPk08569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 04:12:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5HICIH08565 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 04:12:19 +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 g5HHx4W27741 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:59:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004c01c21628$9510bc00$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <008b01c2161e$77af43c0$3b9d68d5@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:54:40 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Nigel Guthrie" < > We hope to avoid a frequent kind of occurrence... > LHO opens 2H (weak). > Partner overcalls 3H. > RHO asks you the meaning of the cue-bid. > With... > xxx AJ9 Qxx Jxxx you say "asks for stops" > xxx Ax Qxxx Qxxx you say "asks for a stop" > xxx Qx KJxx Qxxx you say "asks for half stop" > KJxx xxx Axx Jxx you say "Michaels, may be weak" > Jxxx xxx xxx xxx you say "Michaels usually sound" Thanks, Nigel, I got a kick out of this. If the answer is wrong, judging by the partner's hand, surely the MI will result in redress for any damage. 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 Jun 18 04:26:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HIPwk08588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 04:25:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5HIPqH08584 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 04:25:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.157.8]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020617181237.YNMS295.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 19:12:37 +0100 Message-ID: <00e501c2162b$8fa427e0$3b9d68d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 19:19:34 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Just a clarification of previous email] Should oral explanations be in the presence of explainer's partner? Should we insist instead on... I written explanations or II references to CCs and system manuals or III explainer's partner leave the table (this last is what we happened in the past). We might then avoid a frequent kind of occurrence e.g. LHO opens 2H (weak). Partner overcalls 3H. RHO asks you the meaning of the cue-bid. With... ...you say... ...and bid xxx AJ9 Qxx Jxxx "asks for stops" 3N xxx Ax Qxxx Qxxx "asks for a stop" 3N xxx Qx KJxx Qxxx "asks for half stop" 3N KJxx xxx Axx Jxx "Michaels may be weak" 3S Jxxx xxx xxx xxx "Michaels usually sound" 3S (: Nigel :) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 07:23:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HLLR308691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 07:21:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5HLLLH08687 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 07:21:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-15.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.15] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17K3jK-0001ae-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:08:06 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020617170100.00afde10@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:08:37 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <006f01c2160e$8c1513e0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020617083100.00b0a880@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 10:52 AM 6/17/02, Tom wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 2:35 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > > Tom appears to have clarified the essence of his position. He would > > apparently like the Law to state that a partnership which has not had > > any discussion or agreement about a particular auction should be > > presumed to have "agreed" to play that particular auction as meaning > > whatever it would mean if Tom had taken it. > >I'm not that bigheaded. My point is that your agreements and your frame of >reference will allways imply a meaning for an auction. Your partnership agreements and *your* frame of reference will always provide *you* with a meaning for an auction. Your partnership agreements and *your partner's* frame of reference will always provide *your partner* with a meaning for an auction. To assume that you and your partner will always choose the same frame of reference, and therefore infer the same meaning for the auction, is simply wrong. A law which presumes that it is true when it is not will be patently unworkable. >Your frame of >reference is the same for your partner, But why should it be. If I pick up a partner, why should I have any clue what his assumed frame of reference is? >i.e. a club may have a custom >standard system, ...or it may not >so may a higher authority. ...or it may not Or you might choose to assume your club's frame of reference while your partner chooses to assume the "higher authority's" frame of reference. Or vice versa. Or something else entirely. >Whatever auction's meaning can >be derived (in that order of priority): >1) directly from your agreements ...which should give the same result for you and your partner >2) indirectly from your agreements and your frame of reference ...which in general will not >3) from your frame of reference ...ditto >4) from a bigger frame of reference (your NCBO for example) ...and how are we to know what that is? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 07:25:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HLPgZ08704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 07:25:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5HLPbH08700 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 07:25:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-15.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.15] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17K3nS-0002I1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:12:22 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020617171040.00afeed0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:12:53 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <008101c21611$3e8a47a0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> References: <200206171156.g5HBumN01291@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:11 AM 6/17/02, Tom wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ron Johnson" >To: >Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 1:56 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > > Nobody works harder than Meckwell on this and they still have the >occasional > > undiscussed auction. According to Rodwell they expect to be on the same > > page ~95% of the time in these situations. (Because of well thought out > > general rules) > >I'm quite sure, they find some agreement afterwards. I'm quite sure they will too. But if they will "find some agreement afterwards", that means that they did not have some agreement "beforewards". Tom would have the law require that they explain the meaning which, as he himself points out, they have not yet found. 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 Jun 18 09:17:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HNGSM08762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:16:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail32.hq.webvisie.net [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5HNGNH08758 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:16:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.99] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id rpkdvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 01:03:05 +0200 Message-ID: <002d01c21653$24041860$633f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020617083100.00b0a880@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020617170100.00afde10@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 01:03:05 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 11:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > At 10:52 AM 6/17/02, Tom wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Eric Landau" > >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > >Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 2:35 PM > >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > > > > Tom appears to have clarified the essence of his position. He would > > > apparently like the Law to state that a partnership which has not had > > > any discussion or agreement about a particular auction should be > > > presumed to have "agreed" to play that particular auction as meaning > > > whatever it would mean if Tom had taken it. > > > >I'm not that bigheaded. My point is that your agreements and your frame of > >reference will allways imply a meaning for an auction. > > Your partnership agreements and *your* frame of reference will always > provide *you* with a meaning for an auction. Your partnership > agreements and *your partner's* frame of reference will always provide > *your partner* with a meaning for an auction. To assume that you and > your partner will always choose the same frame of reference, and > therefore infer the same meaning for the auction, is simply wrong. A > law which presumes that it is true when it is not will be patently > unworkable. You have no personal frame of reference. It is available to everyone. It must be. It should be. > >Your frame of > >reference is the same for your partner, > > But why should it be. If I pick up a partner, why should I have any > clue what his assumed frame of reference is? Because that's how the Law should define it. > >i.e. a club may have a custom > >standard system, > > ...or it may not In which case they agree with the frame of reference of their higher authority. > >so may a higher authority. > > ...or it may not It should. In Belgium there allready is one. I'm quite sure most NCBOs use a standard system to teach. This standard systems becomes the frame of reference for that NCBO. > Or you might choose to assume your club's frame of reference while your > partner chooses to assume the "higher authority's" frame of > reference. Or vice versa. Or something else entirely. There's no room for confusion. A frame of reference must be made available to all. If you visit a club and they haven't posted a frame of reference, you will be obliged to use the one of the higher authority. > >Whatever auction's meaning can > >be derived (in that order of priority): > >1) directly from your agreements > > ...which should give the same result for you and your partner > > >2) indirectly from your agreements and your frame of reference > > ...which in general will not > > >3) from your frame of reference > > ...ditto > > >4) from a bigger frame of reference (your NCBO for example) > > ...and how are we to know what that is? As I said, all is needed is clear frames of references. This are standard systems and conventions, that have to be made public, so there's no room for doubt about the frame of reference that applies. Example: In Belgium Dutch Acol and French style 5-card majors are the standard systems. That's the frame of reference in Belgium. In Flanders the standard system is Dutch Acol. That's their frame of reference. A local club in Flanders, may agree that Puppet-Stayman is a standard convention. That's there frame of reference. Suppose you're visiting this local club. You luckily find a partner. You agree to play the French style standard system. There's no need to discuss Puppet-Stayman, because this will be posted in the club. If you didn't discuss a specific auction, other than a Puppet-Stayman situation, the TD shall assume the Belgian frame of reference, since you agreed to play the French style. Since transnational partnerships are formed and international tournaments are played, it would be advisible that higher authorities, such as the EBL and WBF also draw up a frame of reference. All that would be needed from the Law is that a SO can draw up a frame of reference and that higher authorities must draw up a frame of reference. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 09:22:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5HNMZO08774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:22:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail32.hq.webvisie.net [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5HNMUH08770 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:22:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.99] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id fzkdvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 01:09:11 +0200 Message-ID: <003501c21653$fe2c2dc0$633f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <200206171156.g5HBumN01291@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <4.3.2.7.0.20020617171040.00afeed0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 01:09:11 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 11:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > At 11:11 AM 6/17/02, Tom wrote: > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Ron Johnson" > >To: > >Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 1:56 PM > >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > > > > Nobody works harder than Meckwell on this and they still have the > >occasional > > > undiscussed auction. According to Rodwell they expect to be on the same > > > page ~95% of the time in these situations. (Because of well thought out > > > general rules) > > > >I'm quite sure, they find some agreement afterwards. > > I'm quite sure they will too. But if they will "find some agreement > afterwards", that means that they did not have some agreement > "beforewards". Tom would have the law require that they explain the > meaning which, as he himself points out, they have not yet found. Exactly. I would require them to explain it as 'natural', in the most natural sense possible. (e.g. force if length impossible, strong if natural impossible, ...), within the frame of reference that apllies. Think about it. Since the Law will assume it to be natural, people are going to be less likely to explain it otherwise AND call otherwise, therefore decreasing the number of misunderstandings. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 11:02:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5I11LL08819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 11:01:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5I11FH08815 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 11:01:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-35-27-209.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.27.209] helo=gordonrainsford.co.uk) by protactinium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17K7A6-0004I2-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 01:47:58 +0100 Message-ID: <3D0E8322.8090208@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 01:47:30 +0100 From: Gordon Rainsford User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020512 Netscape/7.0b1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020617083100.00b0a880@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020617170100.00afde10@pop.starpower.net> <002d01c21653$24041860$633f23d5@cornelis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis wrote: > > As I said, all is needed is clear frames of references. This are standard > systems and conventions, that have to be made public, so there's no room for > doubt about the frame of reference that applies. > Example: > In Belgium Dutch Acol and French style 5-card majors are the standard > systems. > That's the frame of reference in Belgium. That's two frames of reference. "No room for doubt"? > In Flanders the standard system is > Dutch Acol. That's their frame of reference. A local club in Flanders, may > agree that Puppet-Stayman is a standard convention. That's there frame of > reference. > Suppose you're visiting this local club. You luckily find a partner. You > agree to play the French style standard system. There's no need to discuss > Puppet-Stayman, because this will be posted in the club. If you didn't > discuss a specific auction, other than a Puppet-Stayman situation, the TD > shall assume the Belgian frame of reference, since you agreed to play the > French style. Since transnational partnerships are formed and international > tournaments are played, it would be advisible that higher authorities, such > as the EBL and WBF also draw up a frame of reference. All that would be > needed from the Law is that a SO can draw up a frame of reference and that > higher authorities must draw up a frame of reference. > > Best regards, > > Tom. This is supposed to *solve* problems? 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 Jun 18 11:05:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5I14vF08831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 11:04:57 +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 g5I14rH08827 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 11:04:53 +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 LAA12455 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 11:06:10 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:47:50 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:37:26 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 18/06/2002 10:47:33 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In one email, Tom Cornelis wrote: [big snip] >it shouldn't be a problem for the Law. Each SO can >draw up rules that will apply when ruling about an >explanation about what's standard. In that case >there will be no problems for the Law. While the Flanders SO has promulgated an "official" version of Dutch Acol, it is impossible that the Flanders SO has defined a standard meaning for every call in Dutch Acol. If the ABF decided to adopt Tom's suggestion, there would be even greater logistical problems, since Australia has no universally popular system. The ABF would have to promulgate multiple standards for: *The Power System, *Moscito *1C - 1D bust *Symmetric Relay *Sydney Standard American *Tasmanian Standard American, etc, etc. In another email, Tom wrote: [snip] >I would require them to explain it as 'natural', in >the most natural sense possible. (e.g. force if >length impossible, strong if natural impossible, ...), >within the frame of reference that applies. Think >about it. Since the Law will assume it to be natural, [snip] Nowhere do the current Laws state that calls are to be *assumed as natural*. Therefore, for Tom's ideas to come to fruition, a Law change will be necessary (and unlikely). 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 Jun 18 11:16:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5I1FvV08848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 11:15:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5I1FpH08844 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 11:15:52 +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 g5I14Zx14279 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 02:04:35 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 02:01:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020617083100.00b0a880@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020617170100.00afde10@pop.starpower.net> <002d01c21653$24041860$633f23d5@cornelis> In-Reply-To: <002d01c21653$24041860$633f23d5@cornelis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <002d01c21653$24041860$633f23d5@cornelis>, Tom Cornelis writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 11:08 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > >> At 10:52 AM 6/17/02, Tom wrote: >> >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: "Eric Landau" >> >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >> >Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 2:35 PM >> >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis snip >> > >> >I'm not that bigheaded. My point is that your agreements and your frame >of >> >reference will allways imply a meaning for an auction. >> >> Your partnership agreements and *your* frame of reference will always >> provide *you* with a meaning for an auction. Your partnership >> agreements and *your partner's* frame of reference will always provide >> *your partner* with a meaning for an auction. To assume that you and >> your partner will always choose the same frame of reference, and >> therefore infer the same meaning for the auction, is simply wrong. A >> law which presumes that it is true when it is not will be patently >> unworkable. > >You have no personal frame of reference. It is available to everyone. It >must be. It should be. > why the heck should it be? let's just say we pick up at the partnership desk 5 minutes before the off. I tell you I'm in from London for a few days, and the TD's told me I have to play 'A' Flight. You suggest 2/1 (largely because you don't know anything else) and being the sort of guy I am, I say sure. We discuss rkc (you're pleased I'm prepared to play 1430), we agree Ogust and red suit transfers, we agree 2C P 2H is 2nd negative. We agree to play capp, (I need a quick run-down on that) and the TD calls us in. First board you open 2C and I respond 2N. What's that? Second board you open 1NT and I respond 2S. WTF?! Third board you open 1D P 1H P 1S P 4D. Oh s**t! Fourth board I open 1C P 1S P 4C. OMG! Fifth board, Game all; RHO opens 1H, you pass a 4333 15 count with H Qxx (well I hope you do), LHO bids 2H, I bid 2S, RHO bids 3H. Do you bid 3S? Sixth board, you open 2H and I respond 3C. GAH! I guarantee you won't get any of them, as they all have two clear-cut interpretations. Even at the Young Chelsea I'd be doing well to get 2 of them on the same page of the book, playing with another expert, as all these sequences are ambiguous. cheers john >> >Your frame of >> >reference is the same for your partner, >> >> But why should it be. If I pick up a partner, why should I have any >> clue what his assumed frame of reference is? > >Because that's how the Law should define it. > >> >i.e. a club may have a custom >> >standard system, >> >> ...or it may not > >In which case they agree with the frame of reference of their higher >authority. > >> >so may a higher authority. >> >> ...or it may not > >It should. In Belgium there allready is one. I'm quite sure most NCBOs use a >standard system to teach. This standard systems becomes the frame of >reference for that NCBO. > >> Or you might choose to assume your club's frame of reference while your >> partner chooses to assume the "higher authority's" frame of >> reference. Or vice versa. Or something else entirely. > >There's no room for confusion. A frame of reference must be made available >to all. If you visit a club and they haven't posted a frame of reference, >you will be obliged to use the one of the higher authority. > >> >Whatever auction's meaning can >> >be derived (in that order of priority): >> >1) directly from your agreements >> >> ...which should give the same result for you and your partner >> >> >2) indirectly from your agreements and your frame of reference >> >> ...which in general will not >> >> >3) from your frame of reference >> >> ...ditto >> >> >4) from a bigger frame of reference (your NCBO for example) >> >> ...and how are we to know what that is? > >As I said, all is needed is clear frames of references. This are standard >systems and conventions, that have to be made public, so there's no room for >doubt about the frame of reference that applies. >Example: >In Belgium Dutch Acol and French style 5-card majors are the standard >systems. >That's the frame of reference in Belgium. In Flanders the standard system is >Dutch Acol. That's their frame of reference. A local club in Flanders, may >agree that Puppet-Stayman is a standard convention. That's there frame of >reference. >Suppose you're visiting this local club. You luckily find a partner. You >agree to play the French style standard system. There's no need to discuss >Puppet-Stayman, because this will be posted in the club. If you didn't >discuss a specific auction, other than a Puppet-Stayman situation, the TD >shall assume the Belgian frame of reference, since you agreed to play the >French style. Since transnational partnerships are formed and international >tournaments are played, it would be advisible that higher authorities, such >as the EBL and WBF also draw up a frame of reference. All that would be >needed from the Law is that a SO can draw up a frame of reference and that >higher authorities must draw up a frame of reference. > >Best regards, > >Tom. > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 19:09:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5I99Ja09112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 19:09:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5I99EH09108 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 19:09:14 +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 KAA04494; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:53:30 +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 KAA01254; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:55:55 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020618110052.00ab20f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 11:03:28 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice In-Reply-To: <002801c21624$623d1840$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004901c21369$5d0fb700$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> <5.1.0.14.0.20020617130709.00ac4d90@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:27 17/06/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > >Very well, I'll propose a procedure myself, as a strawman to be knocked > > >down. Sorry about the length, I want to be thorough. > > > > AG : nice job. I'd like to add one point : contrary to note (e), and in > > accordance with an old editorial in The Bridge World, I think the right > > moment to call can in some cases be : right after the doubtful bid is > > produced. Some bids have such a high probability to have been induced by > > the UI. > >High probability is not enough. > > > Say the bidding goes : > > > > 1S 2NT (nat) > > 4C* 4D** > > ...4S 5y > > > > * BW > > ** no ace > > > > Traditionally, one might admit reentering the action after a slow BW when > > holding an unexpected -and useful- void. Here, East's only reason for > > bidding again is that he took the UI into account. In other words, it is > > surely an infraction, and L9 tells us to call the TD right now. > > >Technically speaking, no infraction has been observed. L16A2 does say that >when a player has "substantial reason to believe..." the TD should be called >"forthwith." Had that been the total of L16A2, you would be right. However, >someone realized that actions that seem illegal may not be so, and had the >footnote added to clarify when it is possible to have "substantial reason," >which can only be when the offender's hand has been revealed. > >Last night I wrote that hesitation BW had been committed at my table. The >"offender" (if he was one) did not have a useful void, contrary to your >belief, but felt that he had an undisclosed high card that justified the 6S >bid. His hand was AKxxx -- Jxx AKxxx, and the bidding went 1S=3H=4C=4NT >(RKCB for clubs, by agreement)=5C=5S after long thought. Since opener had >not shown the king of spades by his response, he felt justified in >continuing. All I did was get agreement on the hesitation before leading the >ace of diamonds. Violating my own rule, I didn't call the TD until declarer >ruffed my partner's diamond king. I thought there had been an infraction, >not knowing that the RKCB was for clubs, and that damage had resulted. I >doubt that I would have appealed an adverse ruling, but that's moot because >the TD didn't return with a ruling. AG : Marvin, you are arguing in my favor ! This 6S bid should have been disallowed. Pass is a LA. And the infraction is obvious at the time it is committed. Other comments about the deal : 1) I don't believe 4NT is BW for clubs, because responder will never have a H/C 2-suiter. I suspect a systemic error. 2) If declarer ruffed your partner's DK, he revoked. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 22:31:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5ICV3409255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 22:31:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5ICUqH09251 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 22:30:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id vmvdvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:17:34 +0200 Message-ID: <001701c216c2$23386480$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020617083100.00b0a880@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020617170100.00afde10@pop.starpower.net> <002d01c21653$24041860$633f23d5@cornelis> <3D0E8322.8090208@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:17:38 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Rainsford" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 2:47 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > Tom Cornelis wrote: > > > > As I said, all is needed is clear frames of references. This are standard > > systems and conventions, that have to be made public, so there's no room for > > doubt about the frame of reference that applies. > > Example: > > In Belgium Dutch Acol and French style 5-card majors are the standard > > systems. > > That's the frame of reference in Belgium. > > That's two frames of reference. "No room for doubt"? Both systems are standard. As soon as you agree on the system, there's no room for doubt. (I assume you can at least agree on the system.) > > In Flanders the standard system is > > Dutch Acol. That's their frame of reference. A local club in Flanders, may > > agree that Puppet-Stayman is a standard convention. That's there frame of > > reference. > > Suppose you're visiting this local club. You luckily find a partner. You > > agree to play the French style standard system. There's no need to discuss > > Puppet-Stayman, because this will be posted in the club. If you didn't > > discuss a specific auction, other than a Puppet-Stayman situation, the TD > > shall assume the Belgian frame of reference, since you agreed to play the > > French style. Since transnational partnerships are formed and international > > tournaments are played, it would be advisible that higher authorities, such > > as the EBL and WBF also draw up a frame of reference. All that would be > > needed from the Law is that a SO can draw up a frame of reference and that > > higher authorities must draw up a frame of reference. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Tom. > > This is supposed to *solve* problems? Please clarify. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 22:41:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5ICf5e09277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 22:41:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout09.sul.t-online.com (mailout09.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.84]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5ICepH09264 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 22:40:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd06.sul.t-online.de by mailout09.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17KI4z-0002io-01; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:27:25 +0200 Received: from vwalther.de (320051711875-0001@[217.84.236.151]) by fmrl06.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 17KI4p-0TCU0OC; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:27:15 +0200 Message-ID: <3D0F26A3.192AB7E7@vwalther.de> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:25:07 +0200 From: "Volker R. Walther" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en]C-CCK-MCD QXW0323l (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: de,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004901c21369$5d0fb700$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> <002a01c213fc$11b8b840$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <003901c215c8$be819100$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 320051711875-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I always have a bad feeling when I look to L 16A1. Let's have a look to Marvins example 1C-1H-1S-4H P*-P-?? * you have the impression, that there has been a nearly unremarkable hesitation, but you're not shure. Looking to your hand, you have the feeling, that bidding 4 Spades will be slightly better than playing 4 hearts. This decision is not influenced by partners (supposed) hesitation, but pass may be a LA. If someone asks "Can we agree on a break in tempo?" your decision is quite easy: Since the hesitation suggests some kind of action, you should pass now. Any kind of successfull action will be cancelled by the TD. (perhaps the TD is called and gives you the good advice take no action that may be suggested by the hesitation) But if nobody asks, your situation is awful: The quality of bidding 4 Spades depends on things, that will happen after your bid. If nobody else recognized the hesitation (or there was no hesitation at all) bidding 4S is the 'good' choice. But bidding 4 spades will be a 'bad' decision, if someone calls the TD after you have fullfilled the contract. By the way: The TD, who is called after the hand has been played is in a simular awfull situation: He has to decide, whether has been an hesitation 5 minutes ago. I would prefer a Law 16A1 saying: "When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available, he should immediately announce that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorised information might have been conveyed)." -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- Adressen meiner Homepage: http://www.vwalther.de oder (schlechter zu merken, aber ohne Werbung) http://home.t-online.de/home/volker.r.walther -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 22:41:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5ICfLO09288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 22:41:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5ICf9H09284 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 22:41:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id itvdvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:27:45 +0200 Message-ID: <005c01c216c3$8f2733a0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:27:49 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Cornelis" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 2:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 2:37 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > > > > > In one email, Tom Cornelis wrote: > > > > [big snip] > > > > >it shouldn't be a problem for the Law. Each SO can > > >draw up rules that will apply when ruling about an > > >explanation about what's standard. In that case > > >there will be no problems for the Law. > > > > While the Flanders SO has promulgated an "official" > > version of Dutch Acol, it is impossible that the > > Flanders SO has defined a standard meaning for every > > call in Dutch Acol. > > Why not? It's implied. When a call is not explicitly described, the standard > assumes the natural meaning. > > > If the ABF decided to adopt Tom's suggestion, there > > would be even greater logistical problems, since > > Australia has no universally popular system. The > > ABF would have to promulgate multiple standards for: > > *The Power System, > > *Moscito > > *1C - 1D bust > > *Symmetric Relay > > *Sydney Standard American > > *Tasmanian Standard American, etc, etc. > > Are there no offcicial bridge teachers in Australia? I know some of these > systems, and I know some of them are too complicated to teach them to > beginners. There are a lot of different systems in Flanders too, but that > doesn't mean the SO can't draw up such a system. It makes sense to adopt the > system that is teached to beginners. > > > Nowhere do the current Laws state that calls are to > > be *assumed as natural*. Therefore, for Tom's ideas > > to come to fruition, a Law change will be necessary > > (and unlikely). > > > > Indeed, a Law change would be necessary. > > Best regards, > > Tom. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 23:32:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5IDVZZ09330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 23:31:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (mta01-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5IDVQH09326 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 23:31:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from annescomputer ([62.255.9.251]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020618131808.YETI16050.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@annescomputer> for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:18:08 +0100 Message-ID: <001f01c216ca$96acb120$fb09ff3e@annescomputer> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004901c21369$5d0fb700$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> <002a01c213fc$11b8b840$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <003901c215c8$be819100$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3D0F26A3.192AB7E7@vwalther.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:18:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Life has become much easier since there have been skip bid warnings. A hesitation in excess of 10 seconds gets to be rather noticeable. I would say in this case, if you were in any doubt - then there has been no hesitation. I don't think you should be taking opps actions in commenting into account. If you think there has been a hesitation, you need to ask yourself what it meant, and then you choose the action least likely to benefit you. You will not get it right more than 50% of the time I reckon :-) Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Volker R. Walther" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice > I always have a bad feeling when I look to L 16A1. > > Let's have a look to Marvins example > 1C-1H-1S-4H > P*-P-?? > > * you have the impression, that there has been a nearly unremarkable > hesitation, but you're not shure. > > Looking to your hand, you have the feeling, that bidding 4 Spades will > be slightly better than playing 4 hearts. > This decision is not influenced by partners (supposed) hesitation, but > pass may be a LA. > > If someone asks "Can we agree on a break in tempo?" your decision is > quite easy: Since the hesitation suggests some kind of action, you > should pass now. Any kind of successfull action will be cancelled by > the TD. (perhaps the TD is called and gives you the good advice take > no action that may be suggested by the hesitation) > > But if nobody asks, your situation is awful: > The quality of bidding 4 Spades depends on things, that will happen > after your bid. > If nobody else recognized the hesitation (or there was no hesitation > at all) bidding 4S is the 'good' choice. > But bidding 4 spades will be a 'bad' decision, if someone calls the TD > after you have fullfilled the contract. > > By the way: > The TD, who is called after the hand has been played is in a simular > awfull situation: He has to decide, whether has been an hesitation 5 > minutes ago. > > I would prefer a Law 16A1 saying: > "When a player considers that an opponent has made such information > available, he should immediately announce that he reserves the right > to summon the Director later (the > opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the > fact that unauthorised information might have been conveyed)." > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > -- > Adressen meiner Homepage: > http://www.vwalther.de > oder (schlechter zu merken, aber ohne Werbung) > http://home.t-online.de/home/volker.r.walther > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 19 10:16:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5J0Eiq09620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:14:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (mta06-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5J0EdH09616 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:14:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.152.6]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020619000120.COMK4119.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 01:01:20 +0100 Message-ID: <002801c21725$73079220$3b9a68d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020617083100.00b0a880@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020617170100.00afde10@pop.starpower.net> <002d01c21653$24041860$633f23d5@cornelis> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 01:08:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I agree with Tom Cornelis but go even further. I advocate that the Laws specify just one "Internationally Agreed Standard System" (decided by votes or a lottery -- no matter). You alert any convention that is not in accord with these standard principles. As Tom says, you must play any undiscussed bid, in accord with the standard (usually "natural"). Then, when playing away from home, you would ... always know when to alert and ... be made aware of local idiosyncracies. Currently a foreigner is at an enormous disadvantage in the alerting game. Only Chauvinists and unemployed TDs would seek to maintain this arbitrary and unfair handicap. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 19 10:54:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5J0rr409642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:53:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5J0rnH09638 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:53:49 +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 KAA18834 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:55:04 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:36:43 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Godel, Escher and Bridge To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:40:06 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 19/06/2002 10:36:25 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: >One example of a Lawful paradox was publicised by Jeff >Rubens in his 1977 Bridge World article, "The Bet": > >North leads, East plays, South revokes, and West also revokes, >with West winning the trick. West leads to the next trick, >establishing West's revoke. However, before North plays to >the next trick, the unestablished South revoke is corrected. Now >L63C says that West's revoke card may no longer be corrected, >but L62C1 says that the card may be withdrawn. Thanks to the WBF's demented decision to introduce symmetrical playing cards at last year's Bermuda Bowl, Jeff Rubens has proved to be a prophet. (The WBF LC cut the Gordian knot of multiple revokes caused by the symmetrical playing cards, by allowing an equity adjustment by the TD.) 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 Jun 19 12:56:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5J2txH09691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:55:59 +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 g5J2ttH09687 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:55:55 +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 MAA11510 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:57:10 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:38:49 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] General Bridge Knowledge To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:31:25 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 19/06/2002 12:38:32 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In the endless thread "Steps in an appeal analysis", Wayne Burrows wrote: >I think that it is helpful to think of 'General >Bridge Knowledge' as it applies here as all that >which is not 'Specific Partnership Understanding/ >Agreement/Experience'. > >In other words 'General Bridge Knowledge' is what a >player has learned from general experience rather >than what every player knows. I agree with Wayne. The relevant quote from L75C is: "...but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience." That is, if you have a specific partnership understanding that an opening bid of 3C shows a weak hand with long clubs, you must disclose that meaning upon an opponent's enquiry. It is irrelevant that your general experience of most other partnerships' agreements is that a 3C opening has an identical meaning to your partnership agreement. An agreement is more than an inference. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 19 13:54:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5J3rrC09721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:53:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5J3rnH09717 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:53:49 +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 NAA21252 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:55:04 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:36:43 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] "To be expected sequences" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:40:05 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 19/06/2002 01:36:25 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In the endless thread, "Steps in an appeal analysis", Ed Reppert wrote: [snip] >The ACBL's general conditions of contest say >that a player is expected to know his >partnership agreements in "to be expected >sequences" (whatever that means). It does >not say that he is expected to have an >agreement for every possible sequence. Aside >from that, I'm not so sure the regulation is >legal anyway. :-) [snip] Canberra has a similar regulation stating that, "it is inherent in the Laws that players know their own system". Like Ed, I am not sure of the legality of either regulation. In ACBL-land, what is "expected"? In Canberra, to what variance of standard deviation must one "know" one's system? 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 Jun 20 00:20:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5JEJjs10156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 00:19:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from VL-MS-MR001.sc1.videotron.ca (relais.videotron.ca [24.201.245.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5JEJdH10152 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 00:19:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from alcide ([24.201.128.154]) by VL-MS-MR001.sc1.videotron.ca (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GXYHUJ00.96S for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:06:19 -0400 Message-ID: <001301c2179a$aa0434c0$9a80c918@alcide> From: "Alcide Dupuis" To: Subject: [BLML] FRAMES OF REFERENCE - SAYC (basic or full) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:07:35 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_01C21779.228DDF80" 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 C'est un message de format MIME en plusieurs parties. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C21779.228DDF80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, I have been reading your comments for more than a month, and would like = to participate in this forum. My question is related to the discussion in progress. I heard of Dutch = Acol as a frame of reference in Belgium, etc. As teacher and director of bridge, living and being so in QUEBEC, = CANADA, I find it difficult to have a general consensus on what is = STANDARD AMERICAN. Do you experts consider the SAYC YELLOW CARD as "the" standard american, = as posted in the game rooms of on line bridge in Zone? Basic or Full? To = what extent can we refer as being "standard" or "frame of reference" = this card? ACBL seems to have and does promote The Club Series as basics for = teaching (even subsidizing events, etc.). This "reference" is = outdated..."Easy bridge" has now been cancelled in ACBL's = subsidizing...That is why we teachers of bridge, trying to follow the = current, compose their own individual materials (to not say that for = every teacher, there is a SCHOOL of THOUGHT AND INTERPRETATION - only a = step away!). Anna March has done a great piece of work on SAYC, but unfortunately, = ACBL seems to live ten years back...not recognizing fine work as this = one. Lastly, I would like to ask you where the name "YELLOW" comes from. Regards, Alcide Dupuis ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C21779.228DDF80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,
I have been reading your comments for = more than a=20 month, and would like to participate in this forum.
My question is related to the = discussion in=20 progress. I heard of Dutch Acol as a frame of reference in Belgium,=20 etc.
As teacher and director of bridge, = living and being=20 so in QUEBEC, CANADA, I find it difficult to have a general consensus on = what is=20 STANDARD AMERICAN.
 
Do you experts consider the SAYC YELLOW = CARD as=20 "the" standard american, as posted in the game rooms of on line bridge = in Zone?=20 Basic or Full? To what extent can we refer as being "standard" or "frame = of=20 reference" this card?
 
ACBL seems to have and does promote The = Club Series=20 as basics for teaching (even subsidizing events, etc.). This "reference" = is=20 outdated..."Easy bridge" has now been cancelled in ACBL's = subsidizing...That is=20 why we teachers of bridge, trying to follow the current, compose their = own=20 individual materials (to not say that for every teacher, there is a = SCHOOL of=20 THOUGHT AND INTERPRETATION - only a step away!).
 
Anna March has done a great piece of = work on SAYC,=20 but unfortunately, ACBL seems to live ten years back...not recognizing = fine work=20 as this one.
 
Lastly, I would like to ask you where = the name=20 "YELLOW" comes from.
 
Regards,
 
Alcide = Dupuis
------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C21779.228DDF80-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 00:22:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5JEMI510168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 00:22:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5JEMCH10164 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 00:22:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g5JEAox18448 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 15:10:51 +0100 Message-ID: <8llolsAcAJE9Ew4l@asimere.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 15:07:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] "To be expected sequences" 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 > >In the endless thread, "Steps in an appeal >analysis", Ed Reppert wrote: > >[snip] > >>The ACBL's general conditions of contest say >>that a player is expected to know his >>partnership agreements in "to be expected >>sequences" (whatever that means). It does >>not say that he is expected to have an >>agreement for every possible sequence. Aside >>from that, I'm not so sure the regulation is >>legal anyway. :-) > >[snip] > >Canberra has a similar regulation stating that, >"it is inherent in the Laws that players know >their own system". > I don't know of any Law which says this. Further I think it's completely contrary to the concept of the game. cheers john >Like Ed, I am not sure of the legality of >either regulation. > >In ACBL-land, what is "expected"? > >In Canberra, to what variance of standard >deviation must one "know" one's system? > >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 Jun 20 02:03:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5JG2id10208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 02:02:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5JG2dH10204 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 02:02:39 +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 IAA26204; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 08:49:15 -0700 Message-Id: <200206191549.IAA26204@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 08:56:42 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jeff Rubens, editor of the Bridge World, has come up with some controversial opinions (plus many sound ones) regarding what the Laws should be. I just got the July BW, and the Editorial contains an opinion that's hard for me to swallow. I think he might have got the Laws wrong, but I'm not sure. The Editorial reviewed a book by R. Jayaram that contained this hand: A2 AKT42 KJ4 Q98 KQJT764 98 6 J9 A86 T532 J4 AT765 53 Q8753 Q97 K32 South plays 4H. Declarer won the spade lead, cashed the AK of trumps, led a diamond to the queen and ace. West cashed a spade and returned a diamond; declarer cashed the other diamond. The next trick was club 8-5-K-4. Declarer led a heart to dummy. I assume this was the layout at that point: -- 42 -- Q9 JT7 -- -- -- -- T J AT7 -- Q8 -- 32 The defense had taken two tricks. Declarer led the C9 from dummy, East played the ten, and declarer conceded two tricks for down 1. Of course, declarer should have made; West would have to win the club with the jack and give up a ruff-sluff. At the table, E-W accepted the concession. Jayaram (and the TD) expressed "high indignation" that West accepted the concession without "correcting the situation." The BW disagreed: "We see no reason for West to say anything, nor any feasible alternative to a result of down one. How exactly was West to achieve this 'correction'? Suggest that the concession be withdrawn on the ground that the defender deserved to be punished for the poor play on the first round of clubs? Even if that were legal (which it isn't), why should West do it? . . . Suppose West had called the director. What should that worthy do about the score? Nothing, of course. Would he adjust the score if a player called the director and said that his opponent would have taken another trick had he finessed for the queen of trumps the other way? . . ." Law 71 says, in part: LAW 71 - CONCESSION CANCELLED A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, the Director shall cancel a concession: . . . C. Implausible Concession if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. I believe that this hand clearly meets the definition of "implausible concession"; when West leads a spade, it is not "normal play" to ruff in both hands. What I noticed about this Law is that it doesn't say that the conceder must notice that he has made an implausible concession, or that the conceder must request a cancellation. It simply says that "the Director shall cancel a concession . . . if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost" by normal play. What are the ramfications here? (1) If the TD happened to be standing over the table watching the play, and declarer made this implausible concession, is he allowed to cancel it right there? (2) If the conceder doesn't notice that the concession is implausible, but an opponent does [before the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board etc.], does the opponent have the legal responsibility to point this out and call the TD? (3) If the opponent doesn't have this legal responsibility, does he at least have an ethical responsibility? Do you consider West to be smarmy for accepting the concession and not telling declarer that he has another trick coming? (4) If the opponent does call the TD, should the TD cancel the concession? (I think L71C says the answer to this is clearly Yes, and thus the BW got at least that part wrong, but someone else here may disagree.) I'm interested in hearing anyone's thoughts about this. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 02:10:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5JG9st10221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 02:09:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5JG9nH10217 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 02:09:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from annescomputer ([62.255.4.25]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020619155629.MCQT4626.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@annescomputer> for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 16:56:29 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01c217a9$dc0ac380$1904ff3e@annescomputer> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: <001301c2179a$aa0434c0$9a80c918@alcide> Subject: Re: [BLML] FRAMES OF REFERENCE - SAYC (basic or full) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 16:56:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alcide Dupuis" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 3:07 PM Subject: [BLML] FRAMES OF REFERENCE - SAYC (basic or full) Hi all, I have been reading your comments for more than a month, and would like to participate in this forum. My question is related to the discussion in progress. I heard of Dutch Acol as a frame of reference in Belgium, etc. As teacher and director of bridge, living and being so in QUEBEC, CANADA, I find it difficult to have a general consensus on what is STANDARD AMERICAN. Do you experts consider the SAYC YELLOW CARD as "the" standard american, as posted in the game rooms of on line bridge in Zone? Basic or Full? To what extent can we refer as being "standard" or "frame of reference" this card? ACBL seems to have and does promote The Club Series as basics for teaching (even subsidizing events, etc.). This "reference" is outdated..."Easy bridge" has now been cancelled in ACBL's subsidizing...That is why we teachers of bridge, trying to follow the current, compose their own individual materials (to not say that for every teacher, there is a SCHOOL of THOUGHT AND INTERPRETATION - only a step away!). Anna March has done a great piece of work on SAYC, but unfortunately, ACBL seems to live ten years back...not recognizing fine work as this one. Lastly, I would like to ask you where the name "YELLOW" comes from. ### I am sure many more knowedgable than I will repond about the fine detail. However I believe that the "yellow" was the colour of the paper convention card on which the simplified SA system was printed Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 02:45:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5JGjY310243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 02:45:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5JGjTH10239 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 02:45:29 +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 g5JGW7Q16047 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:32:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id MAA09969; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:32:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:32:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200206191632.MAA09969@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Another L25(b) moment Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk What actually happened at the table was that a player opened a 15-17 1NT, and accidentally passed his partner's 2C call. It was determined that this was 25(b), not 25(a). All the options were read out, decisions were taken, next board, thank you very much. Unfortunately, this got me to thinking; perhaps directors have too much time on their hands! Suppose a player psyches a strong NT holding: S 82 H 5 D J764 C KQJ976 the auction continues as hoped for: N E S W 1NT P 2C P P (director!) At this point N calls the director, and asks to change his call 25(b) to 2D. The director gives the options, but N is counting on E not to accept the 2D call without penalty. Sure enough, E does not accept, and N now unexpectedly passes rather than playing for an A-. East passes, mission accomplished. There must be a way to prevent this kind of sharp practice (unless you think this tactic ought to be permitted!:-)), but for the life of me I can't find this in the Laws. 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 Jun 20 02:46:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5JGk8s10255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 02:46:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5JGk1H10250 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 02:46:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0274.bb.online.no [80.212.209.18]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA03534; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 18:32:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001101c217ae$ebefb9e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: Cc: References: <200206191549.IAA26204@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 18:32:36 +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: "Adam Beneschan" ......... (snip - irrelevant) > -- > 42 > -- > Q9 > JT7 -- > -- -- > -- T > J AT7 > -- > Q8 > -- > 32 > > The defense had taken two tricks. Declarer led the C9 from dummy, > East played the ten, and declarer conceded two tricks for down 1. > > Of course, declarer should have made; West would have to win the club > with the jack and give up a ruff-sluff. At the table, E-W accepted > the concession. Jayaram (and the TD) expressed "high indignation" > that West accepted the concession without "correcting the situation." > The BW disagreed: "We see no reason for West to say anything, nor > any feasible alternative to a result of down one. How exactly was > West to achieve this 'correction'? Suggest that the concession be > withdrawn on the ground that the defender deserved to be punished for > the poor play on the first round of clubs? Even if that were legal > (which it isn't), why should West do it? . . . Suppose West had called > the director. What should that worthy do about the score? Nothing, > of course. Would he adjust the score if a player called the director > and said that his opponent would have taken another trick had he > finessed for the queen of trumps the other way? . . ." This last argument is completely irrelevant. Once declarer has lead the C9 from dummy and East failed to play his Ace, there is no way declarer can avoid the rest except by ruffing both in dummy and in his own hand. THAT is irrational play. > > Law 71 says, in part: > > LAW 71 - CONCESSION CANCELLED > A concession must stand, once made, except that within the > correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, the > Director shall cancel a concession: . . . > > C. Implausible Concession > if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal > play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a > call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director > shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been > lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. > > I believe that this hand clearly meets the definition of "implausible > concession"; when West leads a spade, it is not "normal play" to ruff > in both hands. > > What I noticed about this Law is that it doesn't say that the conceder > must notice that he has made an implausible concession, or that the > conceder must request a cancellation. It simply says that "the > Director shall cancel a concession . . . if a player has conceded a > trick that cannot be lost" by normal play. What are the ramfications > here? > > (1) If the TD happened to be standing over the table watching the > play, and declarer made this implausible concession, is he allowed > to cancel it right there? No (There is no irregularity) > > (2) If the conceder doesn't notice that the concession is implausible, > but an opponent does [before the conceding side makes a call on a > subsequent board etc.], does the opponent have the legal > responsibility to point this out and call the TD? No (Are you able to find a law that establishes such responsibility?) > > (3) If the opponent doesn't have this legal responsibility, does he at > least have an ethical responsibility? Do you consider West to be > smarmy for accepting the concession and not telling declarer that > he has another trick coming? No (Are you able to find anything in the proprieties that says so?) > > (4) If the opponent does call the TD, should the TD cancel the > concession? (I think L71C says the answer to this is clearly Yes, > and thus the BW got at least that part wrong, but someone else > here may disagree.) If opponent called the Director and made it clear that the concession was implausible then: Yes, the Director should cancel the concession. (And I suppose that opponent would have some difficult time with his partner afterwards). However, if declarer after a post mortem and within the time limit prescribed in Law 79C notifies the Director that he has discovered his concession should be cancelled then the Director is bound to correct the result. Note, according to information we received at an assembly of Norwegian directors last May Law 71C has now been amended to read: "If a player has conceeded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards." So the time limit for Law 71C is now the same as that for Laws 71A & B. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 03:16:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5JHGGB10312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 03:16:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@xgate.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5JHG9H10308 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 03:16:09 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5JH2Yi12008; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 18:02:34 +0100 Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 17:02:34 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5JH2Yv15660; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 18:02:34 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 17:02:34 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA07449; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 18:02:33 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id SAA18740; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 18:02:33 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 18:02:33 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200206191702.SAA18740@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, svenpran@online.no Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Cc: adam@irvine.com X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations > Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 18:32:36 +0200 > > From: "Adam Beneschan" > ......... (snip - irrelevant) > > -- > > 42 > > -- > > Q9 > > JT7 -- > > -- -- > > -- T > > J AT7 > > -- > > Q8 > > -- > > 32 > > > > The defense had taken two tricks. Declarer led the C9 from dummy, > > East played the ten, and declarer conceded two tricks for down 1. > > > > Of course, declarer should have made; West would have to win the club > > with the jack and give up a ruff-sluff. At the table, E-W accepted > > the concession. Jayaram (and the TD) expressed "high indignation" > > that West accepted the concession without "correcting the situation." > > The BW disagreed: "We see no reason for West to say anything, nor > > any feasible alternative to a result of down one. How exactly was > > West to achieve this 'correction'? Suggest that the concession be > > withdrawn on the ground that the defender deserved to be punished for > > the poor play on the first round of clubs? Even if that were legal > > (which it isn't), why should West do it? . . . Suppose West had called > > the director. What should that worthy do about the score? Nothing, > > of course. Would he adjust the score if a player called the director > > and said that his opponent would have taken another trick had he > > finessed for the queen of trumps the other way? . . ." > > This last argument is completely irrelevant. Once declarer has lead > the C9 from dummy and East failed to play his Ace, there is no way > declarer can avoid the rest except by ruffing both in dummy and in > his own hand. THAT is irrational play. > > > > > Law 71 says, in part: > > > > LAW 71 - CONCESSION CANCELLED > > A concession must stand, once made, except that within the > > correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, the > > Director shall cancel a concession: . . . > > > > C. Implausible Concession > > if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal > > play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a > > call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director > > shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been > > lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. > > > > I believe that this hand clearly meets the definition of "implausible > > concession"; when West leads a spade, it is not "normal play" to ruff > > in both hands. > > > > What I noticed about this Law is that it doesn't say that the conceder > > must notice that he has made an implausible concession, or that the > > conceder must request a cancellation. It simply says that "the > > Director shall cancel a concession . . . if a player has conceded a > > trick that cannot be lost" by normal play. What are the ramfications > > here? > > > > (1) If the TD happened to be standing over the table watching the > > play, and declarer made this implausible concession, is he allowed > > to cancel it right there? > > No (There is no irregularity) Isn't this an application of L72A2 (Scoring of Tricks Won) A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 03:26:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5JHQfE10328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 03:26:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@xgate.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5JHQZH10324 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 03:26:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5JHD0w15082; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 18:13:00 +0100 Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 17:13:00 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5JHD0K16222; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 18:13:00 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 17:13:00 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA07497; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 18:12:59 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id SAA18747; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 18:12:59 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 18:12:59 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200206191712.SAA18747@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Subject: Re: [BLML] Another L25(b) moment X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:32:08 -0400 (EDT) > From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) > > What actually happened at the table was that a player > opened a 15-17 1NT, and accidentally passed his partner's > 2C call. It was determined that this was 25(b), not 25(a). > All the options were read out, decisions were taken, next > board, thank you very much. > Unfortunately, this got me to thinking; perhaps directors > have too much time on their hands! > Suppose a player psyches a strong NT holding: S 82 H 5 D J764 C KQJ976 > the auction continues as hoped for: > N E S W > 1NT P 2C P > P (director!) > At this point N calls the director, and asks to change his call 25(b) > to 2D. The director gives the options, but N is counting on > E not to accept the 2D call without penalty. Sure enough, E does > not accept, and N now unexpectedly passes rather than playing > for an A-. East passes, mission accomplished. How about L73F2 (Player Injured by Illegal Deception) if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C), North said he wanted to change his call to 2D: North had no demonstrable bridge reason for this remark, so East has been injured by illegal deception, and we adjust. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 03:28:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5JHSld10340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 03:28:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5JHSfH10336 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 03:28:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0274.bb.online.no [80.212.209.18]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA17121; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:15:17 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001b01c217b4$e1fe80a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: Cc: References: <200206191702.SAA18740@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:15:16 +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: "Robin Barker" > > From: "Sven Pran" > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations > > Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 18:32:36 +0200 > > > > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > ......... (snip - irrelevant) > > > -- > > > 42 > > > -- > > > Q9 > > > JT7 -- > > > -- -- > > > -- T > > > J AT7 > > > -- > > > Q8 > > > -- > > > 32 > > > > > > The defense had taken two tricks. Declarer led the C9 from dummy, > > > East played the ten, and declarer conceded two tricks for down 1. > > > > > > Of course, declarer should have made; West would have to win the club > > > with the jack and give up a ruff-sluff. At the table, E-W accepted > > > the concession. Jayaram (and the TD) expressed "high indignation" > > > that West accepted the concession without "correcting the situation." > > > The BW disagreed: "We see no reason for West to say anything, nor > > > any feasible alternative to a result of down one. How exactly was > > > West to achieve this 'correction'? Suggest that the concession be > > > withdrawn on the ground that the defender deserved to be punished for > > > the poor play on the first round of clubs? Even if that were legal > > > (which it isn't), why should West do it? . . . Suppose West had called > > > the director. What should that worthy do about the score? Nothing, > > > of course. Would he adjust the score if a player called the director > > > and said that his opponent would have taken another trick had he > > > finessed for the queen of trumps the other way? . . ." > > > > This last argument is completely irrelevant. Once declarer has lead > > the C9 from dummy and East failed to play his Ace, there is no way > > declarer can avoid the rest except by ruffing both in dummy and in > > his own hand. THAT is irrational play. > > > > > > > > Law 71 says, in part: > > > > > > LAW 71 - CONCESSION CANCELLED > > > A concession must stand, once made, except that within the > > > correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, the > > > Director shall cancel a concession: . . . > > > > > > C. Implausible Concession > > > if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal > > > play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a > > > call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director > > > shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been > > > lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. > > > > > > I believe that this hand clearly meets the definition of "implausible > > > concession"; when West leads a spade, it is not "normal play" to ruff > > > in both hands. > > > > > > What I noticed about this Law is that it doesn't say that the conceder > > > must notice that he has made an implausible concession, or that the > > > conceder must request a cancellation. It simply says that "the > > > Director shall cancel a concession . . . if a player has conceded a > > > trick that cannot be lost" by normal play. What are the ramfications > > > here? > > > > > > (1) If the TD happened to be standing over the table watching the > > > play, and declarer made this implausible concession, is he allowed > > > to cancel it right there? > > > > No (There is no irregularity) > > Isn't this an application of L72A2 (Scoring of Tricks Won) > > A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his > side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not > lose. > > Robin The important word is "knowingly". Why do you suppose that an opponent seeing only his own and dummy's cards shall be more "knowing" than the declarer? Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 03:34:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5JHYUG10352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 03:34:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5JHYPH10348 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 03:34:25 +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 g5JHL5L13004 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:21:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:12:12 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] FRAMES OF REFERENCE - SAYC (basic or full) To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <001301c2179a$aa0434c0$9a80c918@alcide> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/19/02, Alcide Dupuis wrote: >Lastly, I would like to ask you where the name "YELLOW" comes from. Originally, the CCs were printed on yellow paper. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 03:43:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5JHhZ710369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 03:43:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (adsl-66-126-103-122.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [66.126.103.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5JHhTH10365 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 03:43:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from simba.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@simba.irvine.com [192.160.8.19]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26966; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:30:00 -0700 Message-Id: <200206191730.KAA26966@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Sven Pran" Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, adam@irvine.com Cc: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:15:16 +0200." <001b01c217b4$e1fe80a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:37:28 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > > > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > ......... (snip - irrelevant) > > > > -- > > > > 42 > > > > -- > > > > Q9 > > > > JT7 -- > > > > -- -- > > > > -- T > > > > J AT7 > > > > -- > > > > Q8 > > > > -- > > > > 32 > > > > > > > > The defense had taken two tricks. Declarer led the C9 from dummy, > > > > East played the ten, and declarer conceded two tricks for down 1. > > > > (1) If the TD happened to be standing over the table watching the > > > > play, and declarer made this implausible concession, is he allowed > > > > to cancel it right there? > > > > > > No (There is no irregularity) > > > > Isn't this an application of L72A2 (Scoring of Tricks Won) > > > > A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his > > side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not > > lose. > > > > Robin > > The important word is "knowingly". Why do you suppose that an opponent > seeing only his own and dummy's cards shall be more "knowing" than the > declarer? The assumption behind my original question is that West knows what's going on. Unless West is asleep or an idiot, he knows from the play that South has two trumps left and no spades. I agree that if West is indeed a beginner or has not been paying attention (or is me with insufficient caffeine in my system), and does not see what is happening, he has no legal or ethical responsibilities. My questions were intended to apply to a West who can see that declarer would certainly have made his contract had he played on, due to the lie of the cards, and yet accepts the score for down one. I think "knowingly" does apply in this case. I hadn't noticed L72A2 when I made my original post---thanks, Robin, for pointing it out. What's interesting is that while L71 has two branches---L71A uses the phrase "could not have lost by any legal play" and L71C uses the phrase "could not be lost be any normal play"---L72A2 uses the shorter phrase "could not lose". It might be open to interpretation whether this means "could not lose by any legal play" or "could not lose by any legal *or* normal play". I don't know. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 03:57:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5JHugj10382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 03:56:42 +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 g5JHuaH10378 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 03:56:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0274.bb.online.no [80.212.209.18]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA25420 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:43:12 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003301c217b8$c8c3ed60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200206191730.KAA26966@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:43:12 +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 > > > Isn't this an application of L72A2 (Scoring of Tricks Won) > > > > > > A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his > > > side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not > > > lose. > > > > > > Robin > > > > The important word is "knowingly". Why do you suppose that an opponent > > seeing only his own and dummy's cards shall be more "knowing" than the > > declarer? > > The assumption behind my original question is that West knows what's > going on. Unless West is asleep or an idiot, he knows from the play > that South has two trumps left and no spades. > > I agree that if West is indeed a beginner or has not been paying > attention (or is me with insufficient caffeine in my system), and does > not see what is happening, he has no legal or ethical > responsibilities. Good, we agree on that. > My questions were intended to apply to a West who > can see that declarer would certainly have made his contract had he > played on, due to the lie of the cards, and yet accepts the score for > down one. I think "knowingly" does apply in this case. If you change your wording to "a West who should see" I agree here as well. However, I shall be very reluctant to apply a greater tolerance on a declarer claiming or conceeding than to an opponent just accepting. Opponents are in no way obliged to examine the claim or concession. If they feel happy with a concession there is no real reason they should examine it to see if the claimer does himself unjustice. > > I hadn't noticed L72A2 when I made my original post---thanks, Robin, > for pointing it out. What's interesting is that while L71 has two > branches---L71A uses the phrase "could not have lost by any legal > play" and L71C uses the phrase "could not be lost be any normal > play"---L72A2 uses the shorter phrase "could not lose". It might be > open to interpretation whether this means "could not lose by any legal > play" or "could not lose by any legal *or* normal play". I don't > know. > > -- Adam L71A concerns tricks already won or legally impossible to lose L71B concerns contract, not tricks L71C concerns tricks that can only be lost through irrational (although legal) play, L72A2 concerns the scoring of a completed board. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 03:59:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5JHxkL10394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 03:59:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5JHxfH10390 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 03:59:41 +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 KAA27093; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:46:18 -0700 Message-Id: <200206191746.KAA27093@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Another L25(b) moment In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:32:08 EDT." <200206191632.MAA09969@freenet10.carleton.ca> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:53:47 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards wrote: > What actually happened at the table was that a player > opened a 15-17 1NT, and accidentally passed his partner's > 2C call. It was determined that this was 25(b), not 25(a). > All the options were read out, decisions were taken, next > board, thank you very much. > Unfortunately, this got me to thinking; perhaps directors > have too much time on their hands! > Suppose a player psyches a strong NT holding: S 82 H 5 D J764 C KQJ976 > the auction continues as hoped for: > N E S W > 1NT P 2C P > P (director!) > At this point N calls the director, and asks to change his call 25(b) > to 2D. The director gives the options, but N is counting on > E not to accept the 2D call without penalty. Sure enough, E does > not accept, and N now unexpectedly passes rather than playing > for an A-. East passes, mission accomplished. > There must be a way to prevent this kind of sharp practice > (unless you think this tactic ought to be permitted!:-)), > but for the life of me I can't find this in the Laws. I think you could apply L73F2 (Player injured by illegal deception). -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 04:42:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5JIfnm10421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 04:41:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5JIfiH10417 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 04:41:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id OAA09874 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 14:28:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA13955 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 14:28:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 14:28:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200206191828.OAA13955@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > Of course, declarer should have made; West would have to win the club > with the jack and give up a ruff-sluff. > (1) If the TD happened to be standing over the table watching the > play, and declarer made this implausible concession, is he allowed > to cancel it right there? I would have said L81C6 applies. Accepting the concession may not be an irregularity, but it's certainly an error. > (2) If the conceder doesn't notice that the concession is implausible, > but an opponent does [before the conceding side makes a call on a > subsequent board etc.], does the opponent have the legal > responsibility to point this out and call the TD? This is very close. As Robin pointed out, the applicable law is 72A2, but I take it to mean "by any legal play." Since there is a legal, though absurd, play that makes the concession valid, West is probably not legally obliged to point it out. In a different layout, where the contract makes on all legal plays, West would be clearly wrong. If West is experienced, C&E action might be appropriate. > (3) If the opponent doesn't have this legal responsibility, does he at > least have an ethical responsibility? Do you consider West to be > smarmy for accepting the concession and not telling declarer that > he has another trick coming? I would not want to play with any partner who would accept such a concession. > (4) If the opponent does call the TD, should the TD cancel the > concession? Yes, until the end of the correction period, per WBFLC Hammamet minutes. > From: "Sven Pran" > L72A2 concerns the scoring of a completed board. Please read it again. Concessions are explicitly covered. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 04:44:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5JIioi10433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 04:44:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail7.nc.rr.com (mail7.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5JIijH10429 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 04:44:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from hare ([66.26.18.82]) by mail7.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Wed, 19 Jun 2002 14:31:21 -0400 Message-ID: <029201c217bf$7f18cf80$6401a8c0@hare> From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: Cc: References: <200206191549.IAA26204@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 14:31:15 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 11:56 AM Subject: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations > > Jeff Rubens, editor of the Bridge World, has come up with some > controversial opinions (plus many sound ones) regarding what the Laws > should be. I just got the July BW, and the Editorial contains an > opinion that's hard for me to swallow. I think he might have got the > Laws wrong, but I'm not sure. > > The Editorial reviewed a book by R. Jayaram that contained this hand: > > A2 > AKT42 > KJ4 > Q98 > KQJT764 98 > 6 J9 > A86 T532 > J4 AT765 > 53 > Q8753 > Q97 > K32 > > South plays 4H. Declarer won the spade lead, cashed the AK of trumps, > led a diamond to the queen and ace. West cashed a spade and returned > a diamond; declarer cashed the other diamond. The next trick was club > 8-5-K-4. Declarer led a heart to dummy. I assume this was the layout > at that point: > > -- > 42 > -- > Q9 > JT7 -- > -- -- > -- T > J AT7 > -- > Q8 > -- > 32 > > The defense had taken two tricks. Declarer led the C9 from dummy, > East played the ten, and declarer conceded two tricks for down 1. > > Of course, declarer should have made; West would have to win the club > with the jack and give up a ruff-sluff. At the table, E-W accepted > the concession. Jayaram (and the TD) expressed "high indignation" > that West accepted the concession without "correcting the situation." > The BW disagreed: "We see no reason for West to say anything, nor > any feasible alternative to a result of down one. How exactly was > West to achieve this 'correction'? Suggest that the concession be > withdrawn on the ground that the defender deserved to be punished for > the poor play on the first round of clubs? Even if that were legal > (which it isn't), why should West do it? . . . Suppose West had called > the director. What should that worthy do about the score? Nothing, > of course. Would he adjust the score if a player called the director > and said that his opponent would have taken another trick had he > finessed for the queen of trumps the other way? . . ." > > Law 71 says, in part: > > LAW 71 - CONCESSION CANCELLED > A concession must stand, once made, except that within the > correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, the > Director shall cancel a concession: . . . > > C. Implausible Concession > if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal > play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a > call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director > shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been > lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. > > I believe that this hand clearly meets the definition of "implausible > concession"; when West leads a spade, it is not "normal play" to ruff > in both hands. > > What I noticed about this Law is that it doesn't say that the conceder > must notice that he has made an implausible concession, or that the > conceder must request a cancellation. It simply says that "the > Director shall cancel a concession . . . if a player has conceded a > trick that cannot be lost" by normal play. What are the ramfications > here? > > (1) If the TD happened to be standing over the table watching the > play, and declarer made this implausible concession, is he allowed > to cancel it right there? Yes > (2) If the conceder doesn't notice that the concession is implausible, > but an opponent does [before the conceding side makes a call on a > subsequent board etc.], does the opponent have the legal > responsibility to point this out and call the TD? Perhaps not legal but at least ethical (it makes it easier to sleep that night!) > (3) If the opponent doesn't have this legal responsibility, does he at > least have an ethical responsibility? Do you consider West to be > smarmy for accepting the concession and not telling declarer that > he has another trick coming? As above and, of course, West is "smarmy" > (4) If the opponent does call the TD, should the TD cancel the > concession? (I think L71C says the answer to this is clearly Yes, > and thus the BW got at least that part wrong, but someone else > here may disagree.) Yes, the director should cancel the concession. Declarer can be careless but not irrational which it would be in this case to trump in both hands. I would guess even a beginner would not do that! > I'm interested in hearing anyone's thoughts about this. > > -- Adam > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 07:39:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5JLcTV10495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 07:38:29 +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 (f100.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.100]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5JLcPH10491 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 07:38:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 14:25:01 -0700 Received: from 204.245.233.27 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 21:25:01 GMT X-Originating-IP: [204.245.233.27] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 14:25:01 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2002 21:25:01.0882 (UTC) FILETIME=[C581C9A0:01C217D7] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Robin Barker >Isn't this an application of L72A2 (Scoring of Tricks Won) > >A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his >side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not >lose. Even if it's horribly stupid to pitch clubs from both hands or ruff in both hands, those are still legal plays, so it's not a trick the opponents could not lose. It's possible, no matter how unplausable. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 08:28:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5JMRmW10523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 08:27:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (mta01-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5JMRhH10519 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 08:27:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.154.2]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020619221423.ZNMW16050.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 23:14:23 +0100 Message-ID: <002901c217df$a8fa0a60$029a68d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Minor law revisions Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 23:21:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Surely, now that we can publish on the Web, there should be a regular minor release of the Bridge Laws -- not to make radical law changes -- but just to eliminate, gradually, the trivial contradictions, ambiguities, complexities, and redundancies, about which BLML argue so much. One person from the Law committee could be delegated to the task for say, one weekend per year, with the remainder of the committee normally just rubber-stamping his refinements. His motto should be KISS. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 09:07:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5JN76110548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 09:07:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5JN72H10544 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 09:07:02 +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 JAA03366 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 09:08:17 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 08:49:55 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 08:53:19 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 20/06/2002 08:49:37 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>From: Robin Barker >>Isn't this an application of L72A2 (Scoring of Tricks Won) >> >>A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a >>trick that his side did not win or the concession of a >>trick that his opponents could not lose. > > Even if it's horribly stupid to pitch clubs from both >hands or ruff in both hands, those are still legal plays, >so it's not a trick the opponents could not lose. It's >possible, no matter how implausible. > >-Todd A similar situation occurred to me at the table. I was defending a notrump contract. In the 2 card ending, with the lead in dummy, declarer conceded the last two tricks. However, one of dummy's cards was a winner. I accepted the concession, since if declarer randomly led dummy's non-winner first, then the defence would win both of the last two tricks. Did I take an extra trick illegally? If not, did I take an extra trick unethically? Is legal but unethical a meaningless concept under bridge law? 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 Jun 20 10:21:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5K0KJs10595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 10:20:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (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 g5K0KEH10591 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 10:20:15 +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 RAA29650; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 17:06:49 -0700 Message-Id: <200206200006.RAA29650@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Jun 2002 08:53:19 +1000." Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 17:14:22 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: > A similar situation occurred to me at the table. I was > defending a notrump contract. In the 2 card ending, with > the lead in dummy, declarer conceded the last two tricks. > > However, one of dummy's cards was a winner. I accepted > the concession, since if declarer randomly led dummy's > non-winner first, then the defence would win both of the > last two tricks. > > Did I take an extra trick illegally? If not, did I take > an extra trick unethically? Is legal but unethical a > meaningless concept under bridge law? It appears to me that, given declarer's non-realization that dummy had a winner, leading dummy's non-winner would be considered "careless" but not "irrational", and therefore "normal" play. So even for those of us who think L71C and/or L72A2 should apply to the case presented in the BW, they wouldn't apply in your case. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 10:32:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5K0W9S10609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 10:32:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5K0W3H10605 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 10:32:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.156.61]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020620001844.VGKE2755.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 01:18:44 +0100 Message-ID: <004e01c217f1$08c0b780$029a68d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 01:25:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: Even if it's horribly stupid to pitch clubs from both hands or ruff in both hands, those are still legal plays, so it's not a trick the opponents could not lose. It's possible, no matter how unplausable". I am afraid the law is not that sensible. I understand that the law prevents declarer from doing anything "irrational". If this latter is really the case then the vast majority of players would fare far better by claiming all their contracts at trick one. For example try the "expert" game in the Microsoft Game Zone. No matter how long and wide you search, I defy you to find an example of rational play. {: Nigel :} -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 11:32:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5K1VjA10660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 11:31:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5K1VfH10656 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 11:31:41 +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 LAA00971 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 11:32:57 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 11:14:33 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Minor law revisions To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 11:17:02 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 20/06/2002 11:14:15 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie wrote: >Surely, now that we can publish on the Web, there >should be a regular minor release of the Bridge Laws >-- not to make radical law changes -- but just to >eliminate, gradually, the trivial contradictions, >ambiguities, complexities, and redundancies, about >which BLML argue so much. [snip] This already occurs. For example, the WBF reworded the footnote to Laws 69, 70 & 71 after discussion on BLML proved that the original wording of the footnote was ambiguous. Another example is the WBF Code of Practice for Appeals Committees. While technically not a univeral change to the Bridge Laws, a large number of SOs have adopted the CoP. 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 Jun 20 21:57:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5KBuOb10936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 21:56:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5KBuHH10932 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 21:56:18 +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 NAA23559; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 13:40:28 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA16895; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 13:42:54 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020620134405.00aa3510@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 13:50:30 +0200 To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200206191549.IAA26204@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:56 19/06/2002 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote: > A2 > AKT42 > KJ4 > Q98 > KQJT764 98 > 6 J9 > A86 T532 > J4 AT765 > 53 > Q8753 > Q97 > K32 > >South plays 4H. Declarer won the spade lead, cashed the AK of trumps, >led a diamond to the queen and ace. West cashed a spade and returned >a diamond; declarer cashed the other diamond. The next trick was club >8-5-K-4. Declarer led a heart to dummy. I assume this was the layout >at that point: > > -- > 42 > -- > Q9 > JT7 -- > -- -- > -- T > J AT7 > -- > Q8 > -- > 32 > >The defense had taken two tricks. Declarer led the C9 from dummy, >East played the ten, and declarer conceded two tricks for down 1. > >Of course, declarer should have made; West would have to win the club >with the jack and give up a ruff-sluff. At the table, E-W accepted >the concession. Jayaram (and the TD) expressed "high indignation" >that West accepted the concession without "correcting the situation." >The BW disagreed: "We see no reason for West to say anything, nor >any feasible alternative to a result of down one. How exactly was >West to achieve this 'correction'? Suggest that the concession be >withdrawn on the ground that the defender deserved to be punished for >the poor play on the first round of clubs? Even if that were legal >(which it isn't), why should West do it? . . . Suppose West had called >the director. What should that worthy do about the score? Nothing, >of course. Would he adjust the score if a player called the director >and said that his opponent would have taken another trick had he >finessed for the queen of trumps the other way? . . ." > >I believe that this hand clearly meets the definition of "implausible >concession"; when West leads a spade, it is not "normal play" to ruff >in both hands. AG : agreed. To ruff from the wrong hand would be negligent. Here, ruffing from *either* hand and discarding from the other makes the contract. Ruffing from both, or discarding from both, is irrational. I'm with you. >(1) If the TD happened to be standing over the table watching the > play, and declarer made this implausible concession, is he allowed > to cancel it right there? AF : yes. L81C6. >(2) If the conceder doesn't notice that the concession is implausible, > but an opponent does [before the conceding side makes a call on a > subsequent board etc.], does the opponent have the legal > responsibility to point this out and call the TD? AG : I'd say it pertains to the field of active ethics. As such, it may not be enforced, but should be encouraged. One of the reasons why you can't compel the player to do so, under some penalty if he doesn't, is that it will seldom be provable that he realised the error. >(4) If the opponent does call the TD, should the TD cancel the > concession? (I think L71C says the answer to this is clearly Yes, > and thus the BW got at least that part wrong, but someone else > here may disagree.) AG : it's obvious IMNSHO. A bridge editorialist's job is, inter alia, to tell how he thinks the game should be played, distinguishing it from how the laws say it should be. Rubens does his job. Don't fire him. 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 Jun 20 22:56:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5KCuRE11054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 22:56:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (www.prometheus.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5KCuIH11050 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 22:56:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id OAA00363; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:41:13 +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 OAA22043; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:42:55 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020620135445.00ab0110@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:50:33 +0200 To: "Todd Zimnoch" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:25 19/06/2002 -0700, Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>From: Robin Barker >>Isn't this an application of L72A2 (Scoring of Tricks Won) >> >>A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his >>side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not >>lose. > > Even if it's horribly stupid to pitch clubs from both hands or ruff > in both hands, those are still legal plays, so it's not a trick the > opponents could not lose. It's possible, no matter how unplausable. AG : we're speaking of different standards here. The standard for "do I have to point out that the rest are declarer's" is a matter of technical possibility, barring revokes adn such other irregularities. To this the answer, here, is no. The standard for "should the TD correct the score when told about the error, or when he realises it himself" is a matter of plausibility. Here, most of us seem to think the answer is that is is not possible to lose a trick, and thus the score should be corrected. The second question is about what you'll dare to do. For everyone of us, one might make three subsets within the set of moves that are "not explicitly disallowed". Those we feel should never be done ; Those we don't make but allow others to do, and could parhaps sometimes do if we feel there are good reasons (eg the opponents were rude) ; Those we are at ease doing. In YT's mind, psyching against beginners pertains to the first set, answering only the question asked (is it forcing - nope, not stating it is *very weak*) to the second, and discarding black on black, maximizing the chances that the discard goes unnoticed, to the third. But this partition should be left for every player to decide. In my views, not correcting an obviously wrong concession would fit in the second category, but YMMV. 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 Jun 20 23:09:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5KD9dF11071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 23:09:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (www.prometheus.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5KD9YH11067 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 23:09:34 +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 OAA03384; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:54:30 +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 OAA08363; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:56:12 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020620145414.00ab1b10@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:03:49 +0200 To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Another L25(b) moment In-Reply-To: <200206191632.MAA09969@freenet10.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:32 19/06/2002 -0400, A. L. Edwards wrote: > What actually happened at the table was that a player >opened a 15-17 1NT, and accidentally passed his partner's >2C call. It was determined that this was 25(b), not 25(a). >All the options were read out, decisions were taken, next >board, thank you very much. > Unfortunately, this got me to thinking; perhaps directors >have too much time on their hands! >Suppose a player psyches a strong NT holding: S 82 H 5 D J764 C KQJ976 >the auction continues as hoped for: > N E S W > 1NT P 2C P > P (director!) >At this point N calls the director, and asks to change his call 25(b) >to 2D. The director gives the options, but N is counting on >E not to accept the 2D call without penalty. Sure enough, E does >not accept, and N now unexpectedly passes rather than playing >for an A-. East passes, mission accomplished. >There must be a way to prevent this kind of sharp practice >(unless you think this tactic ought to be permitted!:-)), >but for the life of me I can't find this in the Laws. AG : I'd apply L73D2 : the player's antics are there for letting the opponent believe the pass was an error, and the 1NT a genuine opening. The aim is to fool the opponent into not understanding there was a psyche (which would be obvious after a smooth pass). L73D2 disallows manierisms (not bids or plays, of course) that are made with the aim of decieving the opponents, and the given list is not exhaustive, thus it feels like it can be applied here. Perhaps L74B2 is another answer . 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 Jun 21 01:01:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5KF0iw11123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 01:00:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5KF0dH11119 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 01:00:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g5KElHg07065 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:47:17 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:47 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations 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: Todd wrote: > >Isn't this an application of L72A2 (Scoring of Tricks Won) > > > >A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that > his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents > could not lose. > > Even if it's horribly stupid to pitch clubs from both hands or > ruff in both hands, those are still legal plays, so it's not a trick > the opponents could not lose. It's possible, no matter how unplausable. L72A2 does not explicitly require either legal plays or plausible ones. It is almost always possible to lose an extra trick if one plays from the wrong hand/revokes/allows a defender to lead. It never occurred to me to read L72A2 as anything other than "It's wrong to knowingly accept a trick you don't believe you'd get if the TD applied law 71A/B/C". I recognise that there is some ambiguity here but does anyone actually want the law to condone players deliberately taking advantage of implausible or legally impossible concessions. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 01:58:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5KFw3v11147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 01:58:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5KFvwH11143 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 01:57:58 +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 IAA02594; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 08:44:33 -0700 Message-Id: <200206201544.IAA02594@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Jun 2002 13:50:30 +0200." <5.1.0.14.0.20020620134405.00aa3510@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 08:52:10 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > A bridge editorialist's job is, inter alia, to tell how he thinks the game > should be played, distinguishing it from how the laws say it should be. In this case, however, he *was* making some statements about what the Laws require. I believe he clearly got it wrong on at least one point and possibly two. Toward the end of the editorial, he did express a wish that the Laws would be clearer about what's required of the players. I can't disagree with him there. > Rubens does his job. Don't fire him. He owns the magazine. Who can fire him? (I suppose his customers could, but the thought of canceling my subscription over this disagreement did not even remotely occur to me.) -- 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 Jun 21 01:59:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5KFxqW11159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 01:59:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5KFxkH11155 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 01:59:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2712.bb.online.no [80.212.218.152]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA11677 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 17:46:20 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <015901c21871$9f671820$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020620134405.00aa3510@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 17:46:20 +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: "Alain Gottcheiner" ...... > >(1) If the TD happened to be standing over the table watching the > > play, and declarer made this implausible concession, is he allowed > > to cancel it right there? > > AF : yes. L81C6. Do you recognize your own failing logic? L81C6: (The Director's duties and powers normally include the following) to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law79C Which error or irregularity is it that he becomes aware of in the scenario above? The concession does not violate any law in the book. Shall the Director accuse (in this case) West of accepting the concession against his better knowledge? How can he tell that West was aware of the undeserved favour? Please observe that unless West indeed was aware of it there has been no infringement of law 72A2 (which is the only law that can be applicable at this stage). So then: Is common opinion on what is fair play lost? No. Declarer has until end of the correction period specified in law 79C to discover that he conceeded a trick which he could not loose and claim this concession cancelled under Law 71C. (This correction period expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection unless the Sponsoring Organization has decided otherwise). There is nothing special here compared to ordinary scoring errors. It happens ever so often in barometer tournaments that I am summoned to tables when round results are distributed and been told that "We made ten tricks" or "The contract was doubled". Any such claim is of course investigated, and if a scoring error is detected it is corrected. If nobody discovers the error (that happens too!) no correction takes place, and nobody starts asking the pair favoured by the error about L72A2. The Director must be very careful about interfering with the game unless there is an irregularity of which he becomes aware, that is a deviation from correct procedure as defined in the laws. (A parallell is when the Director becomes aware of a revoke in progress: He must NOT interfere in any way until the time specified in Laws 64B 4&5 for the players themselves to react has expired). Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 02:41:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5KGegN11195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 02:40:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5KGebH11191 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 02:40:37 +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 MAA07533 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:27:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA21732 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:27:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:27:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200206201627.MAA21732@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > The concession does not violate any law in the book. Nevertheless, accepting the concession was an error. It does not matter whether the player was aware of his error or not. Of course the TD would not normally monitor play, but if he is doing so for some reason, he is obliged to correct errors he observes. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 02:47:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5KGl3b11211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 02:47:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f50.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5KGkwH11207 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 02:46:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 09:33:33 -0700 Received: from 172.128.47.90 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:33:33 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.128.47.90] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 09:33:33 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jun 2002 16:33:33.0648 (UTC) FILETIME=[381ECD00:01C21878] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) >Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations >Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:47 +0100 (BST) > >Todd wrote: > > Even if it's horribly stupid to pitch clubs from both hands or > > ruff in both hands, those are still legal plays, so it's not a trick > > the opponents could not lose. It's possible, no matter how unplausable. > >L72A2 does not explicitly require either legal plays or plausible ones. All the laws, except those to deal with irregularities, assume legal plays or establish what legal plays are, don't they? >It is almost always possible to lose an extra trick if one plays from the >wrong hand/revokes/allows a defender to lead. And you admit it would be absurd to do otherwise, at least in this case. >It never occurred to me to >read L72A2 as anything other than "It's wrong to knowingly accept a trick >you don't believe you'd get if the TD applied law 71A/B/C". This would be reasonable, but that's not what it explicitly says. 71A does requires legal plays and requires that the trick(s) survive all legal plays of the remaining cards. In the situation given, 71A does not apply. 71B prohibits revisionist history of the tricks already played. It also doesn't apply. 71C applies and sets a time limit, which is perhaps a bit strict. >I recognise >that there is some ambiguity here but does anyone actually want the law to >condone players deliberately taking advantage of implausible or legally >impossible concessions. I doubt anyone wants it, but I don't see it's clear-cut that 72A2 applies here. I'd consider a change in 72A2 from "could not lose" to "would not have lost" or "could not lose by any normal play..." as the first only implies "by any legal play" to me. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 03:09:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5KH9DP11239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 03:09:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail32.hq.webvisie.net [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5KH98H11235 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 03:09:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.113] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id nbhgvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 18:55:38 +0200 Message-ID: <008e01c2187b$534b4100$713f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020617083100.00b0a880@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020617170100.00afde10@pop.starpower.net> <002d01c21653$24041860$633f23d5@cornelis> <001d01c216c3$0dc91170$6f3f23d5@cornelis> <000a01c216f0$b9272e30$763f23d5@cornelis> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 18:55:47 +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 Hello all, I'm going to summarize a bit. 1) I propose that SO draw up standards, so that there mat be no further confusing about the meaning of an undiscussed call. 2) I propose that SO publish the standards and that they post it in playing area(s), so that there may be no confusion about what's standard. 3) I propose that the Law refers to the standard, when deciding the meaning of a call, so that it will be possible to decide whether there was MI. Several people didn't favor this. They believe this is impossible because there are too many different ways to define a standard. It may be true that some SO would have to put some work in drawing up standards. But making a choice of what's going to be standard is not impossible. This would allow for players too have fewer misunderstandings, since they can refer to the standard. Of course they would have to have the sense to do so. Drawing up *good* standards may aid in this. The people who don't favor this gave examples why one couldn't decide on the meaning of a call when undiscussed, actually proving my point that an official standard can be helpful in several ways. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 03:22:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5KHMBR11277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 03:22:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail50.fg.online.no (mail50-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5KHM5H11273 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 03:22:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2712.bb.online.no [80.212.218.152]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA17722 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 19:08:39 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <016501c2187d$1fa3c3c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200206201627.MAA21732@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 19:08:39 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Please quote the law that shall have been violated and show how it was violated. Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 6:27 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations > > From: "Sven Pran" > > The concession does not violate any law in the book. > > Nevertheless, accepting the concession was an error. It does not > matter whether the player was aware of his error or not. > > Of course the TD would not normally monitor play, but if he is doing so > for some reason, he is obliged to correct errors he observes. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 03:27:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5KHQxV11299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 03:26:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5KHQsH11295 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 03:26:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2712.bb.online.no [80.212.218.152]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA20395 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 19:13:27 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <016b01c2187d$cb40dec0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 19:13:26 +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: "Todd Zimnoch" > 71C applies and sets a time limit, which is perhaps a bit > strict. > But observe that according to information given to me as TD from our National Organization Law 71C has recently been amended. Everything after the first full stop (beginning with the words "Until the conceding side") has been deleted from this law. The applicable time limit is now as specified in Law 79C. This is not so strict. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 04:02:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5KI0MW11330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 04:00:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5KI0HH11326 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 04:00:18 +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 NAA12425 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 13:46:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA22404 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 13:46:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 13:46:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200206201746.NAA22404@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > Please quote the law that shall have been violated > and show how it was violated. The word I used was 'error', not 'infraction'. Take another look at L81C6 if you need 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 Jun 21 04:45:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5KIj6S11353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 04:45:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5KIj1H11349 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 04:45:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-55.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.55] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17L6iZ-0006pL-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:31:39 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020620141800.00b14dd0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:32:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <008e01c2187b$534b4100$713f23d5@cornelis> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020617083100.00b0a880@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020617170100.00afde10@pop.starpower.net> <002d01c21653$24041860$633f23d5@cornelis> <001d01c216c3$0dc91170$6f3f23d5@cornelis> <000a01c216f0$b9272e30$763f23d5@cornelis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:55 PM 6/20/02, Tom wrote: >I'm going to summarize a bit. >1) I propose that SO draw up standards, so that there mat be no further >confusing about the meaning of an undiscussed call. >2) I propose that SO publish the standards and that they post it in >playing >area(s), so that there may be no confusion about what's standard. >3) I propose that the Law refers to the standard, when deciding the >meaning >of a call, so that it will be possible to decide whether there was MI. > >Several people didn't favor this. They believe this is impossible because >there are too many different ways to define a standard. It may be true >that >some SO would have to put some work in drawing up standards. But making a >choice of what's going to be standard is not impossible. This would allow >for players too have fewer misunderstandings, since they can refer to the >standard. Of course they would have to have the sense to do so. Drawing up >*good* standards may aid in this. >The people who don't favor this gave examples why one couldn't decide >on the >meaning of a call when undiscussed, actually proving my point that an >official standard can be helpful in several ways. For that to be workable as a matter of law, every SO would have to define the "standard" meaning of every possible call in every possible auction. Let's get real -- as a practical matter, that *is* impossible. "Put some work" indeed -- might be doable in a century or two. "Post it in playing area(s)" -- the Palace at Versailles wouldn't have enough wall space. I suppose if it were possible, some of us (myself not included) might consider it fun to give all those penalties to all those players who haven't put in the decades of intensive study required to learn it -- or rather them, as it would be different for each SO in whose events they play. "No confusion"? -- somebody's been smoking some strong stuff. 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 Jun 21 04:53:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5KIrFQ11365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 04:53:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail50.fg.online.no (mail50-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5KIr9H11361 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 04:53:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2712.bb.online.no [80.212.218.152]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA25808 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 20:39:43 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <017301c21889$d866d800$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200206201746.NAA22404@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 20:39:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" > > From: "Sven Pran" > > Please quote the law that shall have been violated > > and show how it was violated. > > The word I used was 'error', not 'infraction'. Take another look > at L81C6 if you need to. But you do not clarify what is the error (in the terms of the Laws). Or do you consider that if I as a Director become aware of a player making a directly insane play is supposed under L81C6 to correct this "error"? Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 08:28:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5KMRnD11440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 08:27:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5KMRiH11436 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 08:27:44 +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 g5KMGq505675 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:16:52 -0800 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:13:18 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] L21 vs. L25 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Many (most? all?) of us dislike the "delayed or purposeful correction" provisions of L25B. It occurred to me recently that perhaps things aren't quite as bad as they look, for a reason I don't remember hearing anyone mention before: Maybe L25B hardly ever applies! L21A: A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding. If I pass partner's 4NT bid thinking it is quantitative, and then suddenly realize that it was Blackwood -- have I not passed "on the basis of my own misunderstanding" and am explicitly denied the privilege of trying to change my bid? This argument seems to take away L25B any time I bid based on what I think I saw on the table and saw incorrectly, and any time I bid based on an incorrect memory of what my system is but subsequently remember. It now seems to me that the *only* time L25B applies is the "cow flying by" situation -- say, if I correctly alert and explain 1S-Pass-3NT as forcing, promises 4 spades, demands cuebids from me, but then (thinking ahead to how I will bid 4D, partner will bid 4S, and then I will) pass. I might be able to live with retaining 25B, if we were all agreed that the vast majority of "delayed and purposeful correction attempts" will be denied under L21A. 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 Jun 21 09:51:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5KNoVc11477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 09:50:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout10.sul.t-online.com (mailout10.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5KNoMH11473 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 09:50:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd07.sul.t-online.de by mailout10.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17LBU0-0000Qc-00; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 01:36:56 +0200 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.82.222.116]) by fwd07.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 17LBTu-20ZQf2C; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 01:36:50 +0200 Message-ID: <3D126705.1040609@t-online.de> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 01:36:37 +0200 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; de-DE; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020314 Netscape6/6.2.2 X-Accept-Language: de-DE MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] L21 vs. L25 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: > Many (most? all?) of us dislike the "delayed or purposeful > correction" provisions of L25B. It occurred to me recently that perhaps > things aren't quite as bad as they look, for a reason I don't remember > hearing anyone mention before: > > Maybe L25B hardly ever applies! > > L21A: A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of his > own misunderstanding. > > If I pass partner's 4NT bid thinking it is quantitative, and then suddenly > realize that it was Blackwood -- have I not passed "on the basis of my own > misunderstanding" and am explicitly denied the privilege of trying to > change my bid? > > This argument seems to take away L25B any time I bid based on what I think > I saw on the table and saw incorrectly, and any time I bid based on an > incorrect memory of what my system is but subsequently remember. > > It now seems to me that the *only* time L25B applies is the "cow flying > by" situation -- say, if I correctly alert and explain 1S-Pass-3NT as > forcing, promises 4 spades, demands cuebids from me, but then (thinking > ahead to how I will bid 4D, partner will bid 4S, and then I will) pass. > > I might be able to live with retaining 25B, if we were all agreed that the > vast majority of "delayed and purposeful correction attempts" will be > denied under L21A. > > GRB > Nice try, Gordon, but I don`t think this is what L21 is about. In my opinion L21 is about score corrections, not about changing one`s bid. If L21A would apply in the sense you want it to ( I would like it to do so too(at least as far as L25B is concerned), I just think it doesn`t) L 25B would _never_ apply, even if the cow flew by, because this is covered by L25A ( you never really considered passing, did you? So it`s inadvertant and L25A applies (if you manage to convince the TD)). I think we can manage until the powers that be kill 25B (which won`t be a long time in the future, I hope). Your argument is just too far-fetched (I like the idea, though). Cheers Matthias -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 12:39:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5L2b1N11564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:37:01 +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 g5L2auH11560 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:36:56 +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 MAA15992 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:38:11 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:19:45 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:23:09 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 21/06/2002 12:19:27 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis wrote: [snip] >This would allow for players to have fewer >misunderstandings, since they can refer to the >standard. [snip] A fatal flaw in this approach (apart from the inherent incompleteness of the standard, identified by Eric Landau) is that it assumes that players are using sufficently mainstream systems to make the standard relevant. Suppose that you and your partner agree to play the Backroom System, and specifically agree to play this part of the system: After an opening bid of a strong 1NT, a response of 2H is natural and game invitational. On the first deal your partnership plays, this sequence occurs. 1NT - what does that mean? - strong Pass 2H - what does that mean? - natural and game invitational Pass 2S - what does that mean? 2S is undiscussed. But you cannot answer undiscussed, because the SO has adopted the Tom Cornelis regulation and posted a standard on the wall. So you reply to the third question, according to the posted standard: 2S - accepts my transfer to spades. :-) 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 Jun 21 14:03:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5L402711617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:00:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5L3xvH11609 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:59:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g5L3kZD15145 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 20:46:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005101c2128c$d3077d40$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200206191730.KAA26966@mailhub.irvine.com> <003301c217b8$c8c3ed60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:45:42 -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: "Sven Pran" > > Opponents are in no way obliged to examine the claim > or concession. If they feel happy with a concession there is no real > reason they should examine it to see if the claimer does himself > unjustice. I feel so obliged. To accept a faulty concession is not the way bridge should be played. In the 1950s a top-ranking married pair accepted my concession of a trump trick. I had 10 trumps missing the queen, but thought I had nine. When one of them showed out on the second round, I said "Down one" and we all put our cards back in the board. My alert partner asked, "How many trumps did you have, Marvin?" Now the opponents conceded the remaining tricks, and I put them down as being two unethical scumbags. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Out of town 6/24 - 7/4 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 14:36:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5L4ZDT11637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:35:13 +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 g5L4Z9H11633 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:35:09 +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 OAA04579 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:36:25 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:17:57 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:21:21 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 21/06/2002 02:17:38 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I asked: [snip] >>Is legal but unethical a meaningless concept under >>bridge law? Alain Gottcheiner wrote: [snip] >For everyone of us, one might make three subsets within >the set of moves that are "not explicitly disallowed". > >Those we feel should never be done ; >Those we don't make but allow others to do, and could >perhaps sometimes do if we feel there are good reasons >(eg the opponents were rude) ; >Those we are at ease doing. > >In YT's mind, psyching against beginners pertains to the >first set, answering only the question asked (is it >forcing - nope, not stating it is *very weak*) to the >second, and discarding black on black, maximizing the >chances that the discard goes unnoticed, to the third. > >But this partition should be left for every player to >decide. [snip] First set - Recently, a beginner psyched against me, keeping me out of a cold slam. Why an asymmetrical rule preventing me from psyching? (Irrelevant is the fact that psyching against beginners is usually poor strategy, since expectancy from non-psychic auctions versus beginners is usually higher than expectancy from randomised auctions versus beginners. *Usually* is not *always*.) Second set - Trying to legally maximise your score only against "rude" opponents, while not trying to legally maximise your score against "nice" opponents, changes the game from bridge to misere. 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 Jun 21 14:39:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5L4cGI11649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:38:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5L4cBH11645 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:38:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g5L4OoD28174 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 21:24:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007801c21292$2b6bb780$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004901c21369$5d0fb700$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> <5.1.0.14.0.20020617130709.00ac4d90@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020618110052.00ab20f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:19:49 -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: "Alain Gottcheiner" > Marvin L. French wrote: > >Last night I wrote that hesitation BW had been committed at my table. The > >"offender" (if he was one) did not have a useful void, contrary to your > >belief, but felt that he had an undisclosed high card that justified the 6S > >bid. His hand was AKxxx -- Jxx AKxxx, and the bidding went 1S=3H=4C=4NT > >(RKCB for clubs, by agreement)=5C=5S after long thought. Since opener had > >not shown the king of spades by his response, he felt justified in > >continuing. All I did was get agreement on the hesitation before leading the > >ace of diamonds. Violating my own rule, I didn't call the TD until declarer > >ruffed my partner's diamond king. I thought there had been an infraction, > >not knowing that the RKCB was for clubs, and that damage had resulted. I > >doubt that I would have appealed an adverse ruling, but that's moot because > >the TD didn't return with a ruling. > > AG : Marvin, you are arguing in my favor ! This 6S bid should have been > disallowed. Pass is a LA. And the infraction is obvious at the time it is > committed. On rare occasions a HB slam is not an infraction, so one cannot be assumed until the cards are seen. > Other comments about the deal : > 1) I don't believe 4NT is BW for clubs, because responder will never have a > H/C 2-suiter. I suspect a systemic error. They claim to have the rule "last suit named for RKCB unless another suit was raised," not a good one. > 2) If declarer ruffed your partner's DK, he revoked. Sorry, I gave the wrong bidding. Opener actually bid 6C over 5S, and that was converted to 6H, declarer having Q10x AKQJ109xx x Qx. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Out of town 6/24 - 7/4 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 14:57:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5L4tKZ11669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:55:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5L4tFH11665 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:55:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g5L4ftD04246 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 21:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00ac01c21294$8e25d8e0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001301c2179a$aa0434c0$9a80c918@alcide> Subject: Re: [BLML] FRAMES OF REFERENCE - SAYC (basic or full) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:40:51 -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: "Alcide Dupuis" Lastly, I would like to ask you where the name "YELLOW" comes from. The standard ACBL convention card is printed on white stock, and this simpler card seemed to call for a different color. I don't think the choice of color has any significance. Yellow makes a good background for printed material. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Out of town 6/24 - 7/4 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 17:43:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5L7fEK11779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 17:41:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5L7f8H11775 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 17:41:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2443.bb.online.no [80.212.217.139]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA26186 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 09:27:41 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004a01c218f5$20d3c9c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200206191730.KAA26966@mailhub.irvine.com> <003301c217b8$c8c3ed60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005101c2128c$d3077d40$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 09:27:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Marvin L. French" > From: "Sven Pran" > > > Opponents are in no way obliged to examine the claim > > or concession. If they feel happy with a concession there is no real > > reason they should examine it to see if the claimer does himself > > unjustice. > > I feel so obliged. To accept a faulty concession is not the way bridge > should be played. You could say exactly the same about claiming and conceding before the result is obvious, but we all make mistakes. > > In the 1950s a top-ranking married pair accepted my concession of a trump > trick. I had 10 trumps missing the queen, but thought I had nine. When one > of them showed out on the second round, I said "Down one" and we all put our > cards back in the board. My alert partner asked, "How many trumps did you > have, Marvin?" Now the opponents conceded the remaining tricks, and I put > them down as being two unethical scumbags. I agree that this seems a little bit too close to the unacceptable, but before you judge them you should consider your own action (you made a mistake counting the trumps and conceded unneccessarily). Why not allow your opponents the possibility that each of them thought partner had a trick coming? You didn't specify that it was the trump Queen that would set the contract did you? You said you just conceded the contract down one? Frankly, when I am defending a contract and have a feeling that the contract is cold but then declarer concedes, my immediate reaction is: "OK, I have assessed some cards wrong, partner apparently has a trick I hadn't counted on". Am I supposed to cross examine declarer to verify that his concession was correct? That would often spoil all the time saved by claiming or conceding and maybe waste even more 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 Fri Jun 21 18:24:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5L8MXI11801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 18:22:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5L8MSH11797 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 18:22:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.108] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id mkqgvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:09:00 +0200 Message-ID: <003e01c218fa$ea8f84c0$6c3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020617083100.00b0a880@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020617170100.00afde10@pop.starpower.net> <002d01c21653$24041860$633f23d5@cornelis> <001d01c216c3$0dc91170$6f3f23d5@cornelis> <000a01c216f0$b9272e30$763f23d5@cornelis> <4.3.2.7.0.20020620141800.00b14dd0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:09:07 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 8:32 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > At 12:55 PM 6/20/02, Tom wrote: > > >I'm going to summarize a bit. > >1) I propose that SO draw up standards, so that there mat be no further > >confusing about the meaning of an undiscussed call. > >2) I propose that SO publish the standards and that they post it in > >playing > >area(s), so that there may be no confusion about what's standard. > >3) I propose that the Law refers to the standard, when deciding the > >meaning > >of a call, so that it will be possible to decide whether there was MI. > > > >Several people didn't favor this. They believe this is impossible because > >there are too many different ways to define a standard. It may be true > >that > >some SO would have to put some work in drawing up standards. But making a > >choice of what's going to be standard is not impossible. This would allow > >for players too have fewer misunderstandings, since they can refer to the > >standard. Of course they would have to have the sense to do so. Drawing up > >*good* standards may aid in this. > >The people who don't favor this gave examples why one couldn't decide > >on the > >meaning of a call when undiscussed, actually proving my point that an > >official standard can be helpful in several ways. > > For that to be workable as a matter of law, every SO would have to > define the "standard" meaning of every possible call in every possible > auction. Let's get real -- as a practical matter, that *is* > impossible. "Put some work" indeed -- might be doable in a century or > two. "Post it in playing area(s)" -- the Palace at Versailles wouldn't > have enough wall space. > [snip] You're twisting my proposition. Any possible sequence can be explained as natural if it's not discussed. That should be the main (WBF) standard. This could be clarified: If a hand is not limited, the standard assumes a bid natural and forcing; if it's limited, natural and not forcing; if it can't be natural, it shows strength in the suit. What's wrong with this proposition, surely, a letter or A4 sheet will suffice? Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 18:26:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5L8PKB11814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 18:25:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5L8PFH11810 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 18:25:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.108] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id qmqgvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:11:44 +0200 Message-ID: <005b01c218fb$4c61a200$6c3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:11:50 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > [snip] > > >This would allow for players to have fewer > >misunderstandings, since they can refer to the > >standard. > > [snip] > > A fatal flaw in this approach (apart from the > inherent incompleteness of the standard, > identified by Eric Landau) is that it assumes > that players are using sufficently mainstream > systems to make the standard relevant. > > Suppose that you and your partner agree to > play the Backroom System, and specifically > agree to play this part of the system: > > After an opening bid of a strong 1NT, a > response of 2H is natural and game > invitational. > > On the first deal your partnership plays, this > sequence occurs. > > 1NT - what does that mean? - strong > > Pass > > 2H - what does that mean? - natural and game > invitational > > Pass > > 2S - what does that mean? > > 2S is undiscussed. But you cannot answer > undiscussed, because the SO has adopted the > Tom Cornelis regulation and posted a standard > on the wall. > > So you reply to the third question, according > to the posted standard: > > 2S - accepts my transfer to spades. :-) I'm very glad you give this example, because it can prove how useful the standard can be. Undiscussed bids should in the first place be natural (WBF standard). Thusly, since 1NT - 2H inv+nat, isn't referred to in the standard, 2S should assumed to be nat (searching 4-4 fit, or if this is impossible 5-3 fit or if this is impossible 4-3 Moysian fit) and not acceptance of transfer. Mind that the explanation of a bid depends on the previous bids, and therefore on the meanings of the previous bids. The standard couldn't possibly explain a bid as acceptance of transfer that wasn't there. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 21:04:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LB28f11929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 21:02:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from new-media.gr ([212.205.99.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g5LB22H11925 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 21:02:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from pournaras ([62.1.230.73]) by new-media.gr ( IA Mail Server Version: 4.1.7. Build: 1032 ) ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:42:58 +0300 Message-ID: <000701c21910$f35d14d0$6200a8c0@pournaras> From: "Takis Pournaras" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Careless bids forbidden? Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:46:43 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1253" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Mr Ton Kooijman has just announced, in the 6th issue of the European Bridge Teams Championships, a new idea for the upcoming revision of bridge laws: To give the organising bodies the ability to adjust scores after certain misbids, considering the other side damaged as a consequence of bad preparations (no clear agreements). As far as I'm concerned, I find this approach a bit dangerous, since it will lead to: a) the condemnation of careless play (most of the people play bridge for fun), of poor eyesighted people ('I thought I had 15HCP, not 13!'), of wrong bids ('I wanted to overcall 2D, not 2H'), of light 3rd seat openings etc. and b) the end of psyches (can we always judge the difference between a misbid and a psyche?) I'm I the only one having such worries? I would very much like to read your thoughts on the subject. Regards, Takis -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 22:27:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LCPL712061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 22:25:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5LCPCH12057 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 22:25:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-55.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.55] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17LNGX-00054y-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 08:11:49 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020621080600.00b0b820@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 08:12:30 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <005b01c218fb$4c61a200$6c3f23d5@cornelis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:11 AM 6/21/02, Tom wrote: >I'm very glad you give this example, because it can prove how useful the >standard can be. Undiscussed bids should in the first place be natural >(WBF >standard). Thusly, since 1NT - 2H inv+nat, isn't referred to in the >standard, 2S should assumed to be nat (searching 4-4 fit, or if this is >impossible 5-3 fit or if this is impossible 4-3 Moysian fit) and not >acceptance of transfer. Mind that the explanation of a bid depends on the >previous bids, and therefore on the meanings of the previous bids. The >standard couldn't possibly explain a bid as acceptance of transfer that >wasn't there. So how we deal with the general case under Tom's proposed law? We can require every SO to define not just every possible bid in every auction in "standard", but every possible bid in every auction in every possible system, so that pairs playing non-standard systems but leaving bids undefined will have a reference that defines "what their bid means", or we can fall back on the rule of "it must mean whatever Tom thinks it means". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 22:29:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LCSCP12073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 22:28:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@xgate.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5LCS3H12069 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 22:28:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5LCEeL05104 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:14:40 +0100 Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:14:40 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5LCEdh08627 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:14:39 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:14:39 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA12994 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:14:39 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id NAA29970 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:14:38 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:14:38 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200206211214.NAA29970@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Split scores for claims X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Takis Pournaras" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Subject: [BLML] Careless bids forbidden? > Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:46:43 +0300 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Precedence: bulk > > Mr Ton Kooijman has just announced, in the 6th issue of the European Bridge > Teams Championships, a new idea for the upcoming revision of bridge laws: Did people see the appeal case from an earlier bulletin where there as a split score awarded following a claim? With four tricks to play, a defender claimed and conceded two tricks. This is the outcome if declarer cashes his winners. Declarer, ignoring the claim, played on, cashing his winners. However, it was a bum claim as declarer has an obvious (seeing all four hand) alternative line of throwing in the claimant, making three tricks. The TD, the CTD, the AC (... and the Vatican council) awared the defenders the score for declarer getting three tricks from a contested claim, and awared the declare the score for two tricks as he was not going to play (and did not play) the winning line. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 22:30:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LCTAn12079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 22:29:10 +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 g5LCT2H12075 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 22:29:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-55.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.55] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17LNKG-0005T2-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 08:15:40 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020621081414.00b0c880@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 08:16:20 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <003e01c218fa$ea8f84c0$6c3f23d5@cornelis> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020617083100.00b0a880@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020617170100.00afde10@pop.starpower.net> <002d01c21653$24041860$633f23d5@cornelis> <001d01c216c3$0dc91170$6f3f23d5@cornelis> <000a01c216f0$b9272e30$763f23d5@cornelis> <4.3.2.7.0.20020620141800.00b14dd0@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:09 AM 6/21/02, Tom wrote: >You're twisting my proposition. Any possible sequence can be explained as >natural if it's not discussed. That should be the main (WBF) standard. >This >could be clarified: >If a hand is not limited, the standard assumes a bid natural and >forcing; if >it's limited, natural and not forcing; if it can't be natural, it shows >strength in the suit. > >What's wrong with this proposition, surely, a letter or A4 sheet will >suffice? Apparently nothing, provided only that you believe that "let's play natural" unambiguously defines the meaning of every possible bid in every possible sequence. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 23:55:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LDrIl12141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 23:53:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe32.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5LDrDH12137 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 23:53:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 06:39:46 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [63.211.244.60] From: "axman22" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000701c21910$f35d14d0$6200a8c0@pournaras> Subject: Re: [BLML] Careless bids forbidden? Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 07:47:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1253" 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 Jun 2002 13:39:46.0872 (UTC) FILETIME=[1BB0CB80:01C21929] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Takis Pournaras To: Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 05:46 AM Subject: [BLML] Careless bids forbidden? > Mr Ton Kooijman has just announced, in the 6th issue of the European Bridge > Teams Championships, a new idea for the upcoming revision of bridge laws: To > give the organising bodies the ability to adjust scores after certain > misbids, considering the other side damaged as a consequence of bad > preparations (no clear agreements). > > As far as I'm concerned, I find this approach a bit dangerous, since it will > lead to: > > a) the condemnation of careless play (most of the people play bridge for > fun), of poor eyesighted people ('I thought I had 15HCP, not 13!'), of wrong > bids ('I wanted to overcall 2D, not 2H'), of light 3rd seat openings etc. > > and > > b) the end of psyches (can we always judge the difference between a misbid > and a psyche?) > > I'm I the only one having such worries? I would very much like to read your > thoughts on the subject. > > Regards, > Takis Without the text it would be dangerous to make meaningful comment. 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 Jun 22 00:02:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LE0bp12158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 00:00:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from www.fastmail.fm (fastmail.fm [209.61.183.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5LE0WH12154 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 00:00:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from www.fastmail.fm (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7080F6DABE for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 08:47:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: by www.fastmail.fm (Postfix, from userid 99) id 68CE76DAB2; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 08:47:06 -0500 (CDT) Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 2.117 (F2.6; T0.14; A1.42; B2.12; Q2.03) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:47:06 +0000 From: "David Kent" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Reply-To: "David Kent" X-Epoch: 1024667226 X-Sasl-enc: H2cmXGJJIfmlgW1Or5y5NQ Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Message-Id: <20020621134706.68CE76DAB2@www.fastmail.fm> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:09:07 +0200, "Tom Cornelis" said: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 8:32 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > > > At 12:55 PM 6/20/02, Tom wrote: > > > > >I'm going to summarize a bit. > > >1) I propose that SO draw up standards, so that there mat be no further > > >confusing about the meaning of an undiscussed call. > > >2) I propose that SO publish the standards and that they post it in > > >playing > > >area(s), so that there may be no confusion about what's standard. > > >3) I propose that the Law refers to the standard, when deciding the > > >meaning > > >of a call, so that it will be possible to decide whether there was MI. > > > > > >Several people didn't favor this. They believe this is impossible because > > >there are too many different ways to define a standard. It may be true > > >that > > >some SO would have to put some work in drawing up standards. But making a > > >choice of what's going to be standard is not impossible. This would allow > > >for players too have fewer misunderstandings, since they can refer to the > > >standard. Of course they would have to have the sense to do so. Drawing > up > > >*good* standards may aid in this. > > >The people who don't favor this gave examples why one couldn't decide > > >on the > > >meaning of a call when undiscussed, actually proving my point that an > > >official standard can be helpful in several ways. > > > > For that to be workable as a matter of law, every SO would have to > > define the "standard" meaning of every possible call in every possible > > auction. Let's get real -- as a practical matter, that *is* > > impossible. "Put some work" indeed -- might be doable in a century or > > two. "Post it in playing area(s)" -- the Palace at Versailles wouldn't > > have enough wall space. > > > [snip] > > You're twisting my proposition. Any possible sequence can be explained as > natural if it's not discussed. That should be the main (WBF) standard. This > could be clarified: > If a hand is not limited, the standard assumes a bid natural and forcing; if > it's limited, natural and not forcing; if it can't be natural, it shows > strength in the suit. > > What's wrong with this proposition, surely, a letter or A4 sheet will > suffice? > This is getting lame. The WBF is going to tell me what is standard? My partner opens 1NT. I transfer to S via 2H. Pard bids 4D. Now I don't know about you, but to me that sequence does not exist. You want me to believe that it is natural and forcing because the WBF says that is what I must assume? Oh sorry - it can't be natural so it shows strength in the suit. I would guess that neither of those suppositions would be correct. My partner is much more likely to hold something like AQxx AJTxx x AQx and has missorted his hand (maybe even a void in D - he REALLY screwed up the red suits). Don't let SOs, let alone a world organization, define what is standard - it has been attempted before with ugly results. -- Dave Kent -- http://fastmail.fm - 100% lightning -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 00:33:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LEVOI12182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 00:31:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5LEVIH12177 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 00:31:18 +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 g5LEHtL21290 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:17:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 09:54:13 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <200206201627.MAA21732@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/20/02, Steve Willner wrote: >Nevertheless, accepting the concession was an error. It does not >matter whether the player was aware of his error or not. > >Of course the TD would not normally monitor play, but if he is doing so >for some reason, he is obliged to correct errors he observes. I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. First, is accepting the concession an error? I can't find a law which says so. The concession *itself* may be an error, if the trick(s) conceded cannot be lost, or cannot be lost by any normal play (Law 71) but that's not the same thing. Second, Law 81 says the director must correct "an error or irregularity". Law 82 speaks to "error in procedure". This concession and its acceptance are not, it seems to me, errors in procedure, so 82 should not apply. The question is, does "error" in law 81 mean *any* error, or just errors in procedure? I dunno - perhaps that's another thing for clarification in the next go-round. But if it means *any* error, there's a can of worms - bidding error? play error? error not related to bridge? And if it means "error in procedure" then L81 does not apply, just as L82 does not. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp 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 Sat Jun 22 00:33:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LEVLb12179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 00:31:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5LEVEH12172 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 00:31:15 +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 g5LEHpL21200 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:17:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 09:56:42 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <016b01c2187d$cb40dec0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/20/02, Sven Pran wrote: >But observe that according to information given to me as >TD from our National Organization Law 71C has recently >been amended. Everything after the first full stop (beginning >with the words "Until the conceding side") has been deleted >from this law. > >The applicable time limit is now as specified in Law 79C. >This is not so strict. I assume it's the WBFLC who amended the law. Do you have a reference to the minute or whatever that promulgates the amendment? 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 Sat Jun 22 00:37:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LEZcZ12200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 00:35:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fort-point-station.mit.edu (FORT-POINT-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.7.76]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5LEZWH12196 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 00:35:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from grand-central-station.mit.edu (GRAND-CENTRAL-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.82]) by fort-point-station.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id KAA24747 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:22:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.86]) by grand-central-station.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id KAA26859 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:22:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Herot (TANG-ELEVEN-EIGHTY-TWO.MIT.EDU [18.186.6.159]) by melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id KAA21029 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:22:08 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "richard willey" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Careless bids forbidden? Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:22:09 -0400 Organization: mit Message-ID: <001301c2192f$07a95390$9f06ba12@Herot> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <000701c21910$f35d14d0$6200a8c0@pournaras> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Takis Pournaras Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 5:47 AM To: Bridge Laws Subject: [BLML] Careless bids forbidden? >Mr Ton Kooijman has just announced, in the 6th issue of the European Bridge Teams Championships, >a new idea for the upcoming revision of bridge laws: To give the organising bodies the ability to adjust >scores after certain misbids, considering the other side damaged as a consequence of bad preparations >(no clear agreements). I find it interesting that the example provided in the Bulletin looks to be based on a Ghestem type mis-explanation. I admit to having some questions regarding the motivation behind the article. One possibility is that Mr. Kooijman believes that the existing policies of certain bridge organizations to automatically rule against Ghestem practioners is a good idea and is seeking to promote this type same type of behaviour in other parts of the world. A second possibility is that this policy is encountering legal challenge within the Netherlands (or Belgium?). As such, Kooijman is attempting to establish legal justification for this policy. The third possibility is simply that Kooijman is soliciting opinions. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 01:16:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LFEOn12227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 01:14:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail50.fg.online.no (mail50-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5LFEIH12223 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 01:14:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2300.bb.online.no [80.212.216.252]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA07415 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 17:00:50 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002601c21934$6eecc640$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 17:00:50 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > On 6/20/02, Sven Pran wrote: > > >But observe that according to information given to me as > >TD from our National Organization Law 71C has recently > >been amended. Everything after the first full stop (beginning > >with the words "Until the conceding side") has been deleted > >from this law. > > > >The applicable time limit is now as specified in Law 79C. > >This is not so strict. > > I assume it's the WBFLC who amended the law. Do you have a reference to > the minute or whatever that promulgates the amendment? That is what we were told at an assembly of Norwegian Directors in May. No - I have no reference, I usually trust the Norwegian Law Committee without any need for further evidence! 8-) regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 02:19:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LGHt612263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 02:17:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eri.interia.pl (eri.interia.pl [217.74.65.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5LGHnH12259 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 02:17:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by eri.interia.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32ACA264E0 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 18:04:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by rav.antivirus (Mailserver) with SMTP id 126F8591C for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 18:04:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id C6D7E58A9; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 18:04:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 11516590E for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 18:04:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <02c901c2193d$4c4b06c0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 18:04:16 +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 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: "Tim West-meads" I recognise > that there is some ambiguity here but does anyone actually want the law to > condone players deliberately taking advantage of implausible or legally > impossible concessions. I do. I would welcome a change that would allow players to accept impossible concessions or to knowingly make impossible claims (remember that I believe in DBClaims at the same time). In general I think that players should themselves take care of irregularities . If you actually took 11 tricks but scored only 10 - tough luck on you. I also think that players should be allowed to hesitate without "demonstrable bridge reason" - right now better players have a massive advantage over weaker players by their ability to read the "tempo" of their opponents. If you play a spade to the KJx then why should you be able to guess right only because your LHO was unable to decide quickly enough whether to hoo up with the ace or not? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Red Hot Chili Peppers przedpremierowo! Codziennie nowy kawalek. >>> http://link.interia.pl/f15f8 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 03:27:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LHQ1r12332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 03:26:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@xgate.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5LHPtH12328 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 03:25:55 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5LHCBu26291; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 18:12:11 +0100 Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 17:12:11 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5LHCB604949; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 18:12:11 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 17:12:11 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA13497; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 18:12:11 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id SAA00198; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 18:12:10 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 18:12:10 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200206211712.SAA00198@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, svenpran@online.no, ereppert@rochester.rr.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations X-Sun-Charset: ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Fri Jun 21 16:30:38 2002 > X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations > Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 17:00:50 +0200 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Precedence: bulk > > From: "Ed Reppert" > > On 6/20/02, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > >But observe that according to information given to me as > > >TD from our National Organization Law 71C has recently > > >been amended. Everything after the first full stop (beginning > > >with the words "Until the conceding side") has been deleted > > >from this law. > > > > > >The applicable time limit is now as specified in Law 79C. > > >This is not so strict. > > > > I assume it's the WBFLC who amended the law. Do you have a reference to > > the minute or whatever that promulgates the amendment? > > That is what we were told at an assembly of Norwegian Directors > in May. No - I have no reference, I usually trust the Norwegian > Law Committee without any need for further evidence! 8-) > > 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/ > See item six below. From http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf_lcmn.htm W B F Laws Committee Meeting in Hammamet, Tunisia, October 19th 1997 Present: Ton Kooijman, in the Chair Jens Auken Chip Martel Max Bavin Dan Morse Grattan Endicott Rebecca Rogers Santanu Ghosh William Schoder John Wigna11 Apologies for absence: The President of the WBF Virgil Anderson Claude Dadoun Robert Wolff (joined the meeting near its conclusion) Not present in Hammamet: Ralph Cohen, Carlos Cabanne, David Davenport, Robert Howes, Jeffrey Polisner Proceedings: 1 The Chairman opened the meeting with a warm tribute to the work of the late Edgar Kaplan He had dominated the field of bridge law for decades without ever wishing to dominate. The Chairman went on to thank Mr Wignall for suggesting the meeting and to note that Mr Endicott had agreed to undertake the written work for the committee. 2 Various members of the committee endorsed a move to improve communications and to consult the full committee on subjects that arise. It was agreed to open e-mail links to all members via Grattan Endicott gester@glonalnet.co.uk Members were invited to furnish Mr Endicott with their e-mail addresses. 3 The Committee agreed that it should explore the subject of Copyright in the laws, both for duplicate bridge and for rubber bridge. 4 The question of screen procedures was discussed. The committee was unsure whether the procedures recommended in the document produced in Rhodes had been approved by the Executive Council, but it was noted that they had been adopted in the WBF General Conditions of Contest. 5 Mr Schoder remarked upon Edgar Kaplan’s skills in separating out the concerns of the committee from those of other bodies, avoiding trespass in other areas of responsibility. He invited the committee post-Kaplan to further this aspect of his methods. 6 The Chairman turned the committee's attention to Law 71C. He pointed to the confusion created by the wording as it had been published. Mr. Kooijman added that if the intention expressed by Mr. Kaplan were given effect there would be a notable difference of treatment as between Law 71 and Law 69. Mr. Endicott read out the proposal circulated by Mr. Kaplan and the aim he had indicated. The committee adopted the opinion put forward by Mr Bavin that the sentence in 71C beginning “Until the conceding side..." does in fact make a provision that is incorporated within the wider provision existing in the immediately preceding words of the law. The Director is to cancel an implausible concession as defined in Law 71C at any time within the correction period established under Law 79C. (As proposed by Mr Kaplan this "changes the time period ……. from the start of the next board to the usual protest period.”) 7 The committee agreed that the parenthesis in the definition of ‘Convention' - "(or in the last denomination named)" - applies when the main text of the law is not applicable, i.e. in the case of ‘Pass', ‘Double' or ‘Redouble'. The only reasonable interpretation of ‘the last denomination named' is that it is the denomination in which the contract would be played were all the players to pass following the call in question. 8 The committee approved the movement of the asterisk in Law 17 so that it is placed against the words “… from his cancelled call*”. 9. Mr Santanu Ghosh asked that the committee should continue to have as an objective that players who are inexperienced and do not know the laws shall enjoy the same basic rights as more knowledgeable players. It should seek to avoid possibilities for knowledgeable players to take quick thinking action that will prejudice the rights of inexperienced opponents. 10. Mr Wignall asked that the Committee’s minute be forwarded as a report to the WBF Executive Council. He also undertook to consult the President and the Executive Council on the possibility, now that world-wide communications are to be improved, that the decisions of the Laws Committee be final decisions, 11. Mr Martel mentioned the subject of laws for on-line bridge. It is known that a code of laws is being developed. It is suggested the Executive Council may wish to consider the position. There is a suggestion that it may become impossible for the WBF to retain control of the laws in the three areas of bridge – duplicate, rubber and on-line. Following a vote of thanks and congratulations to the Chairman at the end of his first meeting, proposed by Mr Endicott and Mr Auken, the meeting concluded. -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 03:29:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LHSNe12344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 03:28:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5LHSHH12340 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 03:28:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2300.bb.online.no [80.212.216.252]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA06560 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 19:14:49 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003201c21947$266ac8a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <02c901c2193d$4c4b06c0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 19:14:49 +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: "Konrad Ciborowski" > From: "Tim West-meads" > > I recognise > > that there is some ambiguity here but does anyone actually want the law to > > condone players deliberately taking advantage of implausible or legally > > impossible concessions. > > > I do. I would welcome a change that would allow > players to accept impossible concessions > or to knowingly make impossible claims > (remember that I believe in DBClaims > at the same time). > > In general I think that players should themselves > take care of irregularities . If you actually took > 11 tricks but scored only 10 - tough luck on you. > > I also think that players should be allowed > to hesitate without "demonstrable bridge > reason" - right now better players have > a massive advantage over weaker players > by their ability to read the "tempo" of > their opponents. If you play a spade to > the KJx then why should you be able > to guess right only because your LHO > was unable to decide quickly enough > whether to hoo up with the ace or not? > There is a major difference between the player who actively attempts to deceive an opponent through variation in tempo or other activity that has no demonstrable bridge reason and a player who accepts an unjustified advantage from a mistaken action by opponent. Taking advantage of opponents mistakes has generally been accepted in bridge, and I see no reason to change that. (Yes, I'm aware of Law 72A2 and see no contradiction here) Intentional attempts to mislead an opponent by some action which has no bridge reason has never been accepted, and I see no reason to change that either. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 03:37:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LHZVw12356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 03:35:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5LHZPH12352 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 03:35:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from multimail.skynet.be (bobzilla.skynet.be [195.238.3.208]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with SMTP id g5LHLsZ18877 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 19:21:55 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 19:21:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200206211721.g5LHLsZ18877@picard.skynet.be> X-Webmail-posting-IP: 81.72.35.142 From: hermandw@skynet.be Subject: RE: [BLML] Split scores for claims To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=-----boundalter150977 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -------boundalter150977 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The joke around here is that we awarded the thirteenth trick to the Director. I plead guilty, and I don't want to add anything to the write-up except to say that the circumstances were very unusual. Appeal nr 5 is even more strange. I don't know if it will make it to the Bulletin but we'll have lots of fun with it - especially since it involved the England team and you can already guess David Burn has some comments that are unfit to print. Herman De Wael currently at the European Bridge Championships in Salsomaggiore Terme, Italy Did people see the appeal case from an earlier bulletin where there as a split score awarded following a claim? With four tricks to play, a defender claimed and conceded two tricks. This is the outcome if declarer cashes his winners. Declarer, ignoring the claim, played on, cashing his winners. However, it was a bum claim as declarer has an obvious (seeing all four hand) alternative line of throwing in the claimant, making three tricks. The TD, the CTD, the AC (... and the Vatican council) awared the defenders the score for declarer getting three tricks from a contested claim, and awared the declare the score for two tricks as he was not going to play (and did not play) the winning line. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with \"(un)subscribe bridge-laws\" or just \"help\" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -------boundalter150977 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline The joke around here is that we awarded the thirteenth trick to the Director.
 
I plead guilty, and I don't want to add anything to the write-up except to say that the circumstances were very unusual.
 
Appeal nr 5 is even more strange. I don't know if it will make it to the Bulletin but we'll have lots of fun with it - especially since it involved the England team and you can already guess David Burn has some comments that are unfit to print.

Herman De Wael
currently at the European Bridge Championships in Salsomaggiore Terme, Italy


Did people see the appeal case from an earlier bulletin where there as a split
score awarded following a claim?

With four tricks to play, a defender claimed and conceded two tricks. This
is the outcome if declarer cashes his winners. Declarer, ignoring the claim,
played on, cashing his winners. However, it was a bum claim as declarer has
an obvious (seeing all four hand) alternative line of throwing in the claimant,
making three tricks.

The TD, the CTD, the AC (... and the Vatican council) awared the defenders the
score for declarer getting three tricks from a contested claim, and awared the
declare the score for two tricks as he was not going to play (and did not play)
the winning line.

Robin

--
Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk
CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090
National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091
Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk
--
========================================================================
(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with
"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message.
A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/


-------boundalter150977-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 04:10:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LI8L412380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 04:08:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5LI8GH12376 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 04:08:17 +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 NAA06448 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:54:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA29097 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:54:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:54:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200206211754.NAA29097@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > I assume it's the WBFLC who amended the law. Do you have a reference to > the minute or whatever that promulgates the amendment? 1997 Hammamet minutes. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 04:21:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LIJvP12397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 04:19:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5LIJqH12393 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 04:19:52 +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 OAA07066 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:06:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA29118 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:06:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:06:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200206211806.OAA29118@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Split scores for claims X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Fri Jun 21 13:24:00 2002 > X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f > Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 19:21:55 +0200 (MET DST) > X-Webmail-posting-IP: 81.72.35.142 > From: hermandw@skynet.be > Subject: RE: [BLML] Split scores for claims > Herman De Wael > currently at the European Bridge Championships in Salsomaggiore Terme, Italy Could someone post the URL for the Bulletins? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 05:02:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LJ09512420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 05:00:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5LJ04H12416 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 05:00:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g5LIkgH17142 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 11:46:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001701c21953$e481ffa0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200206191730.KAA26966@mailhub.irvine.com> <003301c217b8$c8c3ed60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005101c2128c$d3077d40$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004a01c218f5$20d3c9c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 11:45:57 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Sven Pran" < > Marvin French wrote: > > In the 1950s a top-ranking married pair accepted my concession of a trump > > trick. I had 10 trumps missing the queen, but thought I had nine. When one > > of them showed out on the second round, I said "Down one" and we all put > our > > cards back in the board. My alert partner asked, "How many trumps did you > > have, Marvin?" Now the opponents conceded the remaining tricks, and I put > > them down as being two unethical scumbags. > > I agree that this seems a little bit too close to the unacceptable, but > before > you judge them you should consider your own action (you made a mistake > counting the trumps and conceded unneccessarily). Why not allow your > opponents the possibility that each of them thought partner had a trick > coming? > You didn't specify that it was the trump Queen that would set the contract > did you? You said you just conceded the contract down one? Okay, I'll be more specific. The previous play made clear that I had the rest of the tricks outside of trumps. There were originally five trumps in dummy, five in my hand, ace and king split, Qxx outstanding. I laid down the high trump from my hand, both following, led toward dummy, and LHO showed out. Forgetting that I had ruffed once, I didn't realize the queen would drop and conceded the trick. Yes, I could have lost the trick by finessing, but that would be quite irrational. These experts knew exactly what the situation was, and their embarrassment was obvious. > > Frankly, when I am defending a contract and have a feeling that the contract > is cold but then declarer concedes, my immediate reaction is: "OK, I have > assessed some cards wrong, partner apparently has a trick I hadn't counted > on". Am I supposed to cross examine declarer to verify that his concession > was correct? That would often spoil all the time saved by claiming or > conceding > and maybe waste even more time. > Not applicable to this case. Another time I was dummy, playing with a fairly decent player. As declarer in a notrump contract, stuck in dummy with about five cards left, he conceded two tricks. However, as the cards lay it was impossible for him to lose two tricks, as after taking one trick his LHO (a pro playing with customer) would have had to lead to dummy's high cards. I wasn't paying attention to the play, and didn't notice the error. After the game, the pro said to me, "If they give, I take." At the time I was too ignorant of the Laws to realize something could be done. I put this scumbag on my (short) list of unethical pros. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Out of town 6/24 - 7/4 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 05:27:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LJPMv12438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 05:25:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (mta06-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5LJPFH12434 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 05:25:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.152.61]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020621191151.MDGW4119.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 20:11:51 +0100 Message-ID: <008d01c21958$823c46c0$a49568d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <200206211721.g5LHLsZ18877@picard.skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Split scores for claims Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 20:16:16 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Funny Yes but Legal? Must play stop when an opponent claims? and the director be asked to rule if necessary? Is declarer prevented from making a rash attempt to play on? Can the Spanish Inquisition over-rule the Vatican council? :( I suppose not ): {: Nigel :) [Herman wrote] The joke around here is that we awarded the thirteenth trick to the Director. [snip] [Robin wrote] With four tricks to play, a defender claimed and conceded two tricks. This is the outcome if declarer cashes his winners. Declarer, ignoring the claim, played on, cashing his winners. However, it was a bum claim as declarer has an obvious (seeing all four hand) alternative line of throwing in the claimant, making three tricks. The TD, the CTD, the AC (... and the Vatican council) awarded the defenders the score for declarer getting three tricks from a contested claim, and awarded the declarer the score for two tricks as he was not going to play (and did not play) the winning line. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 05:29:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LJSH612450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 05:28:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5LJSBH12446 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 05:28:12 +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 MAA12766; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:14:43 -0700 Message-Id: <200206211914.MAA12766@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:54:53 EDT." <200206211754.NAA29097@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:22:31 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > From: "Ed Reppert" > > I assume it's the WBFLC who amended the law. Do you have a reference to > > the minute or whatever that promulgates the amendment? > > 1997 Hammamet minutes. I'm confused. The preface to the 1997 Laws reads: The International Code Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge - 1997 Preface to the European Edition The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1997 ("the 1997 Code") was approved by the World Bridge Federation and the European Bridge League in Montecatini Terme, Italy in June 1997 and formally promulgated by the World Bridge Federation in Hammamet, Tunisia in October 1997, immediately prior to the 1997 Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup. Are you saying that they promulgated the new 1997 Laws and then immediately adopted an amendment that made these Laws (or specifically Law 71C) obsolete---without making sure the new rule got into the published versions of the 1997 Laws? Or did I misunderstand something? -- 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 Jun 22 05:40:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LJe6x12465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 05:40:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5LJe0H12461 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 05:40:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2300.bb.online.no [80.212.216.252]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA17948; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 21:26:31 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004801c21959$8c496840$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Nigel Guthrie" , "BLML" References: <200206211721.g5LHLsZ18877@picard.skynet.be> <008d01c21958$823c46c0$a49568d5@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] Split scores for claims Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 21:26:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Without considering anything about this particular case itself the answer to your question is YES, the play must stop: Law 68D: After any claim or concession play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or concession shall be voided by the Director. ..... (Split score after a claim must be the result of very, very intriguing circumstances) regards Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 9:16 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Split scores for claims > Funny Yes but Legal? > Must play stop when an opponent claims? > and the director be asked to rule > if necessary? Is declarer prevented > from making a rash attempt to play on? > Can the Spanish Inquisition over-rule > the Vatican council? :( I suppose not ): > {: Nigel :) > > [Herman wrote] > The joke around here is that we awarded > the thirteenth trick to the Director. > [snip] > > [Robin wrote] > With four tricks to play, a defender > claimed and conceded two tricks. > This is the outcome if declarer cashes > his winners. Declarer, ignoring the claim, > played on, cashing his winners. However, > it was a bum claim as declarer has an > obvious (seeing all four hand) alternative > line of throwing in the claimant, making > three tricks. > > The TD, the CTD, the AC (... and the > Vatican council) awarded the defenders > the score for declarer getting three tricks > from a contested claim, and awarded the > declarer the score for two tricks as he > was not going to play (and did not play) > the winning line. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 05:48:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LJlE912485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 05:47:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5LJl8H12481 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 05:47:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2300.bb.online.no [80.212.216.252]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA21882; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 21:33:40 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004e01c2195a$8c3c2c60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200206211914.MAA12766@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 21:33:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Adam Beneschan" > Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: "Ed Reppert" > > > I assume it's the WBFLC who amended the law. Do you have a reference to > > > the minute or whatever that promulgates the amendment? > > > > 1997 Hammamet minutes. > > I'm confused. The preface to the 1997 Laws reads: > > The International Code > Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge - 1997 > Preface to the European Edition > > The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1997 ("the 1997 Code") was > approved by the World Bridge Federation and the European Bridge > League in Montecatini Terme, Italy in June 1997 and formally > promulgated by the World Bridge Federation in Hammamet, Tunisia in > October 1997, immediately prior to the 1997 Bermuda Bowl and > Venice Cup. > > Are you saying that they promulgated the new 1997 Laws and then > immediately adopted an amendment that made these Laws (or specifically > Law 71C) obsolete---without making sure the new rule got into the > published versions of the 1997 Laws? Or did I misunderstand > something? > > -- Adam Let me guess, because I feel that it doesn't make sense why it should take nearly 5 years for such an amendment to become published in Norway. On reading the minutes I get the impression that the meeting focused upon a peculiarity in Law 71C without really making any decision. May I guess that the decision to amend this law, and how, has been taken at a later time, for instance in 2001? Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 06:09:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LK7Vh12508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 06:07:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5LK7OH12504 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 06:07:25 +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 g5LJuCx24652 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 20:56:12 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 20:50:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations References: <200206211914.MAA12766@mailhub.irvine.com> <004e01c2195a$8c3c2c60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <004e01c2195a$8c3c2c60$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 <004e01c2195a$8c3c2c60$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran writes >From: "Adam Beneschan" >> Steve Willner wrote: >> >> > From: "Ed Reppert" >> > > I assume it's the WBFLC who amended the law. Do you have a reference >to >> > > the minute or whatever that promulgates the amendment? >> > >> > 1997 Hammamet minutes. >> We were told to cross it out directly after the Laws were printed. So in the EBU at least this has been the case since about Xmas 1997. cheers john >> I'm confused. The preface to the 1997 Laws reads: >> >> The International Code >> Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge - 1997 >> Preface to the European Edition >> >> The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1997 ("the 1997 Code") was >> approved by the World Bridge Federation and the European Bridge >> League in Montecatini Terme, Italy in June 1997 and formally >> promulgated by the World Bridge Federation in Hammamet, Tunisia in >> October 1997, immediately prior to the 1997 Bermuda Bowl and >> Venice Cup. >> >> Are you saying that they promulgated the new 1997 Laws and then >> immediately adopted an amendment that made these Laws (or specifically >> Law 71C) obsolete---without making sure the new rule got into the >> published versions of the 1997 Laws? Or did I misunderstand >> something? >> >> -- Adam > >Let me guess, because I feel that it doesn't make sense why it should take >nearly 5 years for such an amendment to become published in Norway. > >On reading the minutes I get the impression that the meeting focused >upon a peculiarity in Law 71C without really making any decision. > >May I guess that the decision to amend this law, and how, has been taken >at a later time, for instance in 2001? > >Sven > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Jun 22 06:09:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LK7u512514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 06:07:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5LK7oH12510 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 06:07:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g5LJsSH13206 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:54:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003501c2195d$5c1db960$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200206211214.NAA29970@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Split scores for claims Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:53:45 -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 From: "Robin Barker" wrote: > With four tricks to play, a defender claimed and conceded two tricks. This > is the outcome if declarer cashes his winners. Declarer, ignoring the claim, > played on, cashing his winners. However, it was a bum claim as declarer has > an obvious (seeing all four hand) alternative line of throwing in the claimant, > making three tricks. > > The TD, the CTD, the AC (... and the Vatican council) awared the defenders the > score for declarer getting three tricks from a contested claim, and awared the > declare the score for two tricks as he was not going to play (and did not play) > the winning line. > In a similar situation described on BLML not long ago, declarer claimed on a squeeze and then failed to execute the squeeze properly when illegally playing the hand out. The play subsequent to the claim was deemed irrelevant, as if it had not occurred, and the claim was allowed. Kojak and others convinced most of us, I believe, that this was the correct ruling. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Out of town 6/24 - 7/4 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 06:14:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LKCuj12537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 06:12:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5LKCpH12533 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 06:12:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g5LJxTH14622 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:59:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004b01c2195e$0f639580$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200206211754.NAA29097@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:56:43 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" > From: "Ed Reppert" > > I assume it's the WBFLC who amended the law. Do you have a reference to > > the minute or whatever that promulgates the amendment? > > 1997 Hammamet minutes. > -- Are these available somewhere on the internet? My records only go back to Lille 1998 Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Out of town 6/24 - 7/4 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 07:03:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LL1Hk12563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 07:01:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (mta02-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.42]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5LL1BH12559 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 07:01:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.153.135]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020621204747.GCDI4626.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 21:47:47 +0100 Message-ID: <00b501c21965$e9d90360$a49568d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <200206191730.KAA26966@mailhub.irvine.com> <003301c217b8$c8c3ed60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005101c2128c$d3077d40$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004a01c218f5$20d3c9c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <001701c21953$e481ffa0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 21:54:46 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Suppose you are defending a grand slam with queen doubleton of trumps and dummy on your right has AKJ. Declarer ruffs your partner's opening lead and leads a trump. When partner shows out, he curses for a while, shrugs and plays the knave. Would you insist that Declarer makes his contract? I am afraid I would accept my queen trick whether declarer played the knave or just conceded. How can I live with myself? To us declarer's finesse/claim may seem irrational but it is not so to him. He thought he had a trump less. Have you never miscounted trumps? Have you never made an irrational play? Are opponents cheats when they fail to prevent your stupidities? (: Nigel :) Marvin says... In the 1950s a top-ranking married pair accepted my concession of a trump trick. I had 10 trumps missing the queen, but thought I had nine. When one of them showed out on the second round, I said "Down one" and we all put our cards back in the board. I put them down as being two unethical scumbags. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 07:13:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LLBQr12582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 07:11:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5LLBLH12578 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 07:11:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.153.135]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020621205757.USUV2755.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 21:57:57 +0100 Message-ID: <00c501c21967$55c38cc0$a49568d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 22:04:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Suppose you are defending a grand slam with queen doubleton of trumps and dummy on your right has AKJ. Declarer ruffs your partner's opening lead and leads a trump. When partner shows out, he curses for a while, shrugs and plays the knave. Do you insist that Declarer makes his contract? I am afraid I accept my queen trick whether declarer plays the knave or just concedes. How can I live with myself? To us declarer's finesse/claim may seem irrational but it is not so to him. He thinks he has a trump less. Have you never miscounted trumps? Have you never made an irrational play? Are opponents cheats when they fail to prevent your stupidities? (: Nigel :) Marvin says... In the 1950s a top-ranking married pair accepted my concession of a trump trick. I had 10 trumps missing the queen, but thought I had nine. When one of them showed out on the second round, I said "Down one" and we all put our cards back in the board. I put them down as being two unethical scumbags. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 07:39:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LLbG712597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 07:37:16 +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 g5LLbBH12593 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 07:37:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-55.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.55] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17LVsh-0005Hx-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 17:23:48 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020621171643.00b18b20@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 17:24:29 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Careless bids forbidden? In-Reply-To: <000701c21910$f35d14d0$6200a8c0@pournaras> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:46 AM 6/21/02, Takis wrote: >Mr Ton Kooijman has just announced, in the 6th issue of the European >Bridge >Teams Championships, a new idea for the upcoming revision of bridge >laws: To >give the organising bodies the ability to adjust scores after certain >misbids, considering the other side damaged as a consequence of bad >preparations (no clear agreements). > >As far as I'm concerned, I find this approach a bit dangerous, since >it will >lead to: > >a) the condemnation of careless play (most of the people play bridge for >fun), of poor eyesighted people ('I thought I had 15HCP, not 13!'), of >wrong >bids ('I wanted to overcall 2D, not 2H'), of light 3rd seat openings etc. > >and > >b) the end of psyches (can we always judge the difference between a misbid >and a psyche?) > >I'm I the only one having such worries? I would very much like to read >your >thoughts on the subject. I too would be worried that something might come of this. Ever since I joined BLML, I have repeatedly opined that any law that smacks of making it illegal for players not to know what they're doing will set us along a path that will lead to the destruction of organized bridge as we know it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 07:47:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LLkOY12614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 07:46:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net ([213.35.62.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5LLkJH12610 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 07:46:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.100] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id ebkhvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 23:32:46 +0200 Message-ID: <005401c2196b$334f5f30$643f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020617083100.00b0a880@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020617170100.00afde10@pop.starpower.net> <002d01c21653$24041860$633f23d5@cornelis> <001d01c216c3$0dc91170$6f3f23d5@cornelis> <000a01c216f0$b9272e30$763f23d5@cornelis> <4.3.2.7.0.20020620141800.00b14dd0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020621081414.00b0c880@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 23:32:52 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 2:16 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > At 04:09 AM 6/21/02, Tom wrote: > > >You're twisting my proposition. Any possible sequence can be explained as > >natural if it's not discussed. That should be the main (WBF) standard. > >This > >could be clarified: > >If a hand is not limited, the standard assumes a bid natural and > >forcing; if > >it's limited, natural and not forcing; if it can't be natural, it shows > >strength in the suit. > > > >What's wrong with this proposition, surely, a letter or A4 sheet will > >suffice? > > Apparently nothing, provided only that you believe that "let's play > natural" unambiguously defines the meaning of every possible bid in > every possible sequence. I do, because the proposition I made does cover all possible auctions. It's not that I just believe it. It is so. I'm not being presumptuous here. Natural bidding didn't have to be invented by anyone, certainly not by me. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 07:55:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LLrup12627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 07:53:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5LLrpH12623 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 07:53:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id RAA16919 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 17:40:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA29340 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 17:40:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 17:40:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200206212140.RAA29340@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > Are you saying that they promulgated the new 1997 Laws and then > immediately adopted an amendment that made these Laws (or specifically > Law 71C) obsolete... Grattan would be your best source on the history. Note, however, that in order for the new Laws to come into effect in the summer of 1997, they had to be printed and distributed to the ZA's a year or so earlier. It's not a question of "obsolete." There is a general introduction to L71 (before part A) that gives a less restrictive time interval than the second sentence of L71C. The WBFLC resolved this apparent conflict by saying that the general introduction controls. I believe the Hammamet minutes are on David's web site, and someone just posted them to BLML. I am rather surprised that the notice is just now getting to Norway. Anyone know if it has gotten to North America yet? There was at least one other early correction involving moving an asterisk. I'm not sure whether it was from Hammamet or later. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 08:06:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LM4KB12643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 08:04:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net ([213.35.62.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5LM4FH12639 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 08:04:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.100] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id kekhvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 23:50:49 +0200 Message-ID: <006001c2196d$b8cd7f00$643f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020621080600.00b0b820@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 23:50:55 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 2:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > At 04:11 AM 6/21/02, Tom wrote: > > >I'm very glad you give this example, because it can prove how useful the > >standard can be. Undiscussed bids should in the first place be natural > >(WBF > >standard). Thusly, since 1NT - 2H inv+nat, isn't referred to in the > >standard, 2S should assumed to be nat (searching 4-4 fit, or if this is > >impossible 5-3 fit or if this is impossible 4-3 Moysian fit) and not > >acceptance of transfer. Mind that the explanation of a bid depends on the > >previous bids, and therefore on the meanings of the previous bids. The > >standard couldn't possibly explain a bid as acceptance of transfer that > >wasn't there. > > So how we deal with the general case under Tom's proposed law? We can > require every SO to define not just every possible bid in every auction > in "standard", but every possible bid in every auction in every > possible system, so that pairs playing non-standard systems but leaving > bids undefined will have a reference that defines "what their bid > means", or we can fall back on the rule of "it must mean whatever Tom > thinks it means". My opinion is shared by anyone who interprets a certain undiscussed call as natural. (which is what I think it means). I started this thread because I believe it's not right to explain a call as undiscussed. It is my belief that a) the nature of an explanation is to explain what a call should mean (allowing to make a tactical bid or a psyche) b) the nature of an explanation is not to explain what you think it means according to your agreements (not personal experience) and therefore c) the Law is wrong about the nature of an explanation. The goal of an explanation is not to reveal the true meaning of a call, but to inform the opponents. This is where we disagree. Agree? Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 08:07:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LM6Kq12655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 08:06:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5LM6EH12651 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 08:06:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.153.135]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020621215251.ICMR4626.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 22:52:51 +0100 Message-ID: <013501c2196f$007c3700$a49568d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 22:59:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Sorry, about mistakes in earlier versions] Suppose you are defending a grand slam with queen doubleton of trumps and dummy on your right has AKJ. Declarer ruffs your partner's opening lead and leads a trump. When partner shows out, Declarer curses for a while, shrugs and plays the knave. Do you insist that Declarer makes his contract? I am afraid I accept my queen trick whether declarer plays the knave or just concedes. How can I live with myself? To us declarer's finesse/claim may seem irrational but it is not so to him. He thinks he has a trump less. Have you never miscounted trumps? Have you never made an daft play that seemed quite logical to you? Are opponents cheats when they fail to prevent your stupidities? (: Nigel :) Marvin says... In the 1950s a top-ranking married pair accepted my concession of a trump trick. I had 10 trumps missing the queen, but thought I had nine. When one of them showed out on the second round, I said "Down one" and we all put our cards back in the board. I put them down as being two unethical scumbags. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 08:15:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LMDPh12672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 08:13:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5LMDKH12668 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 08:13:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.100] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id tgkhvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 23:59:54 +0200 Message-ID: <006401c2196e$fdc37fa0$643f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <20020621134706.68CE76DAB2@www.fastmail.fm> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kent" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 3:47 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:09:07 +0200, "Tom Cornelis" > said: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Eric Landau" > > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 8:32 PM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > > > > > > At 12:55 PM 6/20/02, Tom wrote: > > > > > > >I'm going to summarize a bit. > > > >1) I propose that SO draw up standards, so that there mat be no further > > > >confusing about the meaning of an undiscussed call. > > > >2) I propose that SO publish the standards and that they post it in > > > >playing > > > >area(s), so that there may be no confusion about what's standard. > > > >3) I propose that the Law refers to the standard, when deciding the > > > >meaning > > > >of a call, so that it will be possible to decide whether there was MI. > > > > > > > >Several people didn't favor this. They believe this is impossible because > > > >there are too many different ways to define a standard. It may be true > > > >that > > > >some SO would have to put some work in drawing up standards. But making a > > > >choice of what's going to be standard is not impossible. This would allow > > > >for players too have fewer misunderstandings, since they can refer to the > > > >standard. Of course they would have to have the sense to do so. Drawing > > up > > > >*good* standards may aid in this. > > > >The people who don't favor this gave examples why one couldn't decide > > > >on the > > > >meaning of a call when undiscussed, actually proving my point that an > > > >official standard can be helpful in several ways. > > > > > > For that to be workable as a matter of law, every SO would have to > > > define the "standard" meaning of every possible call in every possible > > > auction. Let's get real -- as a practical matter, that *is* > > > impossible. "Put some work" indeed -- might be doable in a century or > > > two. "Post it in playing area(s)" -- the Palace at Versailles wouldn't > > > have enough wall space. > > > > > [snip] > > > > You're twisting my proposition. Any possible sequence can be explained as > > natural if it's not discussed. That should be the main (WBF) standard. This > > could be clarified: > > If a hand is not limited, the standard assumes a bid natural and forcing; if > > it's limited, natural and not forcing; if it can't be natural, it shows > > strength in the suit. > > > > What's wrong with this proposition, surely, a letter or A4 sheet will > > suffice? > > > > This is getting lame. The WBF is going to tell me what is standard? > > My partner opens 1NT. I transfer to S via 2H. Pard bids 4D. Now I > don't know about you, but to me that sequence does not exist. To me it does. Since 3D is forcing, 4D is a cue, agreeing spades as trumps. > You want > me to believe that it is natural and forcing because the WBF says that > is what I must assume? Oh sorry - it can't be natural so it shows > strength in the suit. I would guess that neither of those suppositions > would be correct. A cue shows strength. A singleton or a void is strong. > My partner is much more likely to hold something > like AQxx AJTxx x AQx and has missorted his hand (maybe even a void in > D - he REALLY screwed up the red suits). If your personal experience teaches you that ... be my guest. It doesn't mean a standard can't be found for it. > Don't let SOs, let alone a world organization, define what is standard > - it has been attempted before with ugly results. Such as? (SO involved, standard used, example with ugly result). I don't find the lack of organization of some SO shouldn't stand in the way of an improvement of the Law. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 08:58:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LMv2a12697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 08:57:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5LMuvH12693 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 08:56:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g5LMhXH09379; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 15:43:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00ef01c21974$fae1d4c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Nigel Guthrie" , "BLML" References: <00c501c21967$55c38cc0$a49568d5@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 15:42:48 -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: "Nigel Guthrie" > > Suppose you are defending a grand slam > with queen doubleton of trumps and dummy > on your right has AKJ. Declarer ruffs your > partner's opening lead and leads a trump. > When partner shows out, he curses for a > while, shrugs and plays the knave. > Do you insist that Declarer makes his > contract? > I am afraid I accept my queen trick > whether declarer plays the knave or > just concedes. > How can I live with myself? > To us declarer's finesse/claim may seem > irrational but it is not so to him. > He thinks he has a trump less. > Have you never miscounted trumps? > Have you never made an irrational play? > Are opponents cheats when they fail to > prevent your stupidities? > (: Nigel :) > I refer you to L71C. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Out of town 6/24 - 7/4 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 09:48:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5LNkW912731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 09:46:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5LNkQH12727 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 09:46:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.153.59]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020621233302.KXUK4626.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 00:33:02 +0100 Message-ID: <01a301c2197d$009709a0$a49568d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <00c501c21967$55c38cc0$a49568d5@default> <00ef01c21974$fae1d4c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 00:39:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Marvin, I reposted my email several times because I phrased it wrong (: It is still wrong but enough is enough :) I was not getting at you (not that it would worry you, I'm sure, if I were). I do understand your argument. I can even accept that as the law stands, you are right. I believe, however, that any Bridge law that assumes rationality in an absent-minded expert, let alone in the average player, is not for this planet. If you cannot lose any tricks obtainable by rational play, then most players would do much better to concede all the tricks immediately after the opening lead. Even allowing for unlucky views, they would show a profit. Finally, any law which asks a TD to rule favourably for an "expert" (? crony ?) but stigmatises the average stranger as ignorant / unskilful /irrational is not just chauvinist. It should engender legal actions for slander. Regards (: Nigel :) Marvin L. French wrote... "I refer you to L71C". -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 10:33:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5M0Vd912760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 10:31:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5M0VYH12756 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 10:31:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.153.59]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020622001810.BKFP2755.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 01:18:10 +0100 Message-ID: <01cf01c21983$4f0a9920$a49568d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020621080600.00b0b820@pop.starpower.net> <006001c2196d$b8cd7f00$643f23d5@cornelis> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 01:25:16 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Tom [Cornelis] I support your basic thesis but feel it wrong to base alerts and explanations on each country's predelictions. Nuances of meaning for words such as "Natural" depend on system. (: If I were Polish I might consider a strong pass to be natural :) Also imagine the problems for travellers. It would be better for the law to define a straitforward international system that would please few but be fair to all. Regards (: nigel :) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 10:35:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5M0XtP12783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 10:33:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5M0XoH12777 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 10:33:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g5M0KRH08650 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 17:20:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <010301c21982$846a5840$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020621171643.00b18b20@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Careless bids forbidden? Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 17:19:43 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Eric Landau" >. Ever since I > joined BLML, I have repeatedly opined that any law that smacks of > making it illegal for players not to know what they're doing will set > us along a path that will lead to the destruction of organized bridge > as we know it. > I agree with Eric whole-heartedly. While it is annoying to get a zero from a pair because they aren't capable of handling, or remembering, some complex (or simple!) convention, their right to use that convention must not be questioned. And yet, in the ACBL's General Conditions of Contest for Pair Events, dated June 10, 2002, we see: 5. A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use the convention that was employed. That is outrageous, even though many times I have wished I could get such redress. It was written by people who don't have problems with conventions and don't want those who do to give them any trouble. I'm reaching the age of forgetfulness myself. When Alice and I changed our notrump defense a few years ago, one of us would sometimes misremember until some zeros refreshed our memory banks. On one such occasion at an NABC, an ACBL TD said (after we received a good score) he was told by another TD that we had had trouble with the defense during a previous tournament. If it happened again, he said, we would be barred from using it. It didn't happen again, but maybe I should have created a test case. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Out of town 6/24 - 7/4 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 17:55:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5M7qG612959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 17:52:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5M7qBH12955 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 17:52:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2171.bb.online.no [80.212.216.123]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA23218 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 09:38:37 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000d01c219bf$d4f26ae0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200206211914.MAA12766@mailhub.irvine.com> <004e01c2195a$8c3c2c60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 09:38:37 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 9:50 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations > In article <004e01c2195a$8c3c2c60$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran > writes > >From: "Adam Beneschan" > >> Steve Willner wrote: > >> > >> > From: "Ed Reppert" > >> > > I assume it's the WBFLC who amended the law. Do you have a reference > >to > >> > > the minute or whatever that promulgates the amendment? > >> > > >> > 1997 Hammamet minutes. > >> > We were told to cross it out directly after the Laws were printed. So > in the EBU at least this has been the case since about Xmas 1997. > > cheers john And I downloaded my present version in 2000 or 2001 from one of four alternative sources: WBF, ACBL, EBU or David Stevenson's pages (I no longer remember which). But that text was still there! Incidently, the "Scope of the Laws" part was also missing from my copy. Can somebody point me to an authoritative, updated version of the Bridge Laws please? (Preferably the complete or EBU version if ACBL has removed those parts they have decided shall not apply in their area). Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 19:38:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5M9aOS13034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 19:36:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5M9aIH13030 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 19:36:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from kdr600 (p-airlock210.esatclear.ie [194.165.169.210]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA24498 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 10:22:48 +0100 From: "Karel" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] No idea Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 10:35:02 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 In-Reply-To: <01cf01c21983$4f0a9920$a49568d5@default> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dealer North N/S vul West S QJx H K9 D QTxx C KQxx Bidding went West 1D ... TD. Call not accepted. East Forced to pass throughout. North 1NT P P 2D ... N asks what does 2D mean. East says .. well under the circumstances Nat ... I'm forced to pass ... E/W are playing DONT over strong NT. TD called ... ruling pls 1) Say bidding proceeds DBL(opener) P P 2H(West !!) P P DBL all pass Making .. any recourse for N/S 2) Bidding proceeds 2S(opener) P P P ... I presume lead restrictions on East ... 3) 1NT P P P(west doesnt bid) ... lead restrictions ?? Karel -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 20:02:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5MA0k213056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 20:00:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5MA0eH13052 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 20:00:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2171.bb.online.no [80.212.216.123]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA15370; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 11:46:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00a201c219d1$b30e18e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Karel" , "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] No idea Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 11:46:35 +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: "Karel" > Dealer North N/S vul > > West > S QJx > H K9 > D QTxx > C KQxx > > > Bidding went West 1D ... TD. Call not accepted. East Forced to pass > throughout. North 1NT P P 2D ... N asks what does 2D mean. East says .. > well under the circumstances Nat ... I'm forced to pass ... E/W are playing > DONT over strong NT. TD called ... ruling pls North should have a warning (PP) for asking a ridiculous question. He ought to know that whatever agreements exist between East and West will have been suspended under the cicumstances. West is on his own in this auction. > > 1) Say bidding proceeds DBL(opener) P P 2H(West !!) P P DBL all pass Making > .. any recourse for N/S I don't understand, but whatever the result will be I see no reason to adjust. > 2) Bidding proceeds 2S(opener) P P P ... I presume lead restrictions on > East ... There are no lead restrictions on East as West has in a subsequent call "shown" the denomination involved. > 3) 1NT P P P(west doesnt bid) ... lead restrictions ?? Yes, as West has only "shown" diamonds in his illegal and retracted bid, but not in any later call the lead restrictions in Law 26A apply. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 21:22:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5MBL6N13096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 21:21:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5MBL0H13092 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 21:21:01 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g5MB7aF15512 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 12:07:36 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 12:07 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis 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: <005401c2196b$334f5f30$643f23d5@cornelis> Tom Cornelis wrote: > I do, because the proposition I made does cover all possible auctions. > It's not that I just believe it. It is so. I'm not being presumptuous > here. Natural bidding didn't have to be invented by anyone, certainly > not by me. And "where undiscussed as natural as possible" is indeed a very fine agreement. However it won't significantly change the auction: 1NT P 2S where I am playing red-suit transfers. I just end up saying "undiscussed, as natural as possible - but because we play 2H as a transfer it probably isn't possible to be a weak hand with spades" and we are back where we started. I, and my many and varied short-term partners, will often make bids that can't possibly be natural without having discussed it. I often don't know what SO they play under or even if they have read their SO's regulations (and most haven't). I will keep my opponents as well informed as I am myself and any accusation of misinformation will continue to be unfounded. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 22:42:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5MCeiL13126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 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 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 g5MCecH13122 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 22:40:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0502.bb.online.no [80.212.209.246]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA17288 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 14:27:08 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000d01c219e8$20b47680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" References: <00c501c21967$55c38cc0$a49568d5@default> <00ef01c21974$fae1d4c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 14:27:08 +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: "Marvin L. French" > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > > > > > Suppose you are defending a grand slam > > with queen doubleton of trumps and dummy > > on your right has AKJ. Declarer ruffs your > > partner's opening lead and leads a trump. > > When partner shows out, he curses for a > > while, shrugs and plays the knave. > > Do you insist that Declarer makes his > > contract? > > I am afraid I accept my queen trick > > whether declarer plays the knave or > > just concedes. > > How can I live with myself? > > To us declarer's finesse/claim may seem > > irrational but it is not so to him. > > He thinks he has a trump less. > > Have you never miscounted trumps? > > Have you never made an irrational play? > > Are opponents cheats when they fail to > > prevent your stupidities? > > (: Nigel :) > > > I refer you to L71C. Do you mean to say that you will apply L71C also in this case where the player concedes the trick by playing the knave instead of just saying: "you get a trick for the queen"? And if you don't - what is the real difference between the two ways of conceding. Is it the bridge we want to protect the careless claimer/conceder but not the careless player? Where is your logic, man? Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 23 00:52:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5MEoDg13182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 00:50:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net ([213.35.62.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5MEo8H13178 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 00:50:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.106] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id hpphvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 16:36:39 +0200 Message-ID: <003d01c219fa$3f18bf20$6a3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "BLML" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020621080600.00b0b820@pop.starpower.net> <006001c2196d$b8cd7f00$643f23d5@cornelis> <01cf01c21983$4f0a9920$a49568d5@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 16:36:50 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 2:25 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > Hi Tom [Cornelis] > > I support your basic thesis but feel it > wrong to base alerts and explanations on > each country's predelictions. > Nuances of meaning for words such as > "Natural" depend on system. > (: If I were Polish I might consider a > strong pass to be natural :) > Also imagine the problems for travellers. > It would be better for the law to define > a straitforward international system that > would please few but be fair to all. I still think it could be useful for NCBOs and other bridge authorities to have some standards. This could be useful for their national or regional competitions, where most of the players play this standard allready. Whenever it seems impossible to standardize or whenever it would be undesirable I would propagate the WBF standard. Examples: as it seems to be the case in Australia, it is impossible to create a national standard, so the WBF standard applies; it is undesirable for an international tounament not organized by an international organization to use the local standards; for the formation of an international partnership, the WBF standards, would apply. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 23 00:54:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5MEr9j13194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 00:53:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net ([213.35.62.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5MEr4H13190 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 00:53:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.106] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id tpphvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 16:39:31 +0200 Message-ID: <004501c219fa$a5497b90$6a3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 16:39:42 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > In-Reply-To: <005401c2196b$334f5f30$643f23d5@cornelis> > Tom Cornelis wrote: > > I do, because the proposition I made does cover all possible auctions. > > It's not that I just believe it. It is so. I'm not being presumptuous > > here. Natural bidding didn't have to be invented by anyone, certainly > > not by me. > > And "where undiscussed as natural as possible" is indeed a very fine > agreement. However it won't significantly change the auction: > > 1NT P 2S where I am playing red-suit transfers. I just end up saying > "undiscussed, as natural as possible - but because we play 2H as a > transfer it probably isn't possible to be a weak hand with spades" and we > are back where we started. I, and my many and varied short-term partners, > will often make bids that can't possibly be natural without having > discussed it. I often don't know what SO they play under or even if they > have read their SO's regulations (and most haven't). I will keep my > opponents as well informed as I am myself and any accusation of > misinformation will continue to be unfounded. So you wouldn't mind if players explain calls as undiscussed, where they would *know* what the call means, because you would rather like to have the freedom yourself to explain a call as undiscussed, where you have no clue what it means? Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 23 01:31:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5MFTOi13217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 01:29:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5MFTIH13213 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 01:29:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g5MFFoO04596; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 11:15:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 11:13:55 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations To: Robin Barker cc: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <200206211712.SAA00198@tempest.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/21/02, Robin Barker wrote: >See item six below. From http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf_lcmn.htm Thanks Robin. I keep forgetting David has that stuff on his site. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 23 02:06:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5MG4CU13242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 02:04:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5MG47H13238 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 02:04:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2270.bb.online.no [80.212.216.222]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA16803 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 17:50:35 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000d01c21a04$8c433000$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 17:50:33 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk For what it is worth: I found my way to the current laws via David's pages. That led me to an ECats web with the European laws stated as updated 26/02/2001 11:45:18 All I can say is that Law71C was definitely not updated. Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Robin Barker" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 5:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations > On 6/21/02, Robin Barker wrote: > > >See item six below. From http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf_lcmn.htm > > Thanks Robin. I keep forgetting David has that stuff on his site. > > Regards, > > Ed -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 23 04:18:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5MIG2o13351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 04:16:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5MIFuH13347 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 04:15:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g5MI4ix27438 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 19:04:44 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 18:47:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <004501c219fa$a5497b90$6a3f23d5@cornelis> In-Reply-To: <004501c219fa$a5497b90$6a3f23d5@cornelis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <004501c219fa$a5497b90$6a3f23d5@cornelis>, Tom Cornelis writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tim West-meads" >To: >Cc: >Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 1:07 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > >> In-Reply-To: <005401c2196b$334f5f30$643f23d5@cornelis> >> Tom Cornelis wrote: >> > I do, because the proposition I made does cover all possible auctions. >> > It's not that I just believe it. It is so. I'm not being presumptuous >> > here. Natural bidding didn't have to be invented by anyone, certainly >> > not by me. >> >> And "where undiscussed as natural as possible" is indeed a very fine >> agreement. However it won't significantly change the auction: >> >> 1NT P 2S where I am playing red-suit transfers. I just end up saying >> "undiscussed, as natural as possible - but because we play 2H as a >> transfer it probably isn't possible to be a weak hand with spades" and we >> are back where we started. I, and my many and varied short-term partners, >> will often make bids that can't possibly be natural without having >> discussed it. I often don't know what SO they play under or even if they >> have read their SO's regulations (and most haven't). I will keep my >> opponents as well informed as I am myself and any accusation of >> misinformation will continue to be unfounded. > >So you wouldn't mind if players explain calls as undiscussed, where they >would *know* what the call means, because you would rather like to have the >freedom yourself to explain a call as undiscussed, where you have no clue >what it means? > that's a ridiculous statement. If I *know* what a bid means, even if undiscussed I'd tell the opponents. If I say "No agreement" then that's what it means. If I say "No agreement but almost certainly neg X" then that's what it means. If I *know* what my partner does even if I haven't played with him before, I'd tell the opponents. Are you suggesting people shouldn't? cheers john >Best regards, > >Tom. > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 23 05:04:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5MJ3Ls13374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 05:03:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f80.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5MJ3HH13370 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 05:03:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 11:49:48 -0700 Received: from 172.157.154.49 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 18:49:48 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.157.154.49] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Eliminating Misinformation in Auctions or How to Have a Neverending Thread Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 11:49:48 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jun 2002 18:49:48.0515 (UTC) FILETIME=[958C0330:01C21A1D] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The question of being able to define a meaning for all bids aside, I'm confused by several aspects of the situation, largely the purpose. As a vague general question, what is the purpose of providing a definition for a bid made without prior discussion of the situations it may arise in? Is it imposed upon all players that if they are to make a bid they haven't discussed, it must follow the System? What is the penalty for pairs who collude to use their best judgement as opposed to the System when in undefined waters? If you don't make such an imposition on players' freedoms, then you have nothing more than something you can say to confuse the opponents. Having any old definition for a bid doesn't imply that the definition is useful, good, or a represenation of the hand that bid it. Unfortunately, forcing a player to give a description that is contrary to the methods they haven't fully discussed creates misinformation. Unless you voluntarily play the System, your opponents are possibly going to have MI redress coming. What demon are we trying to expell that is worth playing bridge in this fashion? -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 23 06:48:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5MKkD613435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 06:46:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5MKk8H13431 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 06:46:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g5MKWha06108 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 13:32:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000f01c21a2b$de331200$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000d01c21a04$8c433000$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 13:31:43 -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: "Sven Pran" > For what it is worth: > I found my way to the current laws via David's pages. > That led me to an ECats web with the European laws > stated as updated 26/02/2001 11:45:18 > > All I can say is that Law71C was definitely not updated. > Good for you, Sven. I gather that the change to L71C is nevertheless official. I have marked up my Laws for changes I am aware of, deleting/adding commas, and so forth, but I didn't have this one. A short poll tells me that ACBL TDs have no markups whatsoever. What's the good of an inter-revision change to the Laws if it isn't disseminated? No doubt it is up to the ACBLLC to publish WBFLC amendments and interpretations, not to mention its own interpretations. That's not being done, and we have to hunt through the minutes of both committees to find them. Right now the WBFLC should send out errata/amendment notices for the 97 Laws. If they won't do that, could someone please post them on BLML and I will send a copy to every ACBL TD who has e-mail. Marvin L. French San Diego, California Out of town 6/24 - 7/4 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 23 07:13:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5MLC9D13469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 07:12:09 +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 g5MLC3H13465 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 07:12:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2270.bb.online.no [80.212.216.222]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA14291 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 22:58:33 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004701c21a2f$91dd9c00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000d01c21a04$8c433000$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000f01c21a2b$de331200$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 22:58:32 +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 And after re-reading the quoted minutes (in fact all the minutes up to and including Paris in 2001) I begin to doubt if there ever was any formal decision to change Law 71C. It seems to me they just made a note of the situation? I have also found my way to the official pages for WBF, no change there either. (But then they as well as ECats are both also missing the "scope of the laws" for some unknown reason). I feel confused. (Not that it has that much practical importance?). Anyway, as far as I can tell, the change in L71C is official in Norway - or I have completely misunderstood something. Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 10:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > For what it is worth: > > I found my way to the current laws via David's pages. > > That led me to an ECats web with the European laws > > stated as updated 26/02/2001 11:45:18 > > > > All I can say is that Law71C was definitely not updated. > > > Good for you, Sven. > > I gather that the change to L71C is nevertheless official. > > I have marked up my Laws for changes I am aware of, deleting/adding commas, > and so forth, but I didn't have this one. A short poll tells me that ACBL > TDs have no markups whatsoever. What's the good of an inter-revision change > to the Laws if it isn't disseminated? > > No doubt it is up to the ACBLLC to publish WBFLC amendments and > interpretations, not to mention its own interpretations. That's not being > done, and we have to hunt through the minutes of both committees to find > them. > > Right now the WBFLC should send out errata/amendment notices for the 97 > Laws. If they won't do that, could someone please post them on BLML and I > will send a copy to every ACBL TD who has e-mail. > > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > Out of town 6/24 - 7/4 > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 23 07:30:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5MLT6I13484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 07:29:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5MLSxH13480 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 07:29:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g5MLFZa15924 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 14:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003801c21a31$dbea99e0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <00c501c21967$55c38cc0$a49568d5@default> <00ef01c21974$fae1d4c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000d01c219e8$20b47680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 14:12:56 -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 Sven wrote: > Marv wrote: > > I refer you to L71C. > > Do you mean to say that you will apply L71C also > in this case where the player concedes the trick > by playing the knave instead of just saying: > "you get a trick for the queen"? > And if you don't - what is the real difference between > the two ways of conceding These are not equivalent statements. The first is irrational play, the second assumes play that will not be irrational for this class of player. L71C. >. Is it the bridge we want > to protect the careless claimer/conceder but not the > careless player? > > Where is your logic, man? The Laws say we cannot assume a careless claimer would have made an irrational play. This has the drawback of not punishing a poor claim, but the advantage of not passing out a windfall result. The Laws could be changed to require irrational but legal play for the claimer, while giving only probable normal outcome to the other side, if that's what you want. I'd vote for that. My expert opponents (both partners of Lew Mathe at times) made no such argument as yours, and would have been ridiculed by the TD if they had. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Out of town 6/24 - 7/4 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 23 07:39:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5MLbVb13499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 07:37:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5MLbQH13495 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 07:37:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g5MLNvO15170; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 17:23:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 17:01:25 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations To: "Marvin L. French" , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/22/02, Marvin L. French wrote: > >From: "Sven Pran" > >>For what it is worth: I found my way to the current laws via David's >>pages. That led me to an ECats web with the European laws stated as >>updated 26/02/2001 11:45:18 >> >>All I can say is that Law71C was definitely not updated. >> >Good for you, Sven. > >I gather that the change to L71C is nevertheless official. > >I have marked up my Laws for changes I am aware of, deleting/adding >commas, and so forth, but I didn't have this one. A short poll tells me >that ACBL TDs have no markups whatsoever. What's the good of an >inter-revision change to the Laws if it isn't disseminated? > >No doubt it is up to the ACBLLC to publish WBFLC amendments and >interpretations, not to mention its own interpretations. That's not >being done, and we have to hunt through the minutes of both committees >to find them. > >Right now the WBFLC should send out errata/amendment notices for the >97 Laws. If they won't do that, could someone please post them on BLML >and I will send a copy to every ACBL TD who has e-mail. Heh. I just looked at the laws on the WBF's official web site. They don't indicate this change either. :-( Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 23 07:59:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5MLvSp13517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 07:57:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5MLvNH13513 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 07:57:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.101] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id dhshvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 23:43:52 +0200 Message-ID: <002401c21a35$ed9a5aa0$653f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Eliminating Misinformation in Auctions or How to Have a Neverending Thread Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 23:44:03 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 8:49 PM Subject: [BLML] Eliminating Misinformation in Auctions or How to Have a Neverending Thread > The question of being able to define a meaning for all bids aside, I'm > confused by several aspects of the situation, largely the purpose. > > As a vague general question, what is the purpose of providing a definition > for a bid made without prior discussion of the situations it may arise in? 1) it will help players not to have misunderstandings in some situations 2) it will prevent people from hiding the meaning of a call by explaining it as undiscussed > Is it imposed upon all players that if they are to make a bid they haven't > discussed, it must follow the System? What is the penalty for pairs who > collude to use their best judgement as opposed to the System when in > undefined waters? They don't have to follow the system. However if there was a misunderstanding, their opponents will be entitled to redress. There is no penalty for pairs who use their own judgement if they have no misunderstanding. > If you don't make such an imposition on players' freedoms, then you have > nothing more than something you can say to confuse the opponents. Having > any old definition for a bid doesn't imply that the definition is useful, > good, or a represenation of the hand that bid it. Unfortunately, forcing a > player to give a description that is contrary to the methods they haven't > fully discussed creates misinformation. Unless you voluntarily play the > System, your opponents are possibly going to have MI redress coming. Let me be clear about some things: 1) people have misunderstandings, because they don't discuss all auctions 2) the standard would provide people with meanings of calls they haven't discussed 3) they aren't supposed to play the standard, they can use their own judgement, they aren't forced to explain an undiscussed call according to the standard, they just can't explain it as undiscussed 4) if their own judgement is correct, their opponents are entitled to a correct explanation 5) if their own judgement is incorrect, i.e. they have a disagreement, they must follow the consequenses when (not if) a logical alternative was presented by the standard 6) the standard isn't a system, just a set of rules that explain undiscussed calls > What demon are we trying to expell that is worth playing bridge in this > fashion? The demon of undiscussed calls. The Law is not strict enough. If you allow undiscussed calls, you give people an easy way to misinform their opponents without getting punished by it. They might explain a call as undiscussed when actually discussed, therefore having no misunderstanding and not misinforming their opponents. (that's the ruling you currently make) Does this not seem to be a demon to you? Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 23 09:03:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5MN1L113560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 09:01:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5MN1EH13556 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 09:01:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2270.bb.online.no [80.212.216.222]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA01502 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 00:47:43 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001d01c21a3e$d2492a20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" References: <00c501c21967$55c38cc0$a49568d5@default> <00ef01c21974$fae1d4c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000d01c219e8$20b47680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003801c21a31$dbea99e0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 00:47:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 11:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations > Sven wrote: > > > Marv wrote: > > > > I refer you to L71C. > > > > Do you mean to say that you will apply L71C also > > in this case where the player concedes the trick > > by playing the knave instead of just saying: > > "you get a trick for the queen"? > > > And if you don't - what is the real difference between > > the two ways of conceding > > These are not equivalent statements. The first is irrational play, the > second assumes play that will not be irrational for this class of player. > L71C. I get your point, but I disagree: It is not irrational for a player who believes the Queen MUST make a trick (because he has miscounted the suit) to force opponent to cash that trick immediately rather than being able to ruff with the Queen at an awkward moment later in the play. And I do not want to protect a claimer who apparently has made a mistake like that from making such a play when he announces that he concedes that trick instead of playing it out. > > >. Is it the bridge we want > > to protect the careless claimer/conceder but not the > > careless player? > > > > Where is your logic, man? > > The Laws say we cannot assume a careless claimer would have made an > irrational play. My opinion is that a play is "irrational" if that player would never, ever do it by any kind of mistake, otherwise the play is careless or inferior. For instance when playing towards Ace - Queen in dummy it is irrational not to play the Ace if LHO plays the King. But unless declarer has announced in advance that the King must drop from offside it is not irrational to play the Queen even if he ought to know that the King should drop. The fact that he forgets to mention important facts in a claim is to me sufficient to "allow" him also to fail an otherwise natural, even obvious end play. I know that I am in conflict with recent AC decision(s?) here, but until ordered otherwise by my national authority I shall continue to be. > This has the drawback of not punishing a poor claim, but > the advantage of not passing out a windfall result. The Laws could be > changed to require irrational but legal play for the claimer, while giving > only probable normal outcome to the other side, if that's what you want. > > I'd vote for that. The whole thing hinges upon how we define "irrational" play. (And a poor claim itself is usually evidence of the claimer having forgotten something important about the remaining cards. He shall not be allowed to "remember" such facts by the post audit on the claim) > > My expert opponents (both partners of Lew Mathe at times) made no such > argument as yours, and would have been ridiculed by the TD if they had. Well, I certainly hope we never get to the point where a "safe strategy" is to claim or concede before playing to the first trick, knowing that the Director and AC is supposed to protect the player from mistakes in the play because the would concider such mistakes "irrational". -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 23 09:24:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5MNMO013579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 09:22:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5MNMJH13575 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 09:22:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g5MN8ra06691 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 16:08:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001101c21a41$afd89b80$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000d01c21a04$8c433000$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000f01c21a2b$de331200$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004701c21a2f$91dd9c00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 16:08:10 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Sven Pran" > > I have also found my way to the official pages for WBF, > no change there either. (But then they as well as ECats > are both also missing the "scope of the laws" for some > unknown reason). > > I feel confused. > (Not that it has that much practical importance?). > My recently-published paperback Laws, ACBL version, omits the footnote to L16A2. Since the ACBL doesn't follow the procedure prescribed by it, one wonders if the omission is deliberate. Nahh. Do TDs missing this footnote write it in? Nahh. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Out of town 6/24 - 7/4 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 23 09:55:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5MNrmq13597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 09:53:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5MNrhH13593 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 09:53:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g5MNeEK20151 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 00:40:14 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 00:40 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis 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: <004501c219fa$a5497b90$6a3f23d5@cornelis> Tom Cornelis wrote: > > 1NT P 2S where I am playing red-suit transfers. I just end up saying > > "undiscussed, as natural as possible - but because we play 2H as a > > transfer it probably isn't possible to be a weak hand with spades" > > and we > > are back where we started. I, and my many and varied short-term > > partners, > > will often make bids that can't possibly be natural without having > > discussed it. I often don't know what SO they play under or even if > > they > > have read their SO's regulations (and most haven't). I will keep my > > opponents as well informed as I am myself and any accusation of > > misinformation will continue to be unfounded. > > So you wouldn't mind if players explain calls as undiscussed, where they > would *know* what the call means, Of course I mind - it is illegal for them so to do. If you know what it means you tell opponents. If you can make a good guess based on other knowledge - you tell opponents. > because you would rather like to have > the freedom yourself to explain a call as undiscussed, where you have no > clue what it means? Since the alternative is lying to them, then *YES*. My opponents are entitled to full disclosure of my agreements and understandings. If "I haven't a clue" is the full extent of my understanding they are entitled to know that. If it turns out that my not having a clue was a result of forgetfulness rather than ignorance then they will (if damaged) be entitled to redress. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 23 13:01:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5N30xs13669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 13:00:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from out011.verizon.net (out011pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5N30sH13665 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 13:00:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from MIKE ([67.250.97.51]) by out011.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with SMTP id <20020623024723.BUGT3416.out011.verizon.net@MIKE> for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 21:47:23 -0500 Message-ID: <001f01c21a60$6b811740$0100a8c0@MIKE> From: "mike dodson" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 19:47:40 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis wrote: > I do, because the proposition I made does cover all possible auctions. > It's not that I just believe it. It is so. I'm not being presumptuous > here. Natural bidding didn't have to be invented by anyone, certainly > not by me. I cannot swallow this. Natural bidding certainly did need to be invented. Any time you suggest this bid or that "must" be forcing or show this or that, you are depending on a framework that you may have internalized but is not divinely proclaimed or universally accepted. Why must anyone learn your (or your SO's) particular system before they are allowed to play? If you have agreed with your partner that all undiscussed bids are natural and forcing(?) I congratulate you on your foresight but what gives you the right to foist that agreement on me? We cannot and should not regulate good play, good bidding or good agreements. These are the province of individuals and partnerships, not the regulators. mike dodson -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 23 20:01:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5NA0BD13807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 20:00:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5NA06H13803 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 20:00:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.104] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id usuhvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 11:46:36 +0200 Message-ID: <001d01c21a9a$e5bb2c50$683f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 11:46:49 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 1:40 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > In-Reply-To: <004501c219fa$a5497b90$6a3f23d5@cornelis> > Tom Cornelis wrote: > > > 1NT P 2S where I am playing red-suit transfers. I just end up saying > > > "undiscussed, as natural as possible - but because we play 2H as a > > > transfer it probably isn't possible to be a weak hand with spades" > > > and we > > > are back where we started. I, and my many and varied short-term > > > partners, > > > will often make bids that can't possibly be natural without having > > > discussed it. I often don't know what SO they play under or even if > > > they > > > have read their SO's regulations (and most haven't). I will keep my > > > opponents as well informed as I am myself and any accusation of > > > misinformation will continue to be unfounded. > > > > So you wouldn't mind if players explain calls as undiscussed, where they > > would *know* what the call means, > > Of course I mind - it is illegal for them so to do. If you know what it > means you tell opponents. If you can make a good guess based on other > knowledge - you tell opponents. > > > because you would rather like to have > > the freedom yourself to explain a call as undiscussed, where you have no > > clue what it means? > > Since the alternative is lying to them, then *YES*. The alternative is not lying. The alternative is telling what it *should* mean. Because that's how it would supposed to be, it wouldn't be a lie. Just as when you have an agreement you're supposed to tell the true meaning, rather than your opinion. > My opponents are > entitled to full disclosure of my agreements and understandings. If "I > haven't a clue" is the full extent of my understanding they are entitled > to know that. If it turns out that my not having a clue was a result of > forgetfulness rather than ignorance then they will (if damaged) be > entitled to redress. So you're willing to hide the meaning of a call, because this bad Law gives you the right to do so? Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 23 20:08:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5NA8fC13819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 20:08:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net ([213.35.62.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5NA8aH13815 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 20:08:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.104] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id tuuhvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 11:55:03 +0200 Message-ID: <002501c21a9c$141f6f60$683f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: <001f01c21a60$6b811740$0100a8c0@MIKE> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 11:55:16 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "mike dodson" To: Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 4:47 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > > Tom Cornelis wrote: > > I do, because the proposition I made does cover all possible auctions. > > It's not that I just believe it. It is so. I'm not being presumptuous > > here. Natural bidding didn't have to be invented by anyone, certainly > > not by me. > > I cannot swallow this. Natural bidding certainly did need to be invented. > Any time you suggest this bid or that "must" be forcing or show this or > that, you are depending on a framework that you may have internalized but > is not divinely proclaimed or universally accepted. Why must anyone learn > your (or your SO's) particular system before they are allowed to play? Because it's not a particular system, it's a set of simple rules, that need not be studied. > If you have agreed with your partner that all undiscussed bids are natural and > forcing(?) I congratulate you on your foresight but what gives you the right > to foist that agreement on me? I'm not foisting that on you. If you and your partner in a certain situation feel that it should mean something different, you're allowed to play this. However, you're not allowed to hide this information. > We cannot and should not regulate good play, > good bidding or good agreements. These are the province of individuals and > partnerships, not the regulators. I agree wholeheartedly. But tell me this: why are there system policies and how can you call bidding or agreements good if they're not agreed on? Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 23 20:21:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5NAL7r13836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 20:21:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net ([213.35.62.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5NAL2H13832 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 20:21:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.104] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id wwuhvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 12:07:32 +0200 Message-ID: <002e01c21a9d$d2800c70$683f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Eliminating Misinformation in Auctions or How to Have a Neverending Thread Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 12:07:45 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 12:38 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Eliminating Misinformation in Auctions or How to Have a Neverending Thread > >From: "Tom Cornelis" > > >The demon of undiscussed calls. The Law is not strict enough. If you allow > >undiscussed calls, you give people an easy way to misinform their opponents > >without getting punished by it. They might explain a call as undiscussed > >when actually discussed, therefore having no misunderstanding and not > >misinforming their opponents. (that's the ruling you currently make) Does > >this not seem to be a demon to you? > > No. With the exception of my suspicions about an extremely small group > of players, I believe bridge players to be more honest than that. And then, > I believe expulsion would be a preferable solution. How are you ever going to find out? > You're suggesting that there are people that cheat by this means. I > assure you that removing "undiscussed" from the vocabulary will not vanquish > the demon that is incomplete disclosure. I'm not assured by you saying so. Incomplete disclosure usually comes from lack or agreements or a bad memory. In case of bad memory, it's about specific agreements and MI can clearly be established. In case of lack of agreements, it's about undiscussed calls and MI can not be established. Since you can't check if players have written down all their agreements, you also can't tell the difference between players who don't remember agreements (explaining the call as undiscussed) (not cheating) and the players who don't have agreements. This is a deadlock the current Law cannot resolve. This can be resolved if players are not allowed to explain a call as undiscussed, because all that we would have to do is check whether the explanation fits with the hand that made the call or with a written down convention. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 24 03:34:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5NHXR214011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 03:33:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5NHXLH14007 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 03:33:22 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g5NHJsv18717 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 18:19:54 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 18:19 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis 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: <001d01c21a9a$e5bb2c50$683f23d5@cornelis> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-meads" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 1:40 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > > > In-Reply-To: <004501c219fa$a5497b90$6a3f23d5@cornelis> > > Tom Cornelis wrote: > > > > 1NT P 2S where I am playing red-suit transfers. I just end up > > > > saying > > > > "undiscussed, as natural as possible - but because we play 2H as a > > > > transfer it probably isn't possible to be a weak hand with spades" > > > > and we > > > > are back where we started. I, and my many and varied short-term > > > > partners, > > > > will often make bids that can't possibly be natural without having > > > > discussed it. I often don't know what SO they play under or even > > > > if > > > > they > > > > have read their SO's regulations (and most haven't). I will keep > > > > my > > > > opponents as well informed as I am myself and any accusation of > > > > misinformation will continue to be unfounded. > > > > > > So you wouldn't mind if players explain calls as undiscussed, where > > > they > > > would *know* what the call means, > > > > Of course I mind - it is illegal for them so to do. If you know what > > it > > means you tell opponents. If you can make a good guess based on other > > knowledge - you tell opponents. > > > > > because you would rather like to have > > > the freedom yourself to explain a call as undiscussed, where you > > > have no > > > clue what it means? > > > > Since the alternative is lying to them, then *YES*. > > The alternative is not lying. The alternative is telling what it > *should* mean. I'm sorry but if I "have no clue what it means" then I can't explain what it should mean either. If I know what it should mean the correct explanation is "This sequence is undiscussed but based on our other agreements it should be....". Now I can live with people describing something in this situation as just "It should be.." as distinct from "It is..." if the situation is actually subject to agreement. However, I believe the subtlety of that distinction will be lost on many opponents so I prefer that people start with "Undiscussed" when that is the case. If you know it is most probably either a) or b) then proper disclosure requires something like "This sequence is undiscussed but it is likely to be either. The more a pair plays together the less likely it is that "undiscussed" is likely to be a complete answer. TDs really shouldn't have a problem identifying the vast majority of situations where this is abused. There is also quite a lot to be said for "Undiscussed - would you like to know what it is likely to be?". There are occasional times when, as an opponent, I might decline such an invitation. > Because that's how it would supposed to be, it wouldn't > be a lie. Just as when you have an agreement you're supposed to tell > the true meaning, rather than your opinion. > > > My opponents are > > entitled to full disclosure of my agreements and understandings. If > > "I > > haven't a clue" is the full extent of my understanding they are > > entitled > > to know that. If it turns out that my not having a clue was a result > > of > > forgetfulness rather than ignorance then they will (if damaged) be > > entitled to redress. > > So you're willing to hide the meaning of a call, because this bad Law > gives you the right to do so? I am not willing to hide anything. I believe my opponents have a right to know which parts of my system are subject to detailed agreements and which parts are not. You are the one who is advocating that uncertainty/ ambiguity be hidden from opponents. If my partner knowingly makes an ambiguous bid and I guess correctly what it is then my explanation, while UI, clears up any ambiguity. Since I have not given any indication of possible ambiguity you won't even know the UI was there. If you are worried about certain players giving poor disclosure you should worry about the same players taking full advantage of such UI. 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 Jun 24 05:12:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5NJ8nb14054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 05:08:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f87.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5NJ8iH14050 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 05:08:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 11:53:59 -0700 Received: from 172.172.135.156 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 18:53:59 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.172.135.156] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Eliminating Misinformation in Auctions or How to Have a Neverending Thread Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 11:53:59 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jun 2002 18:53:59.0776 (UTC) FILETIME=[55B92600:01C21AE7] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Tom Cornelis" >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > No. With the exception of my suspicions about an extremely small >group > > of players, I believe bridge players to be more honest than that. > > And then, I believe expulsion would be a preferable solution. > >How are you ever going to find out? You collect information over time. > > You're suggesting that there are people that cheat by this > > means. I assure you that removing "undiscussed" from the > > vocabulary will not vanquish the demon that is incomplete > > disclosure. > >I'm not assured by you saying so. I'm ready to say you don't have to be. >Incomplete disclosure usually comes from lack or agreements Although you are unconvinced of it, there cannot be incomplete disclosure where disclosure is not required. That *is* the current state of the laws. >or a bad memory. In case of bad memory, it's about >specific agreements and MI can clearly be established. So there is redress available and this is not a problem. >In case of lack of agreements, it's about undiscussed calls and MI can >not be established. The information cannot be incorrect when there is no information to give. >Since you can't check if players have written down all their agreements, Yes you can. You just go up to them and ask, "Have you written down your agreements?" I'll wind up giving you about 20 pages of notes. Although you're going to have to take my word for it that they are complete. >you also can't tell the difference between players who don't remember >agreements (explaining the call as undiscussed) (not cheating) and the >players who don't have agreements. Also not cheating. >This is a deadlock the current Law cannot resolve. IMHO, it's a phantom problem. I would agree that players that do have agreements and choose not to disclose them are both a problem and difficult to catch. >This can be resolved if players are not allowed to explain a call as >undiscussed, because all that we would have to do is check whether the >explanation fits with the hand that made the call or with a written >down convention. You are allowed to misbid and you are allowed to stray from your agreements/psych. Would you treat both of those situations as MI as well. You are also allowed to agree not to use a particular sequence. One partner and I have agreed that 1C-P-1NT is not an auction. We take a little more time before deciding who gets to play NT. What do you explain to opponents when the auction goes 1C-P-1NT? -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 Mon Jun 24 05:16:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5NJDQk14071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 05:13:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5NJDKH14067 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 05:13:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id uxyhvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 20:59:45 +0200 Message-ID: <001201c21ae8$2b4963c0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <004501c219fa$a5497b90$6a3f23d5@cornelis> <001e01c21a32$056f6a70$653f23d5@cornelis> <001501c21a99$d8a27880$683f23d5@cornelis> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 20:59:54 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: "Tom Cornelis" Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 2:54 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis [snip] > If a player is going to cheat he will cheat. If he does cheat > eventually we catch him and expel him. We all believe there are very > few cheats in the game, and we also believe that the US exhibits extreme > paranoia over this aspect of the game. > > Believe me Tom, we know who we're watching. If I said any more I'd be > up for libel. The TD's are always talking to each other, and I bet that > the top 20 of us all have the same mental list. > > Aspects of dubious ethics and incomplete disclosure are very high on our > list. The point being we get calls to tables where those players are > playing and we build a pattern. OK, I agree on that. > > > >> Really Tom, whilst your idea is not unreasonable in the > >> abstract it just won't fly. Given we can't even get the UK and the US > >> to agree whether one should say "having none?", there's just no way we'd > >> get as far down the line as you would like. > >> > >> In the YC for example there are about 6 different systems played as a > >> matter of course. I might agree one of them with a p/u partner, but I'd > >> have no idea how much either he, or I, would know of it. Your method is > >> based on the premise that there's a standard available in a zone, > >> region, district or even a club. There just isn't. > > > >I'm not saying there is one. I'm saying that there should be made one. With > >only a few rules it's possible to cover any possible auction. > > > this really isn't so. > > 1C at the YC can easily have one of six different possible meanings, and > there will be p/u partnerships playing all six versions. (actually, not > strictly true as nobody else is playing the version I play with my son) > > diamonds by 5, short club, better minor, natural, precision, blue club, > plastic club to name some of them. There will also be at least 5 1NT > ranges being played (and I play it as STR; ART; F1 with my son) 10-12, > 11-13, 12-14, 14-16, 15-17 and several of these may be played depending > on seat and vul. > > The EBU orange book runs to 40 pages on allowable conventions - do you > expect players to know all that? If you do you'll be presiding over the > death of bridge. > > It is well known that US bridge is much less fragmented in terms of > bidding theory than is the UK scene, you'd really have to try a night at > the YC to see what I mean. > > It's further compounded by players playing different systems almost at > whim. "Shall we play Acol", "Nah let's play Standard" "OK, we'll play > precision". Neither player will know it very well and misunderstandings > will occur. ... and the law permits this. You're constantly twisting my words. 1) I'm not saying misunderstandings should be punished. MI should be punished, and I see explaining the call as undiscussed as MI. 2) I'm not saying occasional partnerships should be forced to play some standard system. There is no standard system. This does not mean you can impose a standard about undiscussed calls. Undiscussed calls have nothing to do with a specific system. Undiscussed calls are what they are. I'll use an example that has been used before in this discussion, but not by me: Screens, auction goes 1S - P - 1NT - P 2H - P - 4C - ? (X or P) ... 6H ? asks about the meaning of 4C to the opener (on his side of the screen). He gets the reply 'undiscussed, either splinter or fit bid'. Now, the double of ? has a different meaning depending on the explanation. He could have doubled 6H Lightner. But this also has a different meaning depending on the explanation. What was astonishing, is that 4C was correctly interpreted by the opener, where their agreements would have suggested the other meaning. I suggest that either the opener explains the call according to his judgement or according to the standard. Both explanations are right if the hand fits with the description. So if there's no misunderstanding, there's nothing wrong with my method, but there is with yours. Or do you find it justified that 6H won because ? couldn't find the right double? (for a spade lead which would have cost the contract) I assume that when the opener's judgement is right, he reaches an implicit agreement with his partner and is therefore obliged to reveil the meaning according to him. If he was wrong there was MI, with the possible consequenses (most of the time they punish themselves). What would you have ruled if the opener would have said he didn't remember the agreement, with the same options? You would have ruled against the opener, allthough there's no difference whatsoever in the situation at the table (about the distribution of information). IMO, the same situation at the table (about the distribution of info) should lead to the same ruling. Please note that the opener would not have needed to explain the call according the standard (i.e. what there agreements implied), as you seem to believe. The standard is there for people who have no clue about the meaning of a call, to offer them a choice, also for those who make the undiscussed call. I really see no *harm* in it, since the standard would not be obligatory. Why do you? Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 24 05:31:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5NJSpV14084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 05:28:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5NJSkH14080 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 05:28:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id qcaivaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 21:14:55 +0200 Message-ID: <001b01c21aea$4a339880$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: Subject: [BLML] the standard Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 21:15:07 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0018_01C21AFB.0D2FDFF0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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_0018_01C21AFB.0D2FDFF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, since there is so much discussion about what can be standard and what = not, I'm going to propose a standard and ask you to comment, so that it = could be modified the right way. The following rules apply in order of their priority: 1) when there was an agreement that explains the call, that's the = meaning of the call, even if judgement would suggest otherwise (note = that the standard need not be followed) 2) when there was no agreement to suggest the meaning of a call, this = call should be interpreted as natural (length). It is forcing when the = hand that made the call is unlimited and the call was made without jump. 3) when there ... a call, this call should be interpreted as strength if = it can't be natural. 4) when ... interpreted as cue if it was made with a jump in a suit that = 1 level lower would have been forcing. The last shown natural suit is = the trump suit. 5) when undiscussed, 4NT or 5NT is natural (quant if lower NT available) 6) when undiscussed, 4NT is simple Blackwood if it can't be natural 7) when undiscussed, 5NT is a grand slam try if it can't be natural Best regards, Tom. ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C21AFB.0D2FDFF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,
 
since there is so much discussion about = what can be=20 standard and what not, I'm going to propose a standard and ask you to = comment,=20 so that it could be modified the right way.
 
The following rules apply in order of = their=20 priority:
1) when there was an agreement that = explains the=20 call, that's the meaning of the call, even if judgement would suggest = otherwise=20 (note that the standard need not be followed)
2) when there was no agreement to = suggest the=20 meaning of a call, this call should be interpreted as natural (length). = It is=20 forcing when the hand that made the call is unlimited and the call was = made=20 without jump.
3) when there ... a call, this call = should be=20 interpreted as strength if it can't be natural.
4) when ... interpreted as cue if it = was made with=20 a jump in a suit that 1 level lower would have been forcing. The last = shown=20 natural suit is the trump suit.
5) when undiscussed, 4NT or 5NT is = natural=20 (quant if lower NT available)
6) when undiscussed, 4NT is simple = Blackwood if it=20 can't be natural
7) when undiscussed, 5NT is a grand = slam try if it=20 can't be natural
 
Best regards,
 
Tom.
------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C21AFB.0D2FDFF0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 24 08:17:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5NMGDP14146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 08:16:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5NMG8H14142 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 08:16:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.149.13]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020623220240.TTMY2755.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 23:02:40 +0100 Message-ID: <004501c21b02$b26d7e80$0d9568d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <00c501c21967$55c38cc0$a49568d5@default> <00ef01c21974$fae1d4c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000d01c219e8$20b47680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003801c21a31$dbea99e0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <001d01c21a3e$d2492a20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 23:07:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel: I share Sven's dislike law L71c if it allows a safety-play of conceding a contract hoping the TD can find a rational play to make it. (Earlier, I made this point twice myself). Also I would not expect Marv's poor opponents to ask for a ruling from one of his colleagues if they may expect to ridiculed as well as ruled against. It is quite bad enough to be stigmatised in BLML as "scumbags". Marv: My expert opponents (both partners of Lew Mathe at times) made no such argument as yours, and would have been ridiculed by the TD if they had. Sven: Well, I certainly hope we never get to the point where a "safe strategy" is to claim or concede before playing to the first trick, knowing that the Director and AC is supposed to protect the player from mistakes in the play because the would consider such mistakes "irrational". -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 24 09:12:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5NNBgg14177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:11:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5NNBbH14173 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:11:37 +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 g5NN0Ox30756 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 00:00:24 +0100 Message-ID: <4qgZ2lKOmkF9Ewg3@asimere.com> Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 23:19:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <004501c219fa$a5497b90$6a3f23d5@cornelis> <001e01c21a32$056f6a70$653f23d5@cornelis> <001501c21a99$d8a27880$683f23d5@cornelis> <001201c21ae8$2b4963c0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> In-Reply-To: <001201c21ae8$2b4963c0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <001201c21ae8$2b4963c0$6f3f23d5@cornelis>, Tom Cornelis writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >To: "Tom Cornelis" >Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 2:54 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > >[snip] > > >> If a player is going to cheat he will cheat. If he does cheat >> eventually we catch him and expel him. We all believe there are very >> few cheats in the game, and we also believe that the US exhibits extreme >> paranoia over this aspect of the game. >> >> Believe me Tom, we know who we're watching. If I said any more I'd be >> up for libel. The TD's are always talking to each other, and I bet that >> the top 20 of us all have the same mental list. >> >> Aspects of dubious ethics and incomplete disclosure are very high on our >> list. The point being we get calls to tables where those players are >> playing and we build a pattern. > >OK, I agree on that. > >> > >> >> Really Tom, whilst your idea is not unreasonable in the >> >> abstract it just won't fly. Given we can't even get the UK and the >US >> >> to agree whether one should say "having none?", there's just no way >we'd >> >> get as far down the line as you would like. >> >> >> >> In the YC for example there are about 6 different systems played as a >> >> matter of course. I might agree one of them with a p/u partner, but I'd >> >> have no idea how much either he, or I, would know of it. Your method >is >> >> based on the premise that there's a standard available in a zone, >> >> region, district or even a club. There just isn't. >> > >> >I'm not saying there is one. I'm saying that there should be made one. >With >> >only a few rules it's possible to cover any possible auction. >> > >> this really isn't so. >> >> 1C at the YC can easily have one of six different possible meanings, and >> there will be p/u partnerships playing all six versions. (actually, not >> strictly true as nobody else is playing the version I play with my son) >> >> diamonds by 5, short club, better minor, natural, precision, blue club, >> plastic club to name some of them. There will also be at least 5 1NT >> ranges being played (and I play it as STR; ART; F1 with my son) 10-12, >> 11-13, 12-14, 14-16, 15-17 and several of these may be played depending >> on seat and vul. >> >> The EBU orange book runs to 40 pages on allowable conventions - do you >> expect players to know all that? If you do you'll be presiding over the >> death of bridge. >> >> It is well known that US bridge is much less fragmented in terms of >> bidding theory than is the UK scene, you'd really have to try a night at >> the YC to see what I mean. >> >> It's further compounded by players playing different systems almost at >> whim. "Shall we play Acol", "Nah let's play Standard" "OK, we'll play >> precision". Neither player will know it very well and misunderstandings >> will occur. ... and the law permits this. > >You're constantly twisting my words. that's not my intention >1) I'm not saying misunderstandings should be punished. MI should be >punished, and I see explaining the call as undiscussed as MI. >2) I'm not saying occasional partnerships should be forced to play some >standard system. There is no standard system. This does not mean you can >impose a standard about undiscussed calls. Undiscussed calls have nothing to >do with a specific system. Undiscussed calls are what they are. > >I'll use an example that has been used before in this discussion, but not by >me: >Screens, auction goes >1S - P - 1NT - P >2H - P - 4C - ? (X or P) >... 6H >? asks about the meaning of 4C to the opener (on his side of the screen). He >gets the reply 'undiscussed, either splinter or fit bid'. Now, the double of >? has a different meaning depending on the explanation. He could have >doubled 6H Lightner. But this also has a different meaning depending on the >explanation. I'd certainly be looking closely into the partnerships' agreements. I must admit that playing with any of my partners I'd have to answer no agreement. I'm pretty sure I'd find no explicit agreement for a fit bid (ie splinter or fit jump) after a 1NT response in many players' files. I'd certainly be asking what blanket agreements the players have regarding splinters and fit-jumps, because those should be made available to the opponents (even if they cause the opponents to find the wrong lead) I'd certainly be asking declarer on what basis he made his choice, as we may well reveal that there is a general style. If I formed the opinion that there was an implicit agreement as a result of all this, then I'd look to see whether an adjustment was in order. I'd do no more than warn the player for non-full-disclosure though whether or not I adjusted. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 24 09:43:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5NNh8R14199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:43:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.56.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5NNh4H14195 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:43:04 +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 JAA28884 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:29:33 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020624092846.032134a0@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:30:00 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (by way of Markus Buchhorn ) Subject: [BLML] 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 >Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 15:43:29 +0200 (MET DST) >From: hermandw@skynet.be >Subject: >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Appeal 5 has just been finally approved. It will not appear in the Bulletin, but I'll post it. As the temperature is 38 degrees here, I am not afraid of your flames. -- Appeal No. 5 England v San Marino Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Maria Erhart (Austria), Anton Maas (the Netherlands) Open Teams Round 11 Board 10. Dealer East. All Vul. [ K J 2 ] 10 8 7 { Q J 3 } A J 8 2 [ A 5 [ Q 9 7 ] K J 4 3 2 ] A 6 5 { K 10 7 5 { A 9 6 } 7 6 } 10 5 4 3 [ 10 8 6 4 3 ] Q 9 { 8 4 2 } K Q 9 West North East South Gazzardi P.Hackett Simoncini Waterlow Pass Pass 1] Pass 2NT(1) Pass 3{ Pass 4] All Pass Comments: (1) 9+ HCP, 3+] Contract: Four Hearts, played by West Lead: Seven of Hearts Play: Three rounds of hearts ([8 from South) and a small spade to North's King. North returned a Spade. Result: 10 tricks, NS -620 The Facts: East had explained West's 3{ as \"looking for support\", whereas West had explained it as natural, 4 cards or more. At the end of the play, North called the Director. He had had a problem in deciding whether West had 3/3 in the minors or 4/2. If he had known that West had promised 4 diamonds, he would have returned a club in trick 5, and defeated the contract. The Director: Asked about the meaning of 3{. West was adamant it showed 4 cards, or even more. The Director ruled that there had been misinformation, and that North had been damaged as a result. Ruling: Score adjusted to Both sides receive: 4]-1 by West (NS +100) Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C East/West appealed. Present: All players, both Captains and an Italian interpreter The Players: North explained his reasoning. South had first discouraged the spades ([8), and then shown an odd number ([3), but South had not been able to show distribution of the minors. He might have signalled for clubs in the trump suit (]9Q in stead of Q9) but North realized that he could not rely on this. If West has 3 diamonds and the }K, cashing the }A at this point might give the contract away. But when West has 4 diamonds, cashing the }A is correct, even if West has the }K, as he can throw a club on the [Q. North and East confirmed the explanation that was given on their side of the screen. South told the Committee that West had written 4+ on a piece of paper, but this piece of paper was nowhere to be found. West said he could not remember whether he had written or not, but repeated that he had explained \"4, 5 or 6 diamonds\". As to why he had not said that it might be 3, West stated that this question had not been asked. The Director confirmed that West had told him 3 times that 3{ promised 4 cards. The Committee: Confirmed that if there had been misinformation, North was indeed damaged. If North knows that West has 4 diamonds, switching to clubs is the correct action, and one down would be the outcome of the board after adjudication, considering the benefit of the doubt to the non-offending side. The Committee had trouble believing that 3{ showed 4 diamonds. West was limited to 14 points, East to 11. East/West play a strong club system in which 2] shows 5 hearts, 4 of a minor, 15-17. But when asked what he would open with 5332 and 15 HCP, West replied \"1], maybe 2]\". On the other hand, West had stated no less than 6 times (once at the table, three times to the Director and twice before the Appeal Committee) that 3{ showed 4 of them. The Committee could not conclude with confidence what the real agreement between East and West actually was and decided that the most equitable solution would be to weight the outcome equally between the rulings based on either system. The Committee’s decision: Score adjusted to Both sides receive: 50% of 4]-1 by West (NS +100) plus 50% of 4]= by West (NS ­620) Deposit: Returned Note: The result at the other table was -170, so the result was 50% of +7 and 50% of -10 or -1.5, rounded (in favour of the non-offending side) to -1 IMP to the team of North/South. -- Herman De Wael currently at the European Bridge Championships in Salsomaggiore Terme, Italy -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 24 13:01:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5O30vf14324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 13:00:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5O30qH14320 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 13:00:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from rota.alumni.princeton.edu (pcp01782626pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net [68.32.52.241]) by mtaout02.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GY6007NCVQJSB@mtaout02.icomcast.net> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 22:47:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 22:47:17 -0400 From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: [BLML] Legal but unethical X-Sender: davidgrabiner@mail.comcast.net To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@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 There has been a discussion as to whether an action can be legal but unethical. While it relates to claims, I think the same situation can apply in other situations. For example: You revoke, and the opponents don't notice. You are aware of the revoke, and it has been established when the deal ends with a claim. It is legal not to call the TD about the revoke. Is it ethical not to call if the revoke was harmless? Is it ethical not to call attention if your opponent claims, "My hand is good," never bothering to look at the opposing hands and thus not seeing the card you should have played to the revoke trick? (Or is this an improper acquiescence to a claim, since declarer claimed ten tricks and would have surely had eleven if he had played the hand out and collected the revoke penalty?) Is it ethical not to call if you won a trick that you could never have won without the revoke? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 24 15:03:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5O52TA14389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 15:02:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5O52OH14385 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 15:02:25 +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 g5O4mvL01314 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 21:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003101c21b3a$5b808e40$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <00c501c21967$55c38cc0$a49568d5@default> <00ef01c21974$fae1d4c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000d01c219e8$20b47680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003801c21a31$dbea99e0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <001d01c21a3e$d2492a20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <004501c21b02$b26d7e80$0d9568d5@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 21:48:11 -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: "Nigel Guthrie" : > Well, I certainly hope we never get to the > point where a "safe strategy" is to claim > or concede before playing to the first > trick, knowing that the Director and AC is > supposed to protect the player from mistakes > in the play because the would consider such > mistakes "irrational". I don't see how that could be "safe strategy" when the TD/AC is going to give the opponents every trick possible, short of assuming irrational play. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Out of town 6/24 - 7/4 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 24 15:52:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5O5piu14414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 15:51:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5O5pcH14410 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 15:51:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0483.bb.online.no [80.212.209.227]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA15964 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 07:38:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001101c21b41$4e85a200$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" References: <00c501c21967$55c38cc0$a49568d5@default> <00ef01c21974$fae1d4c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000d01c219e8$20b47680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003801c21a31$dbea99e0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <001d01c21a3e$d2492a20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <004501c21b02$b26d7e80$0d9568d5@default> <003101c21b3a$5b808e40$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 07:38:01 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 6:48 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations > > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > : > > Well, I certainly hope we never get to the > > point where a "safe strategy" is to claim > > or concede before playing to the first > > trick, knowing that the Director and AC is > > supposed to protect the player from mistakes > > in the play because the would consider such > > mistakes "irrational". > > I don't see how that could be "safe strategy" when the TD/AC is going to > give the opponents every trick possible, short of assuming irrational play. If you limit "irrational" play to such plays you would never ever make regardless of how you miscounted the cards or anything then we agree. The moment that you "of course" would have dropped the doubleton Queen behind Ace - King - Knave because you never miscount (but you failed to mention with your claim that the Queen must drop) we do not agree. And if you concede a trick to the Queen instead of dropping it because you miscounted the cards I would certainly not allow the "safe" strategy of conceding, only to claim under Law 71C afterwards when you are reminded that the Queen was guarded by only one small card rather than the two small cards you apparently believed because of your miscount. It is not "irrational" to force opponents cashing their "unavoidable" trick at a time during the play which suits you best. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 24 15:54:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5O5sRW14427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 15:54:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5O5sLH14423 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 15:54:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.148.8]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020624054053.RLVU295.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 06:40:53 +0100 Message-ID: <005101c21b42$b8d12160$089468d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <00c501c21967$55c38cc0$a49568d5@default> <00ef01c21974$fae1d4c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000d01c219e8$20b47680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003801c21a31$dbea99e0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <001d01c21a3e$d2492a20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <004501c21b02$b26d7e80$0d9568d5@default> <003101c21b3a$5b808e40$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 06:48:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie: >> Well, I certainly hope we never get to the >> point where a "safe strategy" is to claim >> or concede before playing to the first >> trick, knowing that the Director and AC is >> supposed to protect the player from mistakes >> in the play because he would consider such >> mistakes "irrational". Marvin L French: > don't see how that could be "safe strategy" > when the TD/AC is going to > give the opponents every trick possible, > short of assuming irrational play. Few players play rationally. For example, many players will muff a "sure trick" problem where rational play guarantees the contract. Or look at the play problems on Richard Pavlicek's web page. Experts regularly fail too find the percentage solutions although they are perfectly rational. Regards (: Nigel :) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 24 22:22:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5OCKL114617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:20:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5OCKGH14613 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:20:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-55.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.55] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17MScJ-000113-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 08:06:47 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020624080239.00aac410@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 08:07:36 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <006001c2196d$b8cd7f00$643f23d5@cornelis> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020621080600.00b0b820@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:50 PM 6/21/02, Tom wrote: >The goal of an explanation is not to reveal the true meaning of a >call, but >to inform the opponents. This is where we disagree. Agree? I'd have said that the goal of an explanation is to inform the opponents of the "true" (i.e. agreed) meaning of a call, not to inform the opponents of what one holds in one's hand at the time one makes the call. We can debate what the goal of an explanation should be according to some future set of laws. But I don't think there's any room to debate what the goal of an explanation must be under the laws as currently written: the former rather than the latter. IMO, that is as it should be. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 24 22:22:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5OCMh514629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:22:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eri.interia.pl (eri.interia.pl [217.74.65.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5OCMaH14625 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:22:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (naos.interia.pl [217.74.65.50]) by eri.interia.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E2E12685E for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:09:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (naos.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by rav.antivirus (Mailserver) with SMTP id 15D977E97 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:09:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 9D2A87EBD; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:09:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 855147EB3 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:08:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <011701c21b77$e0f1db00$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:08:35 +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 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: "David J. Grabiner" To: Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 4:47 AM Subject: [BLML] Legal but unethical > There has been a discussion as to whether an action can be legal but > unethical. WBF Code Of Practice +-------------------------------------------+ A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse of ethics where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of the conduct of players. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism. +-------------------------------------------+ Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Pikantne, zabawne, towarzyskie, rozne, dla odwaznych... LOGO I DZWONKI >>> http://link.interia.pl/f15f5 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 24 22:26:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5OCQEd14662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:26:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5OCQ6H14658 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:26:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-55.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.55] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17MShy-0001qT-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 08:12:38 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020624080952.00b1e450@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 08:13:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <006401c2196e$fdc37fa0$643f23d5@cornelis> References: <20020621134706.68CE76DAB2@www.fastmail.fm> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:00 PM 6/21/02, Tom wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Kent" > > Don't let SOs, let alone a world organization, define what is standard > > - it has been attempted before with ugly results. > >Such as? (SO involved, standard used, example with ugly result). ACBL, SAYC, 1NT-P-2S-P-2NT. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 24 22:34:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5OCXqr14684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jun 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 (ph.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5OCXhH14680 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 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 OAA23239; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:18:28 +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 OAA25631; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:20:05 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020624141939.00aa7750@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:27:48 +0200 To: Gordon Bower , Bridge Laws Mailing List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] L21 vs. L25 In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:13 20/06/2002 -0800, Gordon Bower wrote: >Many (most? all?) of us dislike the "delayed or purposeful >correction" provisions of L25B. It occurred to me recently that perhaps >things aren't quite as bad as they look, for a reason I don't remember >hearing anyone mention before: > >Maybe L25B hardly ever applies! > >L21A: A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of his >own misunderstanding. >This argument seems to take away L25B any time I bid based on what I think >I saw on the table and saw incorrectly, and any time I bid based on an >incorrect memory of what my system is but subsequently remember. > >It now seems to me that the *only* time L25B applies is the "cow flying >by" situation -- say, if I correctly alert and explain 1S-Pass-3NT as >forcing, promises 4 spades, demands cuebids from me, but then (thinking >ahead to how I will bid 4D, partner will bid 4S, and then I will) pass. AG : I think the spirit of L21A is to tell players that if they don't ask what a bid meant, while it was correctly alerted, or if they make the wrong bid because they saw some other bid by RHO than the one he'd made and don't realize quickly enough for using L25, they have to suffer for it. But I wouldn't object against Gordon's case being added to it. This would, however, have to be included in the wording of L21 and/or L25. L21A is another law that needs to be completed with examples and the wqords "including, but not restricted to". Another case which can't be included into L21 is one's own systemic error. There is no misunderstanding about this. 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 Jun 24 22:48:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5OCmYZ14711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:48:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5OCmPH14707 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:48:26 +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 OAA15119; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:32:23 +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 OAA14612; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:34:49 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020624142954.00aaf9d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:42:35 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Careless bids forbidden? In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020621171643.00b18b20@pop.starpower.net> References: <000701c21910$f35d14d0$6200a8c0@pournaras> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:24 21/06/2002 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >I too would be worried that something might come of this. Ever since I >joined BLML, I have repeatedly opined that any law that smacks of making >it illegal for players not to know what they're doing will set us along a >path that will lead to the destruction of organized bridge as we know it. AG : I agree with Eric (that's thrice in a month ! Perhaps it is time to meet the shrink). IMHO based on personal experience and experience with various partners, a vast majority of errors are made out of carelessness. Disallowing them would be as dangerous as Eric states it. However, what we are speaking of now are errors that destroy oppenents' fun, whatever the result. Convention disruption and handling errors leading to cancelled boards are the most frequent ones. Since the latter is explicitly subject to a PP, the former could also be, at least if recurrent, without adding anything to the Lawbook. L74A2 is enough. 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 Jun 24 22:50:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5OCocK14723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:50:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5OCoUH14719 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:50:30 +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 OAA28148; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:35:16 +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 OAA16990; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:36:59 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020624144252.00aa7a00@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:44:45 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Careless bids forbidden? In-Reply-To: <010301c21982$846a5840$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020621171643.00b18b20@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 17:19 21/06/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >I agree with Eric whole-heartedly. While it is annoying to get a zero from a >pair because they aren't capable of handling, or remembering, some complex >(or simple!) convention, their right to use that convention must not be >questioned. > >And yet, in the ACBL's General Conditions of Contest for Pair Events, dated >June 10, 2002, we see: > >5. A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in >probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if >their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and >how to use the convention that was employed. AG : they shouldn't be entitled to it. But the disrupting side should be entitled to a PP if is happens too frequently. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 00:14:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5OEDns14793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 00:13:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (dns1.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.11.189]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5OEDcH14789 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 00:13:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca (gcpdb.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.46.190]) by dns1.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g5OE07A5053412 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:00:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA20720 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:01:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200206241401.KAA20720@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:01:30 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020624080239.00aac410@pop.starpower.net> from "Eric Landau" at Jun 24, 2002 08:07:36 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL4] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.12 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > At 05:50 PM 6/21/02, Tom wrote: > > >The goal of an explanation is not to reveal the true meaning of a > >call, but to inform the opponents. This is where we disagree. Agree? > > I'd have said that the goal of an explanation is to inform the > opponents of the "true" (i.e. agreed) meaning of a call, not to inform > the opponents of what one holds in one's hand at the time one makes the > call. As for instance in the last Bermuda Bowl finals where the American player psyched a short suit call in a slam auction. Both American players alerted and game the correct explanation of the agreement. > > We can debate what the goal of an explanation should be according to > some future set of laws. > > But I don't think there's any room to debate what the goal of an > explanation must be under the laws as currently written: the former > rather than the latter. IMO, that is as it should be. > Agreed. Though to get back to where one of these threads started, I don't have any real problems with a condition of contest for a top level event (such as a Bermuda Bowl qualifier) which makes the players responsible for knowing what they're doing in constructive auctions and in defensive auctions against common methods. By common methods I include for instance Polish Club, but not Magic Diamond. (Or anything that would currently pick up a HUM tag) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 02:07:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5OG6Q414833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 02:06:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5OG6KH14829; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 02:06:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id RAA13390; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:50:23 +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 RAA09923; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:52:49 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020624175055.00ac12e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 18:00:34 +0200 To: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (by way of Markus Buchhorn ), bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020624092846.032134a0@acsys.anu.edu.au> 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 g5OG6MH14830 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:30 24/06/2002 +1000, owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au wrote: >Appeal No. 5 >England v San Marino > >Appeals Committee: >Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Maria >Erhart (Austria), Anton Maas (the Netherlands) > >Open Teams Round 11 > >Board 10. Dealer East. All Vul. > [ K J 2 > ] 10 8 7 > { Q J 3 > } A J 8 2 > [ A 5 [ Q 9 7 > ] K J 4 3 2 ] A 6 5 > { K 10 7 5 { A 9 6 > } 7 6 } 10 5 4 3 > [ 10 8 6 4 3 > ] Q 9 > { 8 4 2 > } K Q 9 > > West North East South > Gazzardi P.Hackett Simoncini Waterlow > Pass Pass > 1] Pass 2NT(1) Pass > 3{ Pass 4] All Pass > >Comments: >(1) 9+ HCP, 3+] > >Contract: Four Hearts, played by West > >Lead: Seven of Hearts > >Play: Three rounds of hearts ([8 from South) and a small spade to North's >King. North returned a Spade. > >Result: 10 tricks, NS -620 > >The Facts: >East had explained West's 3{ as \"looking for support\", whereas West had >explained it as natural, 4 cards or more. >At the end of the play, North called the Director. He had had a problem in >deciding whether West had 3/3 in the minors or 4/2. If he had known that >West had promised 4 diamonds, he would have returned a club in trick 5, >and defeated the contract. AG : it may not have appeared to the members of the AC that the explanations are basically the same. When 'looking for support', one will usually bid a genuine suit. Finding support facing K10xx is much more useful than finding it facing, say, Kx. I use this kind of trial bids (although I wouldn't have made it on West's hand, but this is irrelevant - well, why do I waste time writing it), and I can tell you that more than 9 times out of 10, it will be made in a 4-card suit (more so as 5332 hands in the relevant range will often be opened 1NT). The only case where I would imagine bidding it on less than 3 cards is a degenerate case like x - Qxxxx - AKQx - Q10x, where I could bid 3C rather than 3D, or perhaps with 4 *spades*, where no trial bid in spades is possible (that's why the positive raise must be 2S, letting opener make his spade trial by bidding 2NT, but again this is irrelevant). For those reasons, I feel that the explanation, albeit perhaps incomplete, did describe E/W's agreements as stated by West. What remains to be destermined is whether N/S could reasonably, at their high level of expertise, understand that the explanation 'looking for support' implied a genuine suit. This is a very different explanation as 'looking for cover cards', which will often be made on a weak 3-card suit, a different kind of trial bids altogether. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 02:16:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5OGFnx14850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 02:15:49 +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 (sss.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5OGFiH14846 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 02:15:44 +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 SAA18457; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 18:00:29 +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 SAA16440; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 18:02:14 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 18:10:00 +0200 To: "Konrad Ciborowski" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: <011701c21b77$e0f1db00$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:08 24/06/2002 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David J. Grabiner" >To: >Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 4:47 AM >Subject: [BLML] Legal but unethical > > > > There has been a discussion as to whether an action can be legal but > > unethical. > >WBF Code Of Practice > >+-------------------------------------------+ >A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse of ethics where a >player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of the >conduct of players. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations >is not subject to criticism. >+-------------------------------------------+ AG : IBTD. There are many attitudes that do conform to the rules but are subject to criticism, if not by TDs, at least by the average person. 1) asking about a bid you don't bother with, in case partner wants to know 2) murmuring your bids when you know the opponent has bad hearing 3) purposely deciding to play an inferior contract, to get training for playing NT (or, conversely, suit) etc. E'ingTBF. Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 03:56:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5OHtwd14921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 03:55:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5OHtrH14917 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 03:55:54 +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 KAA01514; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:42:20 -0700 Message-Id: <200206241742.KAA01514@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:08:35 +0200." <011701c21b77$e0f1db00$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:42:45 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad wrote: > > There has been a discussion as to whether an action can be legal but > > unethical. > > WBF Code Of Practice > > +-------------------------------------------+ > A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse of ethics where a > player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of the > conduct of players. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations > is not subject to criticism. > +-------------------------------------------+ Law 72B3 says: "There is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of law committed by one's own side." Misexplanations are an exception to this rule. I think I can understand the sentiment behind this law. Many infractions are things that ought to be noticed by everyone, so perhaps it doesn't violate the spirit of the game to put the responsibility on the non-offenders for being awake enough to notice what's going on. This is certainly the case for things like insufficient bids, calls and plays out of turn, bids of more than seven, doubling your partner's bid, etc. It's also the case for revokes when there is no claim or concession. In that case, the non-offenders "should" notice when an opponent has failed to follow suit and then, on a later trick, played a card he could have followed suit with earlier. Noticing this is appreciably more difficult than noticing an insufficient bid, e.g., so perhaps it should be argued that the non-offenders shouldn't be responsible for noticing the opponents' revokes; nevertheless, it's not "unreasonable" to expect the NOs to be responsible for noticing revokes. But when a player fails to follow suit, and the card he could have followed suit with is still in his hand when a claim or concession occurs, it *is* unreasonable to expect the NOs to notice that a revoke has taken place. How would they do this? Are players expected to inspect everyone else's hand every time a claim or concession occurs to make sure a revoke hasn't occurred? (As far as I can tell, the Laws don't even give players an absolute right to see their opponents' hands, when a claim has not been contested.) Are players expected to exercise their L61B rights every time an opponent fails to follow suit? So I think this is a serious defect in the Laws, and I think L72B3 needs to be amended to add an exception for revokes committed by one's own side. That is, a player who notices that he or his partner has revoked *should* have the obligation to draw attention to his own infraction, after play has been concluded---at the very least, this should be an obligation if there has been a claim or concession. I'd say this ought to apply if the revoke is noticed at any time before the end of the correction period. Please note that I am *not* asking for players to be penalized when they revoke and neither they nor their opponents ever notice it. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 06:27:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5OKQXL15003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 06:26:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5OKQRH14999 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 06:26:28 +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 g5OKCtL18096; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:12:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:02:15 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au cc: Konrad Ciborowski , Alain Gottcheiner X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/24/02, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >1) asking about a bid you don't bother with, in case partner wants to know As I understand it, this one is controversial - some of us believe it's illegal as a violation of Law 73B1. >2) murmuring your bids when you know the opponent has bad hearing Violates Law 74A. >3) purposely deciding to play an inferior contract, to get training for >playing NT (or, conversely, suit) I dunno that I would criticise this (the criticism itself would violate Law 74A). It's probably not illegal, although it may be stupid. :-) >etc. Dunno about this one. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 07:00:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5OL09k15025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 07:00:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5OL03H15021 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 07:00:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1397.bb.online.no [80.212.213.117]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA29219 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:46:28 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000d01c21bc0$36f9b340$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:46:24 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Alain Gottcheiner" ..... > > > There has been a discussion as to whether an action can be legal but > > > unethical. > > > >WBF Code Of Practice > > > >+-------------------------------------------+ > >A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse of ethics where a > >player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of the > >conduct of players. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations > >is not subject to criticism. > >+-------------------------------------------+ > > AG : IBTD. There are many attitudes that do conform to the rules but are > subject to criticism, if not by TDs, at least by the average person. > > 1) asking about a bid you don't bother with, in case partner wants to know This is illegal under Law 73B1 > 2) murmuring your bids when you know the opponent has bad hearing This is illegal under Law 74A2 > 3) purposely deciding to play an inferior contract, to get training for > playing NT (or, conversely, suit) Why should that be unethical? Under normal circumstances it will be self-damaging. > etc. > > E'ingTBF. > > 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/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 07:16:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5OLFoM15059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 07:15:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5OLFjH15055 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 07:15:45 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5OL2B612652 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:02:11 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200206242102.g5OL2B612652@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:02:11 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Sven Pran" at Jun 24, 2002 10:46:24 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:46:24 +0200 > > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > ..... > > > > 3) purposely deciding to play an inferior contract, to get training for > > playing NT (or, conversely, suit) > > Why should that be unethical? Under normal circumstances it will be > self-damaging. > TY: And even if it is not self-damaging, part of the point of playing bridge is judgement. This is no worse than players in a pro-client partnership who play the contract that they will declare rather than allowing the client to play a marginal or tricky contract. I don't find anything unethical about this unless you are doing so for the purpose of hurting your score (for example, in partnerships that have been fighting and one doing this to exact revenge on partner by lowering the score, e.g. passing a forcing call and deliberately missing a cold biddable game, passing a cue-bid, etc) -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 08:05:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5OM51715085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 08:05:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5OM4uH15081 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 08:04:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-34-82-126.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.34.82.126] helo=electrobear) by carbon with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17Mbk4-00044B-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:51:24 +0100 From: "Ed Colley" To: Subject: [BLML] System Legal in Montreal? Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:47:30 +0100 Message-ID: <000e01c21bc8$bf8663e0$0300000a@electrobear> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi, Could anyone tell me definitively whether the following set of opening bids would be legal at WBF Category 3, e.g. the pairs at Montreal? 1C Strong (17+) or 11-13 (semi)balanced with precisely two spades 1D 11-16 with five plus spades 1H 11-16 with five plus hearts 1S 11-16 with three or four spades (either 11-13 balanced or 11-16 unbalanced, will not have five hearts) 1NT+ Innocuous (no brown sticker conventions) I can't see any reason why this would be a HUM, but I've learned it's always best to check the interpretation of the rules with the experts. Also I'd be interested in opinions as to whether I should prepare any special system materials (e.g. suggested defences). Thanks! Ed -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 08:28:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5OMSEA15103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 08:28:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from out020.verizon.net (out020pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5OMS8H15099 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 08:28:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from MIKE ([67.250.125.75]) by out020.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with SMTP id <20020624221433.EECC1765.out020.verizon.net@MIKE> for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:14:33 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c21bcc$a2d324a0$0100a8c0@MIKE> From: "mike dodson" To: References: <001f01c21a60$6b811740$0100a8c0@MIKE> <002501c21a9c$141f6f60$683f23d5@cornelis> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 10:14:12 -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 ----- Original Message -----From: "Tom Cornelis" > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "mike dodson" > > > > > Tom Cornelis wrote: > > > I do, because the proposition I made does cover all possible auctions. > > > It's not that I just believe it. It is so. I'm not being presumptuous > > > here. Natural bidding didn't have to be invented by anyone, certainly > > > not by me. > > > > I cannot swallow this. Natural bidding certainly did need to be invented. > > Any time you suggest this bid or that "must" be forcing or show this or > > that, you are depending on a framework that you may have internalized but > > is not divinely proclaimed or universally accepted. Why must anyone learn > > your (or your SO's) particular system before they are allowed to play? > > Because it's not a particular system, it's a set of simple rules, that need > not be studied. This is where I disagree. There is no natural or simple set of rules, only a set so ingrained in you that you think they are simple and natural. Try them on novices or the self taught. > > > If you have agreed with your partner that all undiscussed bids are natural > and > > forcing(?) I congratulate you on your foresight but what gives you the > right > > to foist that agreement on me? > > I'm not foisting that on you. If you and your partner in a certain situation > feel that it should mean something different, you're allowed to play this. > However, you're not allowed to hide this information. I can't tell what I don't know. Do I get a "cheat sheet" at the table to tell me what is standard to you? I don't dispute my duty to fully inform my opponents and as a practical matter like Herman's approach of describing what I conclude a bid to mean though I think full disclosure includes an expression of doubt or the fact that the situation is not firmly defined. > > We cannot and should not regulate good play, > > good bidding or good agreements. These are the province of individuals > and > > partnerships, not the regulators. > > I agree wholeheartedly. But tell me this: why are there system policies and > how can you call bidding or agreements good if they're not agreed on? Some agreements are better than others, any agreement is better than none but its for me to decide which, if any, apply to me. It is my duty to inform you of my agreements, not to have them. At the same time being aware that I may innocently suffer penalties for giving MI when I land on my feet in an undiscussed auction (and a poor score when I don't). You or the SO should not try to save me from myself by imposing your idea of good bridge on me. Of course you have a lot of company in the ACBL but that's not a recommendation in my book. Perhaps our disagreement stems from my feeling that mandating a standard is the first step on the slippery slope that leads outlawing psyches, automatic penalties for one point variances in NT range, denial of conventions as method to prohibit otherwise legal treatments and a general attitude of "I wouldn't do it that way so you can't". Mike Dodson > > Best regards, > > Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 09:25:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5ONP4415146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:25:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5ONOxH15142 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:24:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.148.76]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020624231128.EXH295.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 00:11:28 +0100 Message-ID: <00b301c21bd5$7bab40c0$ac9c68d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Wish List Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 00:17:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Summary of obvious law simplifications: Please comment and add more... 1. Remove subjective assessments of "ability" or "rationality" or "intent". Enforce the same law for experts & tyros. Under current Bridge law, it is incredible that tournament directors are not regularly sued for slander. (: Real-life courts have legal privileges :) 2. Have one shared electronic timer and bidding box on each table (cost trivial) When you make a call on it, "punches" the clock. Automatic penalties for... a. Failing to wait 10 secs after "stop". b. Waiting longer than 10 secs before making other calls. c. Failing to wait 3 secs before a call. (: The idea is to change the emphasis from subjective "tempo UI" to the objective tempo itself :) 3. Ban alerts. (: Imagine how many cheating opportunities and TD calls that would save :). 4. Define a comprehensive international bridge system. If any call/play is "undiscussed" in your system you must assign the standard WBF system meaning. This is an extreme form of Tom Cornelis' recommendation and would reduce the frequency of common abuses aimed at avoiding the divulging of information or of being penalised for MI. (: (A) In a long competition e.g. the EBU Brighton Summer Congress, at least a couple of times per session, experts in regular partnerships will claim only "undiscussed" in response to your query about a common auction -- You feel that they always "guess" the right meaning though they won't tell you it. Many foreign players play at Brighton, so a "local" EBU standard system would not work :) (: (B) Many e.g. Ghestem players refuse to discuss or learn their methods at all, preferring the disruption of what is, in effect, "a random psyche". This law would at least prevent the frequent cheerful "undiscussed" reply and they would have to base any action they take on divulged "information" :) 5. Define "defaults" once and for all e.g (i) "heart" means "lowest heart" (ii) "run hearts" means "from the top" (iii) Unless otherwise specified, claimers are assumed to have drawn all the trumps and taken all the finesses that they intend to; and their cards are to be played from the top down but otherwise in any order. (iv) Mis-claimers and others who have obviously had a daft brainstorm of some kind and appear to have lost the place are not assumed suddenly to revert to their customary omniscience and rationality. 6. As David Stevenson recommends... Record psyches, infractions, on an WBF database, so as to be able to establish patterns. When you subscribe to an SO, each year you agree to this invasion of privacy. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 10:03:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P03DU15171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:03:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5P038H15167 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:03:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from rota.alumni.princeton.edu (pcp01782626pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net [68.32.52.241]) by mtaout05.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GY800LE7I6CWL@mtaout05.icomcast.net> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 19:49:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 19:49:24 -0400 From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-reply-to: <011701c21b77$e0f1db00$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> X-Sender: davidgrabiner@mail.comcast.net To: Konrad Ciborowski , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020624194751.016b48b0@mail.comcast.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:08 PM 6/24/2002 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David J. Grabiner" >To: >Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 4:47 AM >Subject: [BLML] Legal but unethical > > > > There has been a discussion as to whether an action can be legal but > > unethical. > >WBF Code Of Practice > >+-------------------------------------------+ >A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse of ethics where a >player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of the >conduct of players. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations >is not subject to criticism. >+-------------------------------------------+ This isn't really the issue. A contestant may only be *penalized* for a lapse of ethics when he is in breach of the laws. But the discussion suggests that a contestant may be in violation of ethics and not subject to penalty. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 10:55:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P0skJ15245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:54:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5P0sOH15204 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:54:25 +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 17MeO1-0000Es-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 01:40:56 +0100 Message-ID: <1aFcn6AdE0F9Ewjh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:56:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020614081725.00afbb20@pop.starpower.net> <00d301c213b4$1257f330$713f23d5@cornelis> <004f01c21609$d89efcd0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> In-Reply-To: <004f01c21609$d89efcd0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> Tom Cornelis writes >> >With on-line bridge, people explain their own bids. There can never be MI >> >(unless deliberate). >> This is not correct. A player bids 4S, which he believes to show >> clubs. He says it shows clubs, which is MI. His partner, who knows it >> does not show clubs, takes some action, and the opponents are damaged. >How can the opponents be damaged? As he has clubs, there's no MI. If his >partner bases his action on something else, surely the opponents can't be >damaged by MI? If your LHO bids 4S showing diamonds in the system, but says it shows clubs, and he has clubs, then it may be jolly unlucky if you now let 6S through by leading the wrong minor, but the Law is clear: if the agreement is diamonds then you were misinformed, and are damaged iff your lead is because of the MI. The fact that LHO has clubs 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 Jun 25 10:55:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P0sxm15248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:54:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5P0sXH15222 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:54:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17MeOC-0000Eo-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 01:41:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:26:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Split scores for claims References: <200206211214.NAA29970@tempest.npl.co.uk> <003501c2195d$5c1db960$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <003501c2195d$5c1db960$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >In a similar situation described on BLML not long ago, declarer claimed on a >squeeze and then failed to execute the squeeze properly when illegally >playing the hand out. The play subsequent to the claim was deemed >irrelevant, as if it had not occurred, and the claim was allowed. Kojak and >others convinced most of us, I believe, that this was the correct ruling. No, that's not similar, and has occurred since [I gave such a ruling at the Spring Fours]. That is just a matter of judgement as to the outcome of a claim, and that's common enough. It is difficult to think of a legal method of splitting a score after a claim since a claim involves no adjusted score, and a split involves an adjusted score. However, so long as there was for some reason *both* a claim and an adjusted score, then the ruling may be correct. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 10:55:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P0t0B15249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:55:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5P0sYH15224 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:54:36 +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 17MeOC-0000En-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 01:41:05 +0100 Message-ID: <06fcPcB3c0F9Ewhd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:22:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Careless bids forbidden? References: <000701c21910$f35d14d0$6200a8c0@pournaras> <4.3.2.7.0.20020621171643.00b18b20@pop.starpower.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020621171643.00b18b20@pop.starpower.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >At 06:46 AM 6/21/02, Takis wrote: > >>Mr Ton Kooijman has just announced, in the 6th issue of the European >>Bridge >>Teams Championships, a new idea for the upcoming revision of bridge >>laws: To >>give the organising bodies the ability to adjust scores after certain >>misbids, considering the other side damaged as a consequence of bad >>preparations (no clear agreements). >> >>As far as I'm concerned, I find this approach a bit dangerous, since >>it will >>lead to: >> >>a) the condemnation of careless play (most of the people play bridge for >>fun), of poor eyesighted people ('I thought I had 15HCP, not 13!'), of >>wrong >>bids ('I wanted to overcall 2D, not 2H'), of light 3rd seat openings etc. >> >>and >> >>b) the end of psyches (can we always judge the difference between a misbid >>and a psyche?) >> >>I'm I the only one having such worries? I would very much like to read >>your >>thoughts on the subject. > >I too would be worried that something might come of this. Ever since I >joined BLML, I have repeatedly opined that any law that smacks of >making it illegal for players not to know what they're doing will set >us along a path that will lead to the destruction of organized bridge >as we know it. It will make bridge jolly good fun for aging players since beginners will be surely frightened away from a game where a penalty is applied to a 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 Tue Jun 25 10:55:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P0tBW15252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:55:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g5P0sWH15221 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:54:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17MeOB-0000F8-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 01:41:03 +0100 Message-ID: <4KQfzTBIT0F9EwDp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:11:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004901c21369$5d0fb700$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> <002a01c213fc$11b8b840$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <003901c215c8$be819100$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <00cb01c215f2$8e9b3340$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c21627$e1ba1700$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <003b01c21627$e1ba1700$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> >> I am talking real life: we do not agree on every hesitation, and the >> game would be much slower and more problematic if we did. >> >I stress that hesitations should be agreed only in tempo-sensitive >situations. Most breaks in tempo do not provide useful UI. My policy is to >get agreement on a break only in obviously tempo-sensitive situations, >taking my chances that the UI, if misused, will be more difficult to >establish later on. I think the TD will understand: > >"Why didn't you call me when the supposed break in tempo occurred?" > >"I didn't think the situation was tempo-sensitive, sorry." > >"Okay, now let's establish whether there was unauthorized information before >I decide on any damage." > >There were numerous hesitations in opposing auctions during the game I >played yesterday, but only one that called for mutual agreement (hesitation >Blackwood). Even so, it still delays the game a fair amount when you discuss a hesitation before a signoff after Blackwood *every time* it occurs, as against the alternative method of only discussing it when it is followed by a progression. 1S 2S 3C 3D 3H 3NT 4D 4S 4NT 5D 5S[slow] Now, on most occasions responder will pass. Let us say he passes 90% of the time. So the method you and Sven suggest gets a discussion as to whether there was a hesitation on 100% of these occasions. If there is a dispute on whether there is a hesitation one time in five that means that this sequence leads to a Director call on 20% of occasions. Now when responder goes on to 6S in 10% of cases, the alternative method is to discuss the hesitation then. The NOs are not saying that there is anything untoward, but that a tempo-sensitive auction has occurred so they need to establish the tempo break. The Director will need to be called in 2% of the occasions there was a tempo break rather than 20%, plus of course the calls at the end, which will be the same in both case. So you see, Marv, we establish the tempo break, calling the TD if necessary, only in tempo-sesitive auctions: you are often doing it in tempo-insensitive auctions by doing it two calls earlier - and you are doing it far more often. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 10:55:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P0t2Z15250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:55:02 +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-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 g5P0saH15229 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:54:37 +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 17MeOC-0000Es-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 01:41:07 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:31:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Eliminating Misinformation in Auctions or How to Have a Neverending Thread References: <002401c21a35$ed9a5aa0$653f23d5@cornelis> In-Reply-To: <002401c21a35$ed9a5aa0$653f23d5@cornelis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis writes >The demon of undiscussed calls. The Law is not strict enough. If you allow >undiscussed calls, you give people an easy way to misinform their opponents >without getting punished by it. They might explain a call as undiscussed >when actually discussed, therefore having no misunderstanding and not >misinforming their opponents. (that's the ruling you currently make) Does >this not seem to be a demon to you? If your worry is people lying then changing the Law to require people to lie seems very strange. If your worry is people getting good boards through not knowing what they are doing I like that: they get three times and more as many bad boards against me by not knowing what they are doing! If your worry is the poor people who believe they *deserve* a good score whenever their oppos make a mistake then it is time they learnt about LIFE. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 10:55:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P0t2l15251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:55:02 +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-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 g5P0saH15230 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:54:37 +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 17MeOC-0000Eu-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 01:41:07 +0100 Message-ID: <0KWcTCCQr0F9EwCf@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:37:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David J. Grabiner writes >There has been a discussion as to whether an action can be legal but >unethical. While it relates to claims, I think the same situation can >apply in other situations. > >For example: > >You revoke, and the opponents don't notice. You are aware of the revoke, >and it has been established when the deal ends with a claim. It is legal >not to call the TD about the revoke. This was resolved many years before BLML came in to being: it was decided it was legal and ethical not to call the TD about the revoke, but not to hide it [eg] by deliberately shuffling your cards to avoid opponents checking. L72B3 and L72B4 refer. >Is it ethical not to call if the revoke was harmless? Yes. >Is it ethical not to call attention if your opponent claims, "My hand is >good," never bothering to look at the opposing hands and thus not seeing >the card you should have played to the revoke trick? (Or is this an >improper acquiescence to a claim, since declarer claimed ten tricks and >would have surely had eleven if he had played the hand out and collected >the revoke penalty?) Yes. Hiding your hand is not acceptable. >Is it ethical not to call if you won a trick that you could never have won >without the revoke? Yes. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 10:55:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P0soR15246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:54:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g5P0sNH15202 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:54:23 +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 17MeO0-0000Eo-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 01:40:54 +0100 Message-ID: <1aAc3vAJB0F9EwDD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:52:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613093355.00aadc70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613132849.00aa51e0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020614092816.00aa6b60@pop.starpower.net> <00d701c213b6$04dc3070$713f23d5@cornelis> <005501c2160b$5f09bc00$6f3f23d5@cornelis> In-Reply-To: <005501c2160b$5f09bc00$6f3f23d5@cornelis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> I think to play a terribly inefficient and useless system because if I >> agree an efficient one I will not have covered absolutely everything is >> a serious mistake. >How can it be so inefficient if it cover 6 times more of the auctions? You >are a lot less likely to have misunderstandings (none if your partner >understand what I imply). When you play bridge, the most common agreements cover about 98% of the hands that turn up, the six times more auctions are needed for the other 2% of the hands. Now, if I have a system that gains me 2 imps a board on average, and every 50th board loses me on average 5 imps on a misinformation ruling, then that is more efficient than working out some awful but incredibly simple system [like any club bid *always* shows clubs] which loses on average 6 imps a board but gets no misinformation problems. >Think about it. Try it. Being in the right contract is more a matter of >judgement on what contract you want to play, than a matter of judgement on >what convention you will use to get there. I don't think so!!!! If the bidding goes 1D 1H 1S 4H ? you can judge better if you play negative doubles than if you have agreed "All doubles are penalties" to simplify the system. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 10:55:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P0sqt15247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:54:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g5P0sPH15208 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:54:26 +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 17MeO1-0000Eu-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 01:40:56 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:02:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Advice References: <002701c212a6$3bf861c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004901c21369$5d0fb700$6ce41e3e@mikeamos> <002a01c213fc$11b8b840$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <003901c215c8$be819100$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <00cb01c215f2$8e9b3340$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <001101c215fb$8676c360$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <001101c215fb$8676c360$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" >....... >> >> Now consider what happens when you wait to see if there is a call >that >> >> is potentially affected by the hesitation. This occurs about one time >> >> in six, maybe. That's four times, one director call. >> > >> >And then of course "Hesitation ????? NO WAY!!!!!!" >> >After which the director has an impossible task of establishing what >really >> >happened five minutes ago. >> >> It takes FIVE MINUTES to make two calls? > >Two calls? I am talking about waiting until all cards of the doubtful hand >are known. That will most often be at the end of the play (declarer or >either defender). The method used in many cases, which this thread is saying is wrong, is that when a player hesitates and doubles, opponents wait to see whether there could be any possible ill effects, which is normally partner's next call. If a player hesitates, his partner takes some action that could be suggested by it, and the discussion about hesitating, reserving rights, calling Directors and so on happens then , you save about 90% of discussions and Director calls. I have made no suggestion that you wait until the end of the hand before establishing a hesitation - that would be crazy! >Of course if you are so lucky that it was the dummy who hesitated, and >just before the end of the auction, but how often is that the case? > >> >> Trust me, it is not much different to wait two calls! >> >> >> >I prefer the new way. It leads to better relations between players and >> >fewer >> >> >TD calls. >> > >> >Exactly our experience. >> > >> >> >> >> 24 discussions, six director calls is not a better game than four >> >> discussions, one director call, however many director calls there are >at >> >> the rend of the hand - probably one in either case. >> > >> >Theory? >> > >> >What is your experience from real life? (The Norwegian players >> >cannot be THAT different in attitude compared to others?) >> >> I am talking real life: we do not agree on every hesitation, and the >> game would be much slower and more problematic if we did. > >Nor do we agree upon every hesitation, but when the question is raised >immediately we have much less discussion about the fact, and as I said >much less overall waste of time. No, not if you have to discuss *every* hesitation. That loses time. >OK, Norwegian players must show a different attitude than others? I am sure that Norwegian players do not establish *every* hesitation - it is just too impractical. >Have a nice trip to South Africa! Thanks - I did. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 10:55:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P0sfJ15236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:54:42 +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 g5P0sMH15201 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:54:23 +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 17MeNz-0000En-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 01:40:52 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:46:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <000801c21606$fe9815f0$9f06ba12@Herot> <006d01c21616$9348ab60$3b9d68d5@default> In-Reply-To: <006d01c21616$9348ab60$3b9d68d5@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie writes >An opponent asks about your partner's bid in an >auction that you do not remember discussing. >You infer meaning(s) but are unsure of your >deductions. >Among your possible statements are: >1. "No agreement." >2. "Undiscussed, but, if you want, I'll tell you > what I think. With probability estimates?" >3. "It means... [your deductions]". >The first option seems a cunning prevarication >since your understanding of the meaning is >likely to be better than your opponents even >just from negative inferences. If that is true, then the answer is not acceptable. Either a sequence really has no meaning in the partnership, or it does not. It is not an attempt to prevaricate when a player says he has no agreement: either it is true, or it is not true. If true, then your answer #3 is unacceptable, and answer #2 and the like not particularly helpful. If, as you suggest, answer #1 is not true, then none of #1, #2, #3 is acceptable. Why not choose #4, tell the opponents what your agreements are. I shall give you an example. I sit down tomorrow opposite Ed Reppert, and quickly gabble that we shall play 5-card majors, strong no-trump, Stayman, Transfers, negative doubles, and lead the fourth highest of partner's shortest suit against no-trumps. On the second round RHO opens 1S, I bid 1NT, LHO passes, and partner bids 2C. RHO asks - now what? To say "no agreement" is a breach of L75A. It is not a full disclosure of the partnership agreement. To say "Stayman" is a breach of L75A. It is not a full disclosure of the partnership agreement because we have not agreed "System On" over 1NT overcalls. Now, personally I cannot imagine why anyone would want to play "System Off". But 36 years of competitive bridge have shown me that some people think it right. So I tell the opponents the extent of our agreements, ie that we agreed to play Stayman in response to a 1NT opening, but we have no agreement what to play over a 1NT overcall [and no experience to provide an implicit understanding, and no knowledge of each other's other partners to provide an implicit understanding]. I have now followed the dictates of L75A. Furthermore, I have told the opponents my basis for my future bidding. I have told the absolute and complete truth, I have fully informed the opponents. Tom says I should tell the opponents 2C is natural. Herman and Nigel say I should make something up [presumably that it is Stayman], and tell opponents that, and if it is not lose an adjustment, not for lying, but for bad guessing, despite the Law saying otherwise. Herman is doing this under the current Law, Nigel wants a Law change - and says it will save TD time!!!!!!!!!! Why should we not tell opponents the truth? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 10:56:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P0tgg15258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:55:43 +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 g5P0tOH15254 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:55:25 +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 17MeP2-0000JR-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 01:41:54 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:30:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <000801c21606$fe9815f0$9f06ba12@Herot> <008b01c21614$79c732d0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> In-Reply-To: <008b01c21614$79c732d0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis writes >The problem is that our intentions conflict with the availability of calls. >That's not the problem of the Law. I'm not saying you have to make specific >agreements about all the auctions. I'm saying you have to explain >accordingly. If you didn't agree, explain it as natural (in the most >meaningful sense). I'm not familiar with the agreements of Meckwell, but >they should also explain undiscussed auctions as natural, not undiscussed >(cfr. example where 3D was interpreted as nat). The basis of our current Law is that the opponents have a right o the truth about your agreements whether you can remember the truth or not. You want to replace that with lying about your agreements. I cannot see that that can possibly be good for the game of bridge. Apart from any other consideration, while it is easy to find odd hands where lying benefits the opposition, it will often be the case, possibly even usually be the case, that it is to the opponents' advantage to inform them correctly. If you have no agreement and tell opponents a sequence shows a natural bid, when it does not because it is undiscussed, they will assume you are basing your bidding on something when you are not. So, if you tell opponents an auction is natural when it is undiscussed, then you gain an unfair advantage in the many cases where they would benefit from knowing the truth about your beliefs. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 11:18:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P1HjO15339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:17:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5P1HcH15335 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:17:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.148.106]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020625005325.VDNX19225.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 01:53:25 +0100 Message-ID: <00ef01c21be3$ba6fa400$ac9c68d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <001f01c21a60$6b811740$0100a8c0@MIKE> <002501c21a9c$141f6f60$683f23d5@cornelis> <000001c21bcc$a2d324a0$0100a8c0@MIKE> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 02:00:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie: I enjoyed the following exchange of views. At the end I have added my tuppence worth. Tom Cornelis: >>> I do, because the proposition I made >>> does cover all possible auctions. >>> It's not that I just believe it. >>> It is so. I'm not being presumptuous >>> here. Natural bidding didn't have to >>> be invented by anyone, certainly >>> not by me. Mike Dodson >> I cannot swallow this. >> Natural bidding certainly did need >> to be invented. >> Any time you suggest this bid or >> that "must" be forcing or show this >> or that, you are depending on a >> framework that you may have >> internalized but is not divinely >> proclaimed or universally accepted. >> Why must anyone learn your >> (or your SO's) particular system before >> they are allowed to play? Tom Cornelis: > Because it's not a particular system, > it's a set of simple rules, that need > not be studied. Mike Dodson This is where I disagree. There is no natural or simple set of rules, only a set so ingrained in you that you think they are simple and natural. Try them on novices or the self taught. Mike Dodson >> If you have agreed with your partner >> that all undiscussed bids are natural >> and forcing(?) I congratulate you on >> your foresight but what gives you the >> right to foist that agreement on me? Nigel Guthrie I agree with Mike: "Natural" usually means "What I like and to which am accustomed". The only really natural bids are those that you would be delighted to become the final contract like a limited one no-trump or a weak two heart opening bid. Tom Cornelis: > I'm not foisting that on you. If you > and your partner in a certain situation > feel that it should mean something > different, you're allowed to play this. > However, you're not allowed to hide this > information. Mike Dodson I can't tell what I don't know. Do I get a "cheat sheet" at the table to tell me what is standard to you? Mike Dodson I don't dispute my duty to fully inform my opponents and as a practical matter like Herman's approach of describing what I conclude a bid to mean though I think full disclosure includes an expression of doubt or the fact that the situation is not firmly defined. Mike Dodson >> We cannot and should not regulate good >> play, good bidding or good agreements. >> These are the province of individuals >> and partnerships, not the regulators. Tom Cornelis: > I agree wholeheartedly. But tell me > this: why are there system policies > and how can you call bidding or > agreements good if they're not agreed > on? Mike Dodson Some agreements are better than others, any agreement is better than none but its for me to decide which, if any, apply to me. It is my duty to inform you of my agreements, not to have them. At the same time being aware that I may innocently suffer penalties for giving MI when I land on my feet in an undiscussed auction (and a poor score when I don't). You or the SO should not try to save me from myself by imposing your idea of good bridge on me. Of course you have a lot of company in the ACBL but that's not a recommendation in my book. Mike Dodson Perhaps our disagreement stems from my feeling that mandating a standard is the first step on the slippery slope that leads outlawing psyches, automatic penalties for one point variances in NT range, denial of conventions as method to prohibit otherwise legal treatments and a general attitude of "I wouldn't do it that way so you can't". Nigel Guthrie: If Tom got his way (and I got mine) then (1) The system would only a be standard base from which to depart. (2) It would facilitate alerting (alert only what is not in the system). (3) It would be the natural starting point for beginners instead of the current Tower of Babel. Many tyro competitions would be based on it. (4) It would help media coverage of Bridge because it would provide a common basic vocabulary. (5) It would encourage standardisation where the choice is really arbitrary e.g. between odd-even or even-odd. (6) Early editions would have flaws and omissions; but an annual update would ensure that as new ideas emerged they could be incorporated (e.g. Stayman, Lightner, Transfers, Sputnik, RKCB, FSF, Lebensohl). It would get better. (7) However the main strategy to ensure comprehensive coverage is to keep things as "natural" as possible (where natural is defined as keeping to the general principles of the system). Jeff Rubens seems to be able to keep things "natural" while covering all bases. (8) It would vitiate "undiscussed" attempts to refuse to divulge information or avoid MI penalties. (9) It would make it harder for those who want to use Truscott or Ghestem as an undiscussed "Random Psyche". (10) It would please nobody but be fair to everybody. (11) Ely would rest happy in his grave. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 12:28:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P2Rtd15408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:27:55 +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-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 g5P2RYH15394 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:27:35 +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 17MfqF-000BOF-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 03:14:05 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 02:45:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish List References: <00b301c21bd5$7bab40c0$ac9c68d5@default> In-Reply-To: <00b301c21bd5$7bab40c0$ac9c68d5@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie writes >Summary of obvious law simplifications: >Please comment and add more... > >1. Remove subjective assessments of > "ability" or "rationality" or "intent". > Enforce the same law for experts & tyros. > Under current Bridge law, it is > incredible that tournament directors are > not regularly sued for slander. This always sounds so easy, but is so patently unfair. If you are going to judge hands, it is quite ridiculous that you have ot make judgements that you knwo do not apply ot the pair in question. >3. Ban alerts. > (: Imagine how many cheating opportunities > and TD calls that would save :). Very funny. This would really set bridge back sixty years. I do not know whether you really want to wreck the game for everyone or are just winding everyone up. >4. Define a comprehensive international > bridge system. This idea seems to have no point. >6. As David Stevenson recommends... I do? > Record psyches, infractions, on an > WBF database, so as to be able > to establish patterns. When you > subscribe to an SO, each year you > agree to this invasion of privacy. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 12:28:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P2RrR15406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:27:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5P2RVH15382 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:27:32 +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 17Mfq9-000BOI-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 03:14:02 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 02:37:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020617083100.00b0a880@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020617170100.00afde10@pop.starpower.net> <002d01c21653$24041860$633f23d5@cornelis> <001d01c216c3$0dc91170$6f3f23d5@cornelis> <000a01c216f0$b9272e30$763f23d5@cornelis> <008e01c2187b$534b4100$713f23d5@cornelis> In-Reply-To: <008e01c2187b$534b4100$713f23d5@cornelis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis writes >Hello all, > >I'm going to summarize a bit. >1) I propose that SO draw up standards, so that there mat be no further >confusing about the meaning of an undiscussed call. The SO has to set standards? For every call? You expect every club in the world to produce a document setting standards just to give a partnership a frame of reference for lying about their agreements? Why? -------- Tom Cornelis writes >What's wrong with this proposition, surely, a letter or A4 sheet will >suffice? The stuff that you put on an A4 sheet would be the bits that people do not get wrong now. For your proposition to work 200 A4 sheets seems more the 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 Tue Jun 25 12:28:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P2RtS15407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:27:55 +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-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 g5P2RXH15389 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:27:34 +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 17MfqF-000BOE-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 03:14:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 02:40:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >On 6/24/02, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>1) asking about a bid you don't bother with, in case partner wants to >know > >As I understand it, this one is controversial - some of us believe it's >illegal as a violation of Law 73B1. The "some of us" includes an official pronouncement by the WBFLC in their minutes. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 12:28:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P2RqS15405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:27:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g5P2RVH15381 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:27:31 +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 17Mfq8-000BOH-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 03:14:02 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 02:36:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020617083100.00b0a880@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020617170100.00afde10@pop.starpower.net> <002d01c21653$24041860$633f23d5@cornelis> <002801c21725$73079220$3b9a68d5@default> In-Reply-To: <002801c21725$73079220$3b9a68d5@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie writes >I agree with Tom Cornelis but go even further. >I advocate that the Laws specify just one >"Internationally Agreed Standard System" >(decided by votes or a lottery -- no matter). >You alert any convention that is not in accord >with these standard principles. >As Tom says, you must play any undiscussed bid, >in accord with the standard (usually "natural"). >Then, when playing away from home, you would >... always know when to alert and >... be made aware of local idiosyncracies. >Currently a foreigner is at an enormous >disadvantage in the alerting game. >Only Chauvinists and unemployed TDs would seek >to maintain this arbitrary and unfair handicap. I think you have forgotten the majority of players who actually enjoy playing bridge rather than spending their time bridge lawyering. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 12:28:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P2Ro715404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:27:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5P2RSH15372 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:27:28 +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 17Mfq8-000BOF-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 03:13:59 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 02:25:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <004501c219fa$a5497b90$6a3f23d5@cornelis> In-Reply-To: <004501c219fa$a5497b90$6a3f23d5@cornelis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis writes >From: "Tim West-meads" >> 1NT P 2S where I am playing red-suit transfers. I just end up saying >> "undiscussed, as natural as possible - but because we play 2H as a >> transfer it probably isn't possible to be a weak hand with spades" and we >> are back where we started. I, and my many and varied short-term partners, >> will often make bids that can't possibly be natural without having >> discussed it. I often don't know what SO they play under or even if they >> have read their SO's regulations (and most haven't). I will keep my >> opponents as well informed as I am myself and any accusation of >> misinformation will continue to be unfounded. > >So you wouldn't mind if players explain calls as undiscussed, where they >would *know* what the call means, because you would rather like to have the >freedom yourself to explain a call as undiscussed, where you have no clue >what it means? Under the current Law if you have no agreement you are not allowed to give one. How do you infer from this that you an opponent can tell a deliberate lie and hide an agreement that he has? How do you infer that he is allowed to do this under the current Laws? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 12:28:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P2RwQ15409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:27:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5P2RSH15374 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:27:29 +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 17Mfq8-000BOG-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 03:14:00 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 02:31:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <000401c21567$4752f8f0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> <005b01c2160c$eedffaf0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> In-Reply-To: <005b01c2160c$eedffaf0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> Tom Cornelis writes >> >> >> 1. P - 1D - P - 1NT >> >> 2D >> >> is 2D natural or take-out for the majors? >> >> >If you agreed to play Michael's cuebid, it's for the majors. If you >didn't >> >make an agreement about direct cue-bids, it's natural. >> >> I play Michaels with a number of partners. I am sure that some would >> take this sequence as Michaels, and some would not. > >If yo don't know which, what will you do? Assume Michael's? Assume natural? >Look at your hand? Why not assume what the Law prescribes? You agreed to >play Michael's, so play it. Of course I did not agree to play Michaels in this position, and why should you or anyone else tell me what I should play? I agreed to play Michaels in the direct position. I think your approach is fine for a computer game, but I think actual players should be allowed to play some bridge rather than be told how to play and when to tell lies. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 12:28:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P2Rif15403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:27:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5P2RRH15369 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:27:27 +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 17Mfq8-000BOE-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 03:13:57 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 02:23:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <001d01c21a9a$e5bb2c50$683f23d5@cornelis> In-Reply-To: <001d01c21a9a$e5bb2c50$683f23d5@cornelis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis writes >From: "Tim West-meads" >> My opponents are >> entitled to full disclosure of my agreements and understandings. If "I >> haven't a clue" is the full extent of my understanding they are entitled >> to know that. If it turns out that my not having a clue was a result of >> forgetfulness rather than ignorance then they will (if damaged) be >> entitled to redress. >So you're willing to hide the meaning of a call, because this bad Law gives >you the right to do so? Yes, we are willing to hide a meaning that does not exist rather than tell a lie about it, because this good Law tells us, and because we believe in honesty. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 12:58:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P2wQp15470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:58:26 +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 g5P2wMH15466 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:58:22 +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 MAA28670 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:59:35 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:40:58 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:44:23 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 25/06/2002 12:40:38 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>WBF Code Of Practice >> >>+-------------------------------------------+ >>A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse >>of ethics where a player is in breach of the >>provisions of the laws in respect of the >>conduct of players. A player who has conformed >>to the laws and regulations is not subject to >>criticism. >>+-------------------------------------------+ David Grabiner replied: >This isn't really the issue. A contestant may >only be *penalized* for a lapse of ethics when he >is in breach of the laws. But the discussion >suggests that a contestant may be in violation of >ethics and not subject to penalty. My belief is that acting within the Laws is by definition ethical. The solution to David Grabiner's issue is not to penalise or ostracise the player who has acted lawfully but "unethically". Instead, change the Laws to accord with current "ethical" norms. For example, L72B3 could be changed from: "There is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertant infraction of law committed by one's own side (but see footnote to Law 75 for a mistaken explanation)." to: "One is obliged to draw attention to an inadvertant infraction of law committed by one's own side as soon as one becomes aware of it (but see footnote to Law 75 for a mistaken explanation)." *But*, until L72B3 is changed, players are entitled to "ethically" benefit from their inadvertent revokes whenever their opponents are unobservant. 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 Jun 25 17:59:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P7wsb15665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:58:55 +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 g5P7woH15661 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:58:50 +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 SAA21005 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 18:00:04 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:41:24 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Careless bids forbidden? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:44:54 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 25/06/2002 05:41:05 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] >And yet, in the ACBL's General Conditions of Contest for Pair Events, dated >June 10, 2002, we see: > >5. A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in >probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if >their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and >how to use the convention that was employed. > >That is outrageous, even though many times I have wished I could get such >redress. It was written by people who don't have problems with conventions >and don't want those who do to give them any trouble. > >I'm reaching the age of forgetfulness myself. When Alice and I changed our >notrump defense a few years ago, one of us would sometimes misremember until >some zeros refreshed our memory banks. On one such occasion at an NABC, an >ACBL TD said (after we received a good score) he was told by another TD that >we had had trouble with the defense during a previous tournament. If it >happened again, he said, we would be barred from using it. It didn't happen >again, but maybe I should have created a test case. > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California A similar outrageous thing happened to me when playing in a Congress Pairs in Darwin. During a particular session, both my partner and I had each psyched once. The TD ordered us both not to psyche any more. I did not create a test case for L40A, and did not subsequently appeal the TD's ruling because ... Our results on our subsequent compulsory non-psychic boards were good enough to win us the event. :-) 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 Jun 25 18:14:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P8EV815698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 18:14:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (mta06-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5P8EQH15694 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 18:14:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.153.11]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020625080055.XDAE4119.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:00:55 +0100 Message-ID: <004301c21c1f$752de0a0$0b9968d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Re: Wish List Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:07:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk (more corrections) Summary: obvious law simplifications: Please comment and add more... 1. Remove subjective assessments of "ability" or "rationality" or "intent". Enforce the same law for experts & tyros. Under current Bridge law, it is incredible that tournament directors are not regularly sued for slander. (: Real-life courts have legal privileges :) 2. Have one shared electronic timer and bidding box on each table (cost trivial) When you make a call on it, it "punches" the clock. Automatic penalties for... a. Failing to wait 10 secs after "stop". b. Waiting longer than 10 secs before making other calls. c. Failing to wait 3 secs before a call. (: The idea is to change the emphasis from subjective "tempo UI" to the objective tempo itself :) 3. Ban alerts; (: Imagine how many cheating opportunities and TD calls that would save :) (: or at least make the default NO alerts - with UI penalties for half-alerts :) 4. Define a comprehensive international bridge system. If any call/play is "undiscussed" in your system you must assign the standard WBF system meaning. This is an extreme form of Tom Cornelis' recommendation and would reduce the frequency of common abuses aimed at not divulging information or avoiding being penalised for MI (A) In a long competition e.g. the EBU Brighton Summer Congress, a couple of times per session, an expert in regular partnerships will claim "undiscussed" in response to your query about a common auction. You feel that they always "guess" the right meaning though they won't tell you. Many foreign players play at Brighton, so a "local" EBU standard system would not work) (B) Many e.g. Ghestem players refuse to discuss or learn their methods at all, preferring the disruption of what is, in effect, "a random psyche". This law would at least prevent the frequent cheerful "undiscussed" reply and they would have to base any action they take on divulged "information" (C) If you must have alerts, it resolves all decisions about what to alert no matter where you play. -- Anything outside the standard system is alertable :) 5. Define a comprehensive set of "defaults" once and for all e.g. (i) "heart" means "lowest heart" (ii) "run hearts" means "from the top" (iii) Unless otherwise specified, claimers are assumed to have drawn all the trumps and taken all the finesses that they intend to; and their cards are to be played from the top down but otherwise in any order. (iv) Mis-claimers and others - who have obviously had a daft brainstorm of some kind and appear to have lost the place - are not assumed suddenly to revert to their customary omniscience & rationality. 6. Record psyches, infractions, on an WBF database, so as to be able to establish patterns. When you subscribe to an SO, each year you agree to this invasion of privacy. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 18:47:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P8lLF15751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 18:47:21 +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 (ph.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5P8lFH15747 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 18:47:16 +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 KAA13690; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:31:59 +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 KAA27076; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:33:44 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020625104051.00ac34d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:41:31 +0200 To: "Sven Pran" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: <000d01c21bc0$36f9b340$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@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 22:46 24/06/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > 3) purposely deciding to play an inferior contract, to get training for > > playing NT (or, conversely, suit) >Why should that be unethical? Under normal circumstances it will be >self-damaging. AG : because some other pair will be damaged by your opponents' good score. Same as for frivolouspsyches. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 18:53:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P8rb615773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 18:53:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5P8rVH15769 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 18:53:32 +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 KAA20623; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:37:34 +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 KAA02941; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:40:00 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020625104325.00ac1a90@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:47:48 +0200 To: "Nigel Guthrie" , "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish List In-Reply-To: <00b301c21bd5$7bab40c0$ac9c68d5@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 00:17 25/06/2002 +0100, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >2. Have one shared electronic timer and > bidding box on each table (cost trivial) > When you make a call on it, "punches" > the clock. Automatic penalties for... > a. Failing to wait 10 secs after "stop". > b. Waiting longer than 10 secs before > making other calls. AG : you mean that I wil never be allowed to take more than 10 seconds to make a bid in a noncompetitive auction ?If only, to remember the system ? Better abandon bridge now ... And I'm considered as a quick player. >3. Ban alerts. > (: Imagine how many cheating opportunities > and TD calls that would save :). AG : imagine how many TD calls it would create for unappropriate questions. >5. Define "defaults" once and for all e.g > (i) "heart" means "lowest heart" AG : Isn't this the case already ? > (ii) "run hearts" means "from the top" > (iii) Unless otherwise specified, > claimers are assumed to have drawn > all the trumps and taken all the > finesses that they intend to; AG : what about marked finesses ? > and their cards are to be played > from the top down but otherwise in > any order. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 19:38:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5P9bjM15845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:37:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5P9beH15841 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:37:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.104] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id gvbkvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:24:04 +0200 Message-ID: <002801c21c2a$10416300$683f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: <000e01c21bc8$bf8663e0$0300000a@electrobear> Subject: Re: [BLML] System Legal in Montreal? Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:24:10 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Colley" To: Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 11:47 PM Subject: [BLML] System Legal in Montreal? > Hi, > > Could anyone tell me definitively whether the following set of opening > bids would be legal at WBF Category 3, e.g. the pairs at Montreal? > > 1C Strong (17+) or 11-13 (semi)balanced with precisely two spades > 1D 11-16 with five plus spades > 1H 11-16 with five plus hearts > 1S 11-16 with three or four spades > (either 11-13 balanced or 11-16 unbalanced, will not have five > hearts) > 1NT+ Innocuous (no brown sticker conventions) There's only one glitch. As 1NT is on the one-level, the opening mustn't fall in the HUM category either. As you said, 1C, 1D, 1H and 1S are not HUM. If 1NT means you have 0-1S and 0-4H, then there's no problem. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 20:00:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5PA05L15880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:00:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5PA00H15876 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:00:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.104] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id htckvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:46:21 +0200 Message-ID: <006a01c21c2d$2d9cec00$683f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613093355.00aadc70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613132849.00aa51e0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020614092816.00aa6b60@pop.starpower.net> <00d701c213b6$04dc3070$713f23d5@cornelis> <005501c2160b$5f09bc00$6f3f23d5@cornelis> <1aAc3vAJB0F9EwDD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:46:27 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 5:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > Tom Cornelis writes > >From: "David Stevenson" > [s] > When you play bridge, the most common agreements cover about 98% of > the hands that turn up, the six times more auctions are needed for the > other 2% of the hands. I misinterpreted you. I thought that when you said 1/6 of the auctions, that you meant 1/6 of the auctions that happen at the table. [s] > >Think about it. Try it. Being in the right contract is more a matter of > >judgement on what contract you want to play, than a matter of judgement on > >what convention you will use to get there. > > I don't think so!!!! If the bidding goes 1D 1H 1S 4H ? you can judge > better if you play negative doubles than if you have agreed "All doubles > are penalties" to simplify the system. That's your opinion, because you're not used to playing penalty doubles. Penalty doubles and negative doubles tend to become equal in high level competitive auctions. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 20:07:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5PA7Hc15900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:07:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5PA7CH15896 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:07:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.104] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id ayckvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:53:34 +0200 Message-ID: <007b01c21c2e$2f784640$683f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: <002401c21a35$ed9a5aa0$653f23d5@cornelis> Subject: Re: [BLML] Eliminating Misinformation in Auctions or How to Have a Neverending Thread Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:53:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 6:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Eliminating Misinformation in Auctions or How to Have a Neverending Thread > Tom Cornelis writes > > >The demon of undiscussed calls. The Law is not strict enough. If you allow > >undiscussed calls, you give people an easy way to misinform their opponents > >without getting punished by it. They might explain a call as undiscussed > >when actually discussed, therefore having no misunderstanding and not > >misinforming their opponents. (that's the ruling you currently make) Does > >this not seem to be a demon to you? > > If your worry is people lying then changing the Law to require people > to lie seems very strange. > > If your worry is people getting good boards through not knowing what > they are doing I like that: they get three times and more as many bad > boards against me by not knowing what they are doing! > > If your worry is the poor people who believe they *deserve* a good > score whenever their oppos make a mistake then it is time they learnt > about LIFE. Then why have Laws at all (L75C particularly)? The Laws provide for transport of information from a player to his opponent. Why have that? Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 20:14:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5PAEAL15921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:14:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5PAE4H15917 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:14:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.104] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id gddkvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:00:30 +0200 Message-ID: <008101c21c2f$27a376a0$683f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: <000801c21606$fe9815f0$9f06ba12@Herot> <008b01c21614$79c732d0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:00:36 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 5:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > Tom Cornelis writes > > >The problem is that our intentions conflict with the availability of calls. > >That's not the problem of the Law. I'm not saying you have to make specific > >agreements about all the auctions. I'm saying you have to explain > >accordingly. If you didn't agree, explain it as natural (in the most > >meaningful sense). I'm not familiar with the agreements of Meckwell, but > >they should also explain undiscussed auctions as natural, not undiscussed > >(cfr. example where 3D was interpreted as nat). > > The basis of our current Law is that the opponents have a right o the > truth about your agreements whether you can remember the truth or not. > > You want to replace that with lying about your agreements. I cannot > see that that can possibly be good for the game of bridge. > > Apart from any other consideration, while it is easy to find odd hands > where lying benefits the opposition, it will often be the case, possibly > even usually be the case, that it is to the opponents' advantage to > inform them correctly. If you have no agreement and tell opponents a > sequence shows a natural bid, when it does not because it is > undiscussed, they will assume you are basing your bidding on something > when you are not. What are you going to base yourself on then? > So, if you tell opponents an auction is natural when it is > undiscussed, then you gain an unfair advantage in the many cases where > they would benefit from knowing the truth about your beliefs. If you *believe* the call to mean something otherwise, you are required to explain it as such. Your personal experience of the meaning of a call, would replaced by the standard meaning. That's all. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 20:25:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5PAOkZ15946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:24:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5PAOfH15942 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:24:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.104] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id xndkvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:11:06 +0200 Message-ID: <009b01c21c30$a2b712b0$683f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020617083100.00b0a880@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020617170100.00afde10@pop.starpower.net> <002d01c21653$24041860$633f23d5@cornelis> <002801c21725$73079220$3b9a68d5@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:11:12 +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 Hi all, for the sake of the discussion, I'm going to write down the set of rules I'm talking about: The following rules apply in order of their priority: 1) when there was an agreement that explains the call, that's the meaning of the call, even if judgement would suggest otherwise (note that the standard need not be followed) 2) when there was no agreement to suggest the meaning of a call, this call should be interpreted as natural (length). It is forcing when the hand that made the call is unlimited and the call was a suit call made without jump. Otherwise it's not forcing. 3) when there was no agreement to suggest the meaning of a call, this call should be interpreted as strength if it can't be natural. 4) when there was no agreement to suggest the meaning of a call, this call should be interpreted as cue if it was made with a jump in a suit that 1 level lower would have been forcing. The last shown natural suit is the trump suit. 5) when undiscussed, 4NT or 5NT is natural (quant if lower NT available) 6) when undiscussed, 4NT is simple Blackwood if it can't be natural 7) when undiscussed, 5NT is a grand slam try if it can't be natural Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 21:00:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5PB0DH15987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:00:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f121.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.121]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5PB09H15983 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:00:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 03:46:34 -0700 Received: from 172.155.174.37 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:46:34 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.155.174.37] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] System Legal in Montreal? Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 03:46:34 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jun 2002 10:46:34.0989 (UTC) FILETIME=[934C49D0:01C21C35] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Tom Cornelis" >Subject: Re: [BLML] System Legal in Montreal? >Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:24:10 +0200 > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ed Colley" >To: >Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 11:47 PM >Subject: [BLML] System Legal in Montreal? > > > > Hi, > > > > Could anyone tell me definitively whether the following set of opening > > bids would be legal at WBF Category 3, e.g. the pairs at Montreal? > > > > 1C Strong (17+) or 11-13 (semi)balanced with precisely two spades > > 1D 11-16 with five plus spades > > 1H 11-16 with five plus hearts > > 1S 11-16 with three or four spades > > (either 11-13 balanced or 11-16 unbalanced, will not have five > > hearts) > > 1NT+ Innocuous (no brown sticker conventions) > >There's only one glitch. As 1NT is on the one-level, the opening mustn't >fall in the HUM category either. As you said, 1C, 1D, 1H and 1S are not >HUM. I believe the point of his mail was to get reassurance that his 1-level opening suit bids are not illegal for use in Montreal and that he's not concerned about 1NT and beyond. Alas, I don't know. >If 1NT means you have 0-1S and 0-4H, then there's no problem. His 1NT could be some other thing (like 14-16, balanced with 2-4 spades), still with no problem. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 21:31:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5PBVbV16022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:31:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5PBVVH16018 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:31:32 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g5PBI0C27461 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:18:00 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:18 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis 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: <008101c21c2f$27a376a0$683f23d5@cornelis> Tom Cornelis wrote: > > So, if you tell opponents an auction is natural when it is > > undiscussed, then you gain an unfair advantage in the many cases where > > they would benefit from knowing the truth about your beliefs. > > If you *believe* the call to mean something otherwise, you are required > to explain it as such. Your personal experience of the meaning of a > call, would replaced by the standard meaning. That's all. There are a number of reasons why one might believe that a particular call by partner might be "something otherwise". If some aspect of your agreements/partnership experience knowledge of partner contributes to that belief then the possibility should be included in your disclosure. However if the belief comes from your own holding then you certainly shouldn't disclose. E.g. you agree to play "Basic Acol, weak NT, Stayman, Blackwood" with a pick-up partner. The auction goes (you opening). 1H-1S-X-2S. Holding ATxx,AKxxx,Qxx,x you may suspect that the idiot opposite has unilaterally decided to play some sort of negative doubles. In this situation it would be highly improper to describe the X as negative when you know full well that by agreement it is penalty. Negative doubles are not part of Basic Acol. 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 Jun 26 01:20:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5PFJWM16228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 01:19:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5PFJRH16224 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 01:19:27 +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 LAA10632 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:05:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA14334 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:05:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:05:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200206251505.LAA14334@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish List X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Nigel Guthrie writes > >1. Remove subjective assessments of > > "ability" or "rationality" or "intent". > From: David Stevenson > This always sounds so easy, but is so patently unfair. If you are > going to judge hands, it is quite ridiculous that you have ot make > judgements that you knwo do not apply ot the pair in question. For assigning adjusted scores, we need to decide on "likely" or "at all probable" results. To do that, we need to consider such things as bidding system and hand evaluation, and it is quite reasonable to consider player ability, too. In other situations, we have absolute standards independent of ability. For example, in deciding whether a defender's possibly- exposed card must be played, we try to reenact how it was held and determine whether partner could have seen its face. This question has nothing to do with anyone's ability. It seems quite reasonable to look for other situations where ability should not matter. Obvious examples are whether a call was made or a card played, and possibly some aspects of judging claims could be in the same category. In general, it is much easier to judge someone's ability than his intent, so laws that require the latter should receive the most intense scrutiny. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 02:06:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5PG6C216258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 02:06:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smarthost1.mail.uk.easynet.net (smarthost1.mail.uk.easynet.net [212.135.6.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5PG67H16254 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 02:06:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from tnt-14-248.easynet.co.uk ([212.134.24.248] helo=k6b8p4) by smarthost1.mail.uk.easynet.net with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17MscN-000JtC-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:52:35 +0100 From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Own last card - L66B Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:52:13 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Defending a contract, you have just played to a trick won by declarer and turned your card over. You then realise that you may have just revoked. As long has declarer has not led to the next trick, you may inspect your last card (L66B). If you have revoked, you can (and must!) now announce it and correct it as provided in L62. If however declarer has led to the next trick, you are no longer permitted to inspect your last card. OTOH, If you *have* revoked, then, until either you or your partner play to this trick, it has not yet been established, so that you have an obligation (L62A) to correct it. Presumably your correct procedure is to halt play before partner can play to this next trick, call the TD and explain your problem. He can then check to see if you have revoked, and, if you have, require you to correct it. This cumbersome procedure would be avoided if L66B allowed you to inspect your own last card *until either you or your partner have played to the next trick*. Such a change would also accord with the general principle that any rights you have at any time should cease only with an action by your side not by an action of opponents. This seems to be a clear improvement with no obvious disadvantage, but this law has been around in this form for far too long for this to have been a drafting oversight - am I missing some nuance? Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 02:18:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5PGILD16275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 02:18:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailgate1.isx.com (mailgate1.isx.com [192.77.181.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5PGIGH16271 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 02:18:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (ip68-10-136-21.hr.hr.cox.net [68.10.136.21]) by mailgate1.isx.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5PG4fAj026002 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:04:44 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: peterhaglich@mail.mac.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <006a01c21c2d$2d9cec00$683f23d5@cornelis> References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613093355.00aadc70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613132849.00aa51e0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020614092816.00aa6b60@pop.starpower.net> <00d701c213b6$04dc3070$713f23d5@cornelis> <005501c2160b$5f09bc00$6f3f23d5@cornelis> <1aAc3vAJB0F9EwDD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006a01c21c2d$2d9cec00$683f23d5@cornelis> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:00:20 -0400 To: From: Peter Haglich Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:46 +0200 6/25/02, Tom Cornelis replied to DWS: > > I don't think so!!!! If the bidding goes 1D 1H 1S 4H ? you can judge >> better if you play negative doubles than if you have agreed "All doubles >> are penalties" to simplify the system. > >That's your opinion, because you're not used to playing penalty doubles. >Penalty doubles and negative doubles tend to become equal in high level >competitive auctions. I don't think DWS is talking about opener's rebid. I think he's talking about responder's 1S bid and whether it promises 5+ spades (alternatively 4+ spades in some schools). This is related to their agreements on 1D-(1H)-X. If that X would have been penalty then opener has a harder decision to make about bidding 4S over 4H. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 06:01:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5PK0Ld16432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 06:00:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout01.sul.t-online.com (mailout01.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5PK0FH16428 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 06:00:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd10.sul.t-online.de by mailout01.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17MwGx-00058l-03; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:46:43 +0200 Received: from vwalther.de (320051711875-0001@[80.134.80.65]) by fmrl10.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 17MwGj-2DvOvAC; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:46:29 +0200 Message-ID: <3D18C7F0.1040108@vwalther.de> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:43:44 +0200 From: "Volker R. Walther" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alain Gottcheiner CC: Konrad Ciborowski , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.62.3.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 320051711875-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > ... > 3) purposely deciding to play an inferior contract, to get training for > playing NT (or, conversely, suit) > etc. In Germany this may be illegal. It is forbidden to adulterate the result of a tournament by bidding absurd contracts. Penalty: at least 50%, disqualifacation is possible. Greetings, Volker -- Adressen meiner Homepage: http://www.vwalther.de oder (schlechter zu merken, aber ohne Werbung) http://home.t-online.de/home/volker.r.walther -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 06:49:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5PKnOj16458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 06:49:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5PKnIH16454 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 06:49:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0571.bb.online.no [80.212.210.59]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA09084 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:35:42 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <016301c21c87$e020bdc0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3D18C7F0.1040108@vwalther.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:35:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Volker R. Walther" > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > ... > > 3) purposely deciding to play an inferior contract, to get training for > > playing NT (or, conversely, suit) > > etc. > > In Germany this may be illegal. > It is forbidden to adulterate the result of a tournament by bidding > absurd contracts. Penalty: at least 50%, disqualifacation is possible. > > Greetings, Volker Interesting, but I foresee a legal problem here. I suppose you do not apply any regulation like this on every absurd contract that pops up during an event, you have to prove intent - don't you? And once intent is proven then you can at least use Laws 74C6 and 72B2 with a ruling contempt of the game, there is no need for any special regulation on this point. We had an interesting quiz at a Directors assembly back in the early eighties. At that time there was no law formally requesting a player to look at his cards before calling, and the question was how to rule on a player who without looking at his cards just bid 7NT? (This had happened towards the end of a tournament with a player that had no further chances for a prize) The answer? He was making a psychic call (that was perfectly OK) and he was at the same time informing his partner that this was a psyche (that was definitely not OK). We should disqualify him for contempt. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 07:19:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5PLIvQ16480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 07:18:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5PLIqH16476 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 07:18:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-55.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.55] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17MxV2-0006iQ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:05:20 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:06:12 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: <3D18C7F0.1040108@vwalther.de> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@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 03:43 PM 6/25/02, Volker wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>3) purposely deciding to play an inferior contract, to get training >>for playing NT (or, conversely, suit) >>etc. > >In Germany this may be illegal. >It is forbidden to adulterate the result of a tournament by bidding >absurd contracts. Penalty: at least 50%, disqualifacation is possible. Player A decides that he needs practice playing NT contracts, so for a session he plays every hand that goes his way in NT. Player B thinks it might be winning tactics to play every contract in NT, and decides to test that hypothesis, so for a session he plays every hand that goes his way in NT. Do the laws (or anyone's local regulations) distinguish these cases? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 08:28:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5PMRsI16520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:27:54 +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 g5PMRmH16516 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:27:49 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5PMEC032142 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 18:14:12 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200206252214.g5PMEC032142@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 18:14:12 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Sven Pran" at Jun 25, 2002 10:35:41 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:35:41 +0200 > > From: "Volker R. Walther" > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > > > ... > > > 3) purposely deciding to play an inferior contract, to get training for > > > playing NT (or, conversely, suit) > > > etc. > > > > In Germany this may be illegal. > > It is forbidden to adulterate the result of a tournament by bidding > > absurd contracts. Penalty: at least 50%, disqualifacation is possible. > > > > Greetings, Volker > > Interesting, but I foresee a legal problem here. I suppose you do not > apply any regulation like this on every absurd contract that pops up > during an event, you have to prove intent - don't you? > > And once intent is proven then you can at least use Laws 74C6 and > 72B2 with a ruling contempt of the game, there is no need for any > special regulation on this point. > Even more interesting. Say you are on a team and are playing a seeded team that is a significantly stronger team. At the half, you find that you are down significantly (let's say 80+ on 28 boards). You come back in the second half and you decide that you'll try to swing. So, on one deal, partner opens 1H showing 5 and with your 10 count with 4 hearts, you decide to bid a non-forcing notrump and get to play it there. You find the hand particularly unpleasant with everything breaking wrong (including trumps) and the 4H contract that partner would have bid if you had made a 4-card limit-raise goes down and your +120 picks up IMPs. Is this also illegal? Tell me how you can determine that this and case #3 above can be discerned by the director. Another case. The barometer finals of a 4-session pair event and you are 2 boards out of first with 2 rounds to play. You pick up QJxx/T9xx/QJTx/A and partner opens 1H and for better or worse, you bid 1S and pass partner's 1NT rebid. 4H goes down and 1NT makes +120. So, how can a director tell this wasn't case #3 (or letting partner practice playing NT) instead of an attempt to swing. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 09:43:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5PNh6H16562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:43:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (mta01-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5PNh1H16558 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:43:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.156.148]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020625232925.VDB16050.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 00:29:25 +0100 Message-ID: <005401c21ca1$2742d940$949c68d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <000801c21606$fe9815f0$9f06ba12@Herot><006d01c21616$9348ab60$3b9d68d5@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 00:36:25 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As I am not a legal eagle, so would be grateful for some information. 1. If you often reply "undiscussed", refuse to amplify upon that answer, but inevitably "guess" right in the subsequent auction, do opponents have any redress in law. 2. If there is a possibility of such redress, do you get lots of TD calls about this issue and do you ever rule that a player who claims "undiscussed" is being economical with the truth? If people did complain when this happened, then in a large congress like Brighton, you would expect several hundred such TD calls per session so you would expect to gather a fair quantity of statistics. 3. I suspect that, in spite of it happening so often, few people bother the director, especially as they doubt that the poor director would have the bottle to practically accuse a pair of lying. (although I am repeatedly assured that TDs have no fear of slander actions). 4. If my suspicions are correct, then perhaps you can understand one of our concerns about the "undiscussed" mantra. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 09:55:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5PNtIe16575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:55:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5PNtDH16571 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:55:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.156.148]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020625234141.VCZK295.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 00:41:41 +0100 Message-ID: <006801c21ca2$de4f16c0$949c68d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3D18C7F0.1040108@vwalther.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 00:48:42 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Suppose, with one set of boards left, you are down a lot against a better team. In team discussions about such a contingency, you have decided that your partnership will play conservatively and your other pair will shoot everything. Must you declare these tactics, to opponents. (IMO yes). If you do tell opponents, can they insist on being allowed time for a team-discussion to devise counter-measures. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 12:00:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q1xXT16628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:59:33 +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 g5Q1xSH16624 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:59:28 +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 MAA24742 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:00:42 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:42:01 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Terminological inexactitude To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:45:31 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 26/06/2002 11:41:42 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In the thread, "Steps in an appeal analysis", Nigel Guthrie asked: [big snip] >do you ever rule that a player who claims "undiscussed" >is being economical with the truth? [big snip] I heard of an amusing case when a TD was called after a player claimed that a 2C bid conventionally showed "13 cards", and an opponent thought that the "explanation" might be economical with the truth. The TD asked a series of questions: "Does it deny 16-18 balanced?" "Yes." "Does it deny a pre-empt?" "Yes." Etc. etc. After an embarassingly long series of questions from the TD, eventually it emerged that the "13 cards" included only a limited number of specific holdings. *But*, merely because some players are economical with the truth does *not* justify a blanket regulation forbidding economical and non-economical players alike from explaining, "undiscussed". 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 Jun 26 13:12:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q3BTS16668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:11:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5Q3BOH16664 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:11:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.152.72]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020626025752.FMAC19225.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 03:57:52 +0100 Message-ID: <00c401c21cbe$47e5c640$949c68d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Terminological inexactitude Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 04:04:48 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills: In the thread, "Steps in an appeal analysis", Nigel Guthrie asked: [big snip] >do you ever rule that a player who claims "undiscussed" >is being economical with the truth? [big snip] Richard: I heard of an amusing case when a TD was called after a player claimed that a 2C bid conventionally showed "13 cards", and an opponent thought that the "explanation" might be economical with the truth. The TD asked a series of questions: "Does it deny 16-18 balanced?" "Yes." "Does it deny a pre-empt?" "Yes." Etc. etc. After an embarassingly long series of questions from the TD, eventually it emerged that the "13 cards" included only a limited number of specific holdings. *But*, merely because some players are economical with the truth does *not* justify a blanket regulation forbidding economical and non-economical players alike from explaining, "undiscussed". Nigel Guthrie... Well Richard, :( Sigh ): :( my arguments & queries snipped again ): Was this expert penalised for breaking the law? Were his opponents awarded adjusted scores on previous boards where there was likely damage? I doubt it Like most people, Bridge players are good at rationalisation and seem to find it easy to convince themselves that "undiscussed" is a fair description of any vaguely remembered understanding - especially if it allows them to escape MI penalties. As it stands the law is an incentive to cheat because, even when in rare cases like this, a miscreant is exposed, he is so rarely penalised. Notice also that if his victim rather than the TD had subjected the expert to cross-examination, he would have been penalised for "harassment" to add insult to injury. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 13:58:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q3vhH16699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:57:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5Q3vcH16695 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:57:39 +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 NAA14198 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:58:52 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:40:12 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:43:44 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 26/06/2002 01:39:52 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie wrote: >Suppose, with one set of boards left, you are down a >lot against a better team. > >In team discussions about such a contingency, you >have decided that your partnership will play >conservatively and your other pair will shoot >everything. > >Must you declare these tactics, to opponents? (IMO >yes). If you do tell opponents, can they insist on >being allowed time for a team-discussion to devise >counter-measures? Edgar Kaplan discussed this issue in a Bridge World editorial. His view was that you must tell your immediate opponents that your partnership is playing a conservative, non-shooting style this set of boards, as required by L40B. However your immediate opponents are not entitled by Law to know what is going to happen in the other room. Similarly, in the other room, the other opposing pair is entitled to know that your team-mates will shoot everything. But they are not entitled by Law to know whether or not your partnership is also shooting. 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 Jun 26 14:38:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q4bSw16724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:37:28 +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 g5Q4bNH16720 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:37:24 +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 OAA21073 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:38:37 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:19:55 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:19:19 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 26/06/2002 02:19:36 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Player A decides that he needs practice playing NT contracts, so for a >session he plays every hand that goes his way in NT. > >Player B thinks it might be winning tactics to play every contract in >NT, and decides to test that hypothesis, so for a session he plays >every hand that goes his way in NT. > >Do the laws (or anyone's local regulations) distinguish these cases? > > >Eric Landau In Australia, Player B is the famous Tim Seres. Tim more often holds balanced hands than other Australian experts. :-) ...But is also more frequently successful in 3NT than other Australian experts. 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 Jun 26 15:12:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q5Bws16751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:11:58 +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 g5Q5BrH16747 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:11:53 +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 PAA27281 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:13:06 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:54:25 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Terminological inexactitude To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:57:57 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 26/06/2002 02:54:05 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] I wrote: >>I heard of an amusing case when a TD was >>called after a player claimed that a 2C >>bid conventionally showed "13 cards", and >>an opponent thought that the "explanation" >>might be economical with the truth. >> >>The TD asked a series of questions: >>"Does it deny 16-18 balanced?" >>"Yes." >>"Does it deny a pre-empt?" >>"Yes." >>Etc. etc. >>After an embarassingly long series of >>questions from the TD, eventually it >>emerged that the "13 cards" included >>only a limited number of specific >>holdings. >> >>*But*, merely because some players are >>economical with the truth does *not* >>justify a blanket regulation forbidding >>economical and non-economical players >>alike from explaining, "undiscussed". Nigel Guthrie replied: >Well Richard, > :( Sigh ): >:( my arguments & queries snipped again ): > >Was this expert penalised for breaking >the law? Were his opponents awarded >adjusted scores on previous boards where >there was likely damage? I doubt it [snip] Nowhere did I state that either member of the offending partnership was an expert. In Australia, even near-beginners are permitted to adopt (or design their own) wacky conventions. *Because* the offenders were inexperienced, the TD decided that subjecting them to a humiliating Spanish Inquisition was a sufficient procedural penalty. Like the TD, I believe that the more experienced a player, the more severe the penalty should be for deliberate infractions of Law. 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 Jun 26 16:02:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q5wht16772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:58:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5Q5wdH16768 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:58:39 +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 PAA04991 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:59:52 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:41:11 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] 4NT is...? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:44:43 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 26/06/2002 03:40:52 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In the thread, "Steps in an appeal analysis", Tom Cornelis proposed: [snip] >when undiscussed, 4NT is simple Blackwood if >it can't be natural [snip] Talk about begging the question and ignoring a giant can of worms! The Bridge World magazine has its own in-house system (used by its bidding panel), Bridge World Standard. Many years ago, Edgar Kaplan and Jeff Rubens were discussing when BWS would define 4NT as Blackwood, when another New York expert wandered in to the BW office. The expert volunteered to define 4NT in all auctions as either Blackwood or something else. After a few hours, the NY expert had drawn up a list of 17 prioritised rules plus sub- cases. After a few more hours, the NY expert still had a bit of tidying-up to do for the 4NT definitions. A few hours after that, the NY expert gave up. If the world's most popular convention is so difficult to define, what chance is there for advance definition of more obscure auctions? 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 Jun 26 16:20:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q6K3R16793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:20:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5Q6JwH16789 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:19:58 +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 QAA08470 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:21:11 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:02:30 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:06:02 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 26/06/2002 04:02:10 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk WBF Laws Committee, October 1997: [snip] >9. Mr Santanu Ghosh asked that the committee should continue to >have as an objective that players who are inexperienced and do not >know the laws shall enjoy the same basic rights as more >knowledgeable players. It should seek to avoid possibilities for >knowledgeable players to take quick thinking action that will >prejudice the rights of inexperienced opponents. [snip] Almost all inexperienced players who revoke, promptly announce, "I have revoked", as soon as they discover their revoke. The inexperienced players announce this whether or not the revoke is established. But many experienced players know L72B3. Therefore, if such an experienced player discovers their revoke after it is established, they legally avoid the announcement, "I have revoked", and possibly benefit against unobservant opponents. Presumably the rationale for L72B3 is that its antithesis would be almost impossible to enforce. That is, if the antithesis of L72B3 became Law in 2005, ethical players would be put at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis villains. 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 Jun 26 16:25:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q6Pc616806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:25:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5Q6PVH16802 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:25:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2961.bb.online.no [80.212.219.145]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA28647 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:11:52 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001b01c21cd8$5d5a2e20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" References: <00c401c21cbe$47e5c640$949c68d5@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] Terminological inexactitude Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:11:51 +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 From: "Nigel Guthrie" ....... > Richard: > I heard of an amusing case when a TD was > called after a player claimed that a 2C > bid conventionally showed "13 cards", and > an opponent thought that the "explanation" > might be economical with the truth. > > The TD asked a series of questions: > "Does it deny 16-18 balanced?" > "Yes." > "Does it deny a pre-empt?" > "Yes." > Etc. etc. > After an embarassingly long series of > questions from the TD, eventually it > emerged that the "13 cards" included > only a limited number of specific > holdings. ..... > Notice also that if his victim rather > than the TD had subjected the expert to > cross-examination, he would have been > penalised for "harassment" to add insult > to injury. There is no reason for that. Law 20F1 specifically permits a player receiving explanation of a call to ask questions also on relevant calls available but not made. And if it is neccessary to "drag" the information by cross examination then it is the player giving the explanation who shall be penalized (for failing to comply with Law 75C). Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 16:56:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q6uFO16834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:56:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.presens.nl.no (smtp.presens.nl.no [217.8.145.154]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5Q6u9H16830 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:56:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from willy (c145166.catch.sdsl.no [217.8.145.166]) by smtp.presens.nl.no (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA08103; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 07:39:54 +0200 Message-ID: <005c01c21cdc$67d91ce0$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> From: "Willy Teigen" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:40:47 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Eric Landau wrote... > Player A decides that he needs practice playing NT contracts, so for a > session he plays every hand that goes his way in NT. > > Player B thinks it might be winning tactics to play every contract in > NT, and decides to test that hypothesis, so for a session he plays > every hand that goes his way in NT. > > Do the laws (or anyone's local regulations) distinguish these cases? > Well, let's pull this even further. Say an expert player is partnering a novice and they decide to play one way transfer bids, so the expert player will declare (almost) every hand. The novice opens the suit below the one he has, the expert signs off instead of transfering after the novice opens 1NT...and so on... This is of course highly unethical, but is it covered by the law?? Regards, Willy Teigen PRESENS AS Tlf: +47 769 67315 Mob: +47 915 58578 E-mail: willy@presens.nl.no www: www.presens.nl.no -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 17:06:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q75kW16852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:05:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5Q75eH16848 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:05:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2961.bb.online.no [80.212.219.145]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA19665 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:52:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <007901c21cdd$f9e6d540$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@pop.starpower.net> <005c01c21cdc$67d91ce0$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:52:02 +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: "Willy Teigen" ...... > Well, let's pull this even further. > Say an expert player is partnering a novice and they decide to play > one way transfer bids, so the expert player will declare (almost) every > hand. > The novice opens the suit below the one he has, the expert signs off instead > of transfering after the novice opens 1NT...and so on... > This is of course highly unethical, but is it covered by the law?? Why is this unethical, provided of course that this "system" is declared properly? (There is an interesting question if this can be considered a violation of the rule that both players in a pair must use the same system, but for the purpose of training a novice I might even allow it if that question were raised) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 19:17:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q9GRH16908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:16:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail32.hq.webvisie.net [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5Q9GMH16904 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:16:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.118] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id miflvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:02:45 +0200 Message-ID: <004a01c21cf0$414cdbc0$763f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@pop.starpower.net> <005c01c21cdc$67d91ce0$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:02:52 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Willy Teigen" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" ; "Eric Landau" Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 8:40 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical > > Eric Landau wrote... > > Player A decides that he needs practice playing NT contracts, so for a > > session he plays every hand that goes his way in NT. > > > > Player B thinks it might be winning tactics to play every contract in > > NT, and decides to test that hypothesis, so for a session he plays > > every hand that goes his way in NT. > > > > Do the laws (or anyone's local regulations) distinguish these cases? > > > Well, let's pull this even further. > Say an expert player is partnering a novice and they decide to play > one way transfer bids, so the expert player will declare (almost) every > hand. > The novice opens the suit below the one he has, the expert signs off instead > of transfering after the novice opens 1NT...and so on... > This is of course highly unethical, but is it covered by the law?? Yes Law 75A: Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). ***Information conveyed to partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal.*** This means you cannot play a different system. You or your partner making the call is not a call, play or condition of the current deal (i.e. dealer + vulnerability). Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 19:21:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q9L4x16926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:21:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5Q9KuH16916 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:20:57 +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 17N8lh-0003S9-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:07:24 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 01:16:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613093355.00aadc70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613132849.00aa51e0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020614092816.00aa6b60@pop.starpower.net> <00d701c213b6$04dc3070$713f23d5@cornelis> <005501c2160b$5f09bc00$6f3f23d5@cornelis> <1aAc3vAJB0F9EwDD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006a01c21c2d$2d9cec00$683f23d5@cornelis> In-Reply-To: <006a01c21c2d$2d9cec00$683f23d5@cornelis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> I don't think so!!!! If the bidding goes 1D 1H 1S 4H ? you can judge >> better if you play negative doubles than if you have agreed "All doubles >> are penalties" to simplify the system. >That's your opinion, because you're not used to playing penalty doubles. >Penalty doubles and negative doubles tend to become equal in high level >competitive auctions. **Not used to playing penalty doubles?** What on earth do you think I was doing for the twenty years before negative doubles became popular? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 19:21:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q9LJn16946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:21:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5Q9L1H16922 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:21:02 +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 17N8ls-0003S3-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:07:30 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 01:20:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Eliminating Misinformation in Auctions or How to Have a Neverending Thread References: <002401c21a35$ed9a5aa0$653f23d5@cornelis> <007b01c21c2e$2f784640$683f23d5@cornelis> In-Reply-To: <007b01c21c2e$2f784640$683f23d5@cornelis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> If your worry is people lying then changing the Law to require people >> to lie seems very strange. >> >> If your worry is people getting good boards through not knowing what >> they are doing I like that: they get three times and more as many bad >> boards against me by not knowing what they are doing! >> >> If your worry is the poor people who believe they *deserve* a good >> score whenever their oppos make a mistake then it is time they learnt >> about LIFE. > >Then why have Laws at all (L75C particularly)? Because you are meant to transmit your agreements, and L75C tells us to. It does not tell us to lie about our agreements. >The Laws provide for transport of information from a player to his opponent. >Why have that? Because that is what most of us want. You, however, are asking us to tell a mixture of truth and lies, and that is not information. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 19:21:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q9LO216951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:21:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g5Q9L3H16927 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:21:04 +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 17N8ls-0003S7-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:07:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 02:38:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations References: <200206191702.SAA18740@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200206191702.SAA18740@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robin Barker writes >> From: "Sven Pran" >> From: "Adam Beneschan" >> > (1) If the TD happened to be standing over the table watching the >> > play, and declarer made this implausible concession, is he allowed >> > to cancel it right there? >> No (There is no irregularity) >Isn't this an application of L72A2 (Scoring of Tricks Won) > >A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his >side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not >lose. It is not a trick that opponents could not lose. Thus L72A2 does not apply. The fact that it takes an irrational play is not the point: L72A2 does not say anything about that. ------------ Please could I suggest some snipping when replying to a small part of a very long post? ------------ Adam Beneschan writes >I hadn't noticed L72A2 when I made my original post---thanks, Robin, >for pointing it out. What's interesting is that while L71 has two >branches---L71A uses the phrase "could not have lost by any legal >play" and L71C uses the phrase "could not be lost be any normal >play"---L72A2 uses the shorter phrase "could not lose". It might be >open to interpretation whether this means "could not lose by any legal >play" or "could not lose by any legal *or* normal play". I don't >know. A trick which can be lost by irrational play is a trick that can be lost. That's normal English, surely. So L72A2 does not apply here. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 19:21:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q9LQB16953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:21:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g5Q9L2H16924 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:21:03 +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 17N8ls-0003S6-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:07:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 02:38:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations References: <200206212140.RAA29340@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200206212140.RAA29340@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes >> From: Adam Beneschan >> Are you saying that they promulgated the new 1997 Laws and then >> immediately adopted an amendment that made these Laws (or specifically >> Law 71C) obsolete... > >Grattan would be your best source on the history. Note, however, that >in order for the new Laws to come into effect in the summer of 1997, >they had to be printed and distributed to the ZA's a year or so >earlier. > >It's not a question of "obsolete." There is a general introduction to >L71 (before part A) that gives a less restrictive time interval than >the second sentence of L71C. The WBFLC resolved this apparent >conflict by saying that the general introduction controls. When read carefully you will discover there is no conflict whatever, merely a redundancy. Thus the WBFLC made an interpretation not a change to confirm that the Law meant what it said, despite the wording being very strange. The point I that the second sentence can effectively be ignored because whenever it applies, so does the first sentence, but not vice versa. >I believe the Hammamet minutes are on David's web site, and someone >just posted them to BLML. > >I am rather surprised that the notice is just now getting to Norway. >Anyone know if it has gotten to North America yet? > >There was at least one other early correction involving moving an >asterisk. I'm not sure whether it was from Hammamet or later. That was basically a printing error in early copies of the ACBL Laws where the footnote in L17D was misplaced. There has also been a change to the footnote to L69/70/71 because some people did not read it as the WBFLC intended it. This probably came out of discussion here. A summary of all interpretations and corrections with examples from the WBFLC minutes has been written and is being considered at the moment to see whether it is considered correct. ---------- Ed Reppert writes >On 6/22/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >>From: "Sven Pran" >>>For what it is worth: I found my way to the current laws via David's >>>pages. That led me to an ECats web with the European laws stated as >>>updated 26/02/2001 11:45:18 >>> >>>All I can say is that Law71C was definitely not updated. >>Good for you, Sven. >> >>I gather that the change to L71C is nevertheless official. No, the interpretation is official. >>I have marked up my Laws for changes I am aware of, deleting/adding >>commas, and so forth, but I didn't have this one. A short poll tells me >>that ACBL TDs have no markups whatsoever. What's the good of an >>inter-revision change to the Laws if it isn't disseminated? >> >>No doubt it is up to the ACBLLC to publish WBFLC amendments and >>interpretations, not to mention its own interpretations. That's not >>being done, and we have to hunt through the minutes of both committees >>to find them. >> >>Right now the WBFLC should send out errata/amendment notices for the >>97 Laws. If they won't do that, could someone please post them on BLML >>and I will send a copy to every ACBL TD who has e-mail. >Heh. I just looked at the laws on the WBF's official web site. > > >They don't indicate this change either. :-( There is no change. There is an interpretation that says in effect that the second sentence can be ignored. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 19:21:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q9LPI16952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:21:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5Q9L4H16930 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:21:04 +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 17N8lt-0003S9-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:07:32 +0100 Message-ID: <+aYR2YCFyRG9Ewqf@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 02:44:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads writes >L72A2 does not explicitly require either legal plays or plausible ones. >It is almost always possible to lose an extra trick if one plays from the >wrong hand/revokes/allows a defender to lead. It never occurred to me to >read L72A2 as anything other than "It's wrong to knowingly accept a trick >you don't believe you'd get if the TD applied law 71A/B/C". I recognise >that there is some ambiguity here but does anyone actually want the law to >condone players deliberately taking advantage of implausible or legally >impossible concessions. I do not believe there is any ambiguity whatever, and my wishes have nothing to do with it. If you wish to apply a general level of ethics to players above and beyond what is required by the Laws then I am of course on your side, and I expect my partners and I to conform to such a level. But none of that gives any of us the right to mis-apply the Law to suit our own feelings. L72A2 is explicit when it refers to a trick the opponents could not lose. Sorry. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 19:22:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q9LYp16962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:21:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5Q9L4H16932 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:21:06 +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 17N8ls-0003S5-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:07:33 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 02:38:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations References: <200206191549.IAA26204@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c217ae$ebefb9e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <001101c217ae$ebefb9e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran writes >From: "Adam Beneschan" >> (4) If the opponent does call the TD, should the TD cancel the >> concession? (I think L71C says the answer to this is clearly Yes, >> and thus the BW got at least that part wrong, but someone else >> here may disagree.) >If opponent called the Director and made it clear that the concession >was implausible then: Yes, the Director should cancel the concession. >(And I suppose that opponent would have some difficult time with his >partner afterwards). Why? Many players do not wish to gain from this sort of thing. If a player does not wish to accept this trick I would expect his partner to accept such a decision routinely and without comment. >However, if declarer after a post mortem and within the time limit >prescribed in Law 79C notifies the Director that he has discovered >his concession should be cancelled then the Director is bound to >correct the result. > >Note, according to information we received at an assembly of >Norwegian directors last May Law 71C has now been amended to read: > >"If a player has conceeded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal >play of the remaining cards." It is not an amendment but a realisation that the second sentence says nothing additional, so is superfluous and confusing. >So the time limit for Law 71C is now the same as that for Laws 71A & B. If you read it carefully it has been since 1997, though it does not look like it at first read. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 19:22:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q9LmM16965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:21:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5Q9LLH16949 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:21:22 +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 17N8ly-0003S3-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:07:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 03:07:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations References: <200206211712.SAA00198@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200206211712.SAA00198@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robin Barker writes >See item six below. From http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf_lcmn.htm It is easier for people who wish to find things on my site to use the shorter URLs, which will not change if I change service provider. So to find the minutes please look at http://blakjak.com/wbf_lcmn.htm >W B F Laws Committee > >Meeting in Hammamet, Tunisia, October 19th 1997 [s] >6 The Chairman turned the committee's attention to Law 71C. He >pointed to the confusion created by the wording as it had been >published. Mr. Kooijman added that if the intention expressed by >Mr. Kaplan were given effect there would be a notable difference >of treatment as between Law 71 and Law 69. Mr. Endicott read >out the proposal circulated by Mr. Kaplan and the aim he had >indicated. > >The committee adopted the opinion put forward by Mr Bavin that >the sentence in 71C beginning Until the conceding side..." does >in fact make a provision that is incorporated within the wider >provision existing in the immediately preceding words of the law. >The Director is to cancel an implausible concession as defined in >Law 71C at any time within the correction period established >under Law 79C. (As proposed by Mr Kaplan this "changes the >time period . from the start of the next board to the usual >protest period.) Please note that, contrary to several statements in this thread, there is no change in the Law mentioned in this minute. It is merely an interpretation that the second sentence is redundant. --------- Marvin L. French writes >Right now the WBFLC should send out errata/amendment notices for the 97 >Laws. If they won't do that, could someone please post them on BLML and I >will send a copy to every ACBL TD who has e-mail. As mentioned elsewhere a document has been produced with interpretations and explanations, including examples, of all the WBFLC minutes since Hammamet, but it needs official approval before it can be disseminated [ok, sent out! :) ] As for errata and amendments to the Laws, surely there are only two? The misplaced footnote in early editions of the ACBL Laws in L17D, and the slight change of order in the footnote to L69/70/71 to clarify that irrational is for the class of player involved,a s some of us thought but some did not. --------- Sven Pran writes >And after re-reading the quoted minutes (in fact all the >minutes up to and including Paris in 2001) I begin to >doubt if there ever was any formal decision to change >Law 71C. It seems to me they just made a note of >the situation? See above. >I have also found my way to the official pages for WBF, >no change there either. (But then they as well as ECats >are both also missing the "scope of the laws" for some >unknown reason). There are three basic versions of the Laws of duplicate bridge [plus versions in other languages, Online Laws and so on], all of which are linked from my site at http://blakjak.com/lws_lnks.htm They are the English version, the American version and the European version. The introductory sections before the Definitions in Chapter 1 is different in the three versions. The version on the WBF website is the European version. The English version has two words different. They are 'pack' not 'deck' in L6 and 'achieve' not 'do' in L12C3. I think deck is a mistake and pack is an improvement, but I disapprove of achieve which is different [slightly] from the WBF's wording. >I feel confused. >(Not that it has that much practical importance?). > >Anyway, as far as I can tell, the change in L71C is >official in Norway - or I have completely misunderstood >something. --------- John (MadDog) Probst writes >We were told to cross it out directly after the Laws were printed. So >in the EBU at least this has been the case since about Xmas 1997. You were told to cross it out because it was superfluous, not because there was a change in the Laws. --------- Perhaps it is time someone produced a FAQ for BLML. I seem to have written a lot in this thread, and none of it is new: I have written it all before. Certainly I understand that Sven has not been with us very long, but much of what I have written here I know I shall have to write again - for example I explain the versions about once every eight months, and the 'changes' to L71C about once a year. If someone produced one for all the common questions of course I would put it on my site. It might be easier than endless repetition because we get new people. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 19:22:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q9Lnh16968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:21:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g5Q9LLH16950 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:21:22 +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 17N8ly-0003S6-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:07:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 03:10:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations References: <00c501c21967$55c38cc0$a49568d5@default> <00ef01c21974$fae1d4c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <01a301c2197d$009709a0$a49568d5@default> In-Reply-To: <01a301c2197d$009709a0$a49568d5@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie writes >Finally, any law which asks a TD to rule favourably for an "expert" (? >crony ?) but stigmatises the average stranger as ignorant / unskilful >/irrational is not just chauvinist. It should engender legal actions >for slander. Good thing we do not have such a law then, isn't 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 Jun 26 19:30:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q9UkT17017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:30:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail32.hq.webvisie.net [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5Q9UfH17013 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:30:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.118] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id cuflvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:17:04 +0200 Message-ID: <006401c21cf2$413c4f10$763f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:17:11 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 1:18 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > In-Reply-To: <008101c21c2f$27a376a0$683f23d5@cornelis> > Tom Cornelis wrote: > > > > So, if you tell opponents an auction is natural when it is > > > undiscussed, then you gain an unfair advantage in the many cases where > > > they would benefit from knowing the truth about your beliefs. > > > > If you *believe* the call to mean something otherwise, you are required > > to explain it as such. Your personal experience of the meaning of a > > call, would replaced by the standard meaning. That's all. > > There are a number of reasons why one might believe that a particular call > by partner might be "something otherwise". If some aspect of your > agreements/partnership experience knowledge of partner contributes to that > belief then the possibility should be included in your disclosure. > However if the belief comes from your own holding then you certainly > shouldn't disclose. > > E.g. you agree to play "Basic Acol, weak NT, Stayman, Blackwood" with a > pick-up partner. The auction goes (you opening). 1H-1S-X-2S. Holding > ATxx,AKxxx,Qxx,x you may suspect that the idiot opposite has unilaterally > decided to play some sort of negative doubles. In this situation it would > be highly improper to describe the X as negative when you know full well > that by agreement it is penalty. Negative doubles are not part of Basic > Acol. And you call my method lying? Don't get me wrong. I agree you have to explain this call as a penalty double, according to your agreements. But it's a lie, because you *know* it's not. However, Law requires you to explain the call as such. So why would you mind that the Law assumes there has to be a meaningful explanation, if lying can't be excluded anyway? Mind that it could be the truth. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 19:36:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q9a4H17029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:36:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5Q9ZwH17025 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:35:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2961.bb.online.no [80.212.219.145]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA21138 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:22:21 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <008601c21cf2$f9d5d8c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@pop.starpower.net> <005c01c21cdc$67d91ce0$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> <004a01c21cf0$414cdbc0$763f23d5@cornelis> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:22:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Tom Cornelis" ....... > > Say an expert player is partnering a novice and they decide to play > > one way transfer bids, so the expert player will declare (almost) every > > hand. > > The novice opens the suit below the one he has, the expert signs off > instead > > of transfering after the novice opens 1NT...and so on... > > This is of course highly unethical, but is it covered by the law?? > > Yes Law 75A: > Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully > and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). ***Information conveyed > to partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and > conditions of the current deal.*** > > This means you cannot play a different system. You or your partner making > the call is not a call, play or condition of the current deal (i.e. dealer + > vulnerability). Sorry Tom, you had better read Law 40E1. The Laws do not require both players in a pair to use the same system or the same (detailed) agreements on particular calls. But law 40E1 allows a sponsoring organization to issue regulations including such requirements. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 19:38:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q9bnL17041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:37:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5Q9bhH17037 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:37:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2961.bb.online.no [80.212.219.145]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA10152 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:24:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <008c01c21cf3$37f92260$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613093355.00aadc70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613132849.00aa51e0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020614092816.00aa6b60@pop.starpower.net> <00d701c213b6$04dc3070$713f23d5@cornelis> <005501c2160b$5f09bc00$6f3f23d5@cornelis> <1aAc3vAJB0F9EwDD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006a01c21c2d$2d9cec00$683f23d5@cornelis> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:24:05 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 2:16 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > Tom Cornelis writes > >From: "David Stevenson" > > >> I don't think so!!!! If the bidding goes 1D 1H 1S 4H ? you can judge > >> better if you play negative doubles than if you have agreed "All doubles > >> are penalties" to simplify the system. > > >That's your opinion, because you're not used to playing penalty doubles. > >Penalty doubles and negative doubles tend to become equal in high level > >competitive auctions. > > **Not used to playing penalty doubles?** What on earth do you think I > was doing for the twenty years before negative doubles became popular? PASS ? (Sorry David, I couldn't resist the temptation!) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 19:49:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q9nFc17058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:49:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5Q9n9H17054 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:49:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.118] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id bgglvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:35:31 +0200 Message-ID: <006a01c21cf4$d58200a0$763f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000501c21c42$6c815630$9f06ba12@Herot> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:35:39 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "richard willey" To: "'Tom Cornelis'" Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 2:18 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > Tom > > This is a wonderful idea!!! > I strongly suggest that you develop and promote your international > bidding standard. Once this has been accepted and ratified by the Zonal > authorities, I'm sure that the legal structure will adjust to take > advantage this new system. > > BTW, for what its worth, I think there are some enormous problems with > the approach that your suggesting. > > Here is a case in point. Last year at the ACBL Fall Nationals, David > Stevenson graciously agreed to play a session with me. To my knowledge, > David and I had never played before. We had about 15 minutes to work on > a card and pretty much agreed to play Acol with a few tweaks in > competitive structure. As I recall, we had agreed to cue bid first or > second round controls. > > I was dealt (approximately) the followig hand > > AKxxx > Axxx > VOID > AQxx > > And heard the auction start > > (1D) - P - (2D) - ? > > I doubled and our auction proceeded > > (1D) - P - (2D) - X > (P) - 3C - (P) - 4D > (P) - 4S - (P) - ??? > > At this point in time, I had to decide whether 4S was a shortness > showing cue bid in support of a Diamond slam or a choice of games. I > went into a deep tank, and made a decision. I sure as hell didn't do so > based on any kind of explicit or implicit agreement that I had with > David. Instead, I made a guess about what was going on. I think it > would have been unethical to explain to the opponents that we had any > kind of concrete agreement governing this auction. We have an > obligation to explain our uncertainty. If nothing else, it might > discourage them from making a penalty double that would expose the fact > that we're about to play in a 5-1 Spade fit instead of 6C. [In fact, > David was offering a choice of game. I guessed properly and passed 4S, > however, this wasn't an easy decision] There's no conflict with the proposed set of rules. It would have required you to explain the call as natural, since 4D rather shows shape (meaningly a void), than that it shows 1st or 2nd round control with slam interest in clubs. > In the past, many people have stressed the requirement to establish meta > agreements with their partners. I concur. I think that meta agreements > are a great thing. However, if you don't have the appropriate > agreements, you don't have the appropriate agreements. > > > > Hi all, > > for the sake of the discussion, I'm going to write down the set of rules > I'm talking about: > > The following rules apply in order of their priority: > 1) when there was an agreement that explains the call, that's the > meaning of the call, even if judgement would suggest otherwise (note > that the standard need not be followed) > 2) when there was no agreement to suggest the meaning of a call, this > call should be interpreted as natural (length). It is forcing when the > hand that made the call is unlimited and the call was a suit call made > without jump. Otherwise it's not forcing. > 3) when there was no agreement to suggest the meaning of a call, this > call should be interpreted as strength if it can't be natural. > 4) when there was no agreement to suggest the meaning of a call, this > call should be interpreted as cue if it was made with a jump in a suit > that 1 level lower would have been forcing. The last shown natural suit > is the trump suit. > 5) when undiscussed, 4NT or 5NT is natural (quant if lower NT available) > 6) when undiscussed, 4NT is simple Blackwood if it can't be natural > 7) when undiscussed, 5NT is a grand slam try if it can't be natural > > Best regards, > > Tom. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A > Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 19:59:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q9wlf17071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:58:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5Q9wfH17067 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:58:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.118] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id bnglvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:45:05 +0200 Message-ID: <007001c21cf6$2b4ec3f0$763f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: <003d01c20e6c$b03c64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613093355.00aadc70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613132849.00aa51e0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020614092816.00aa6b60@pop.starpower.net> <00d701c213b6$04dc3070$713f23d5@cornelis> <005501c2160b$5f09bc00$6f3f23d5@cornelis> <1aAc3vAJB0F9EwDD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006a01c21c2d$2d9cec00$683f23d5@cornelis> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:45:12 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Haglich" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 6:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > At 11:46 +0200 6/25/02, Tom Cornelis replied to DWS: > > > I don't think so!!!! If the bidding goes 1D 1H 1S 4H ? you can judge > >> better if you play negative doubles than if you have agreed "All doubles > >> are penalties" to simplify the system. > > > >That's your opinion, because you're not used to playing penalty doubles. > >Penalty doubles and negative doubles tend to become equal in high level > >competitive auctions. > > I don't think DWS is talking about opener's rebid. I think he's > talking about responder's 1S bid and whether it promises 5+ spades > (alternatively 4+ spades in some schools). This is related to their > agreements on 1D-(1H)-X. If that X would have been penalty then > opener has a harder decision to make about bidding 4S over 4H. A harder decision isn't the same as less judgement. Your judgement will influence your decision. This decision may be harder, but doesn't require more judgement. Judgement is a state of mind you can't change. It requires other judgement, because the meaning of the auction is different. By the way, I know partnerships that play 1D-(1H)-X as negative and 1D-(1H)-1S as 4+. Simplification is to be preferred over misunderstandings (certainly if you play with a p/u partner). Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 19:59:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5Q9x1u17077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:59:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5Q9wrH17073 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:58:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2961.bb.online.no [80.212.219.145]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA10548 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:45:17 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <009e01c21cf6$2d90ebc0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200206212140.RAA29340@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:45:16 +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: "David Stevenson" ....... > >It's not a question of "obsolete." There is a general introduction to > >L71 (before part A) that gives a less restrictive time interval than > >the second sentence of L71C. The WBFLC resolved this apparent > >conflict by saying that the general introduction controls. > > When read carefully you will discover there is no conflict whatever, > merely a redundancy. Thus the WBFLC made an interpretation not a change > to confirm that the Law meant what it said, despite the wording being > very strange. The point I that the second sentence can effectively be > ignored because whenever it applies, so does the first sentence, but not > vice versa. ....... Thanks for your clarification David and i think I understand the general state. But, I have a little problem with your statement that the second sentence in L71C should have been redundant? The way I read L71 it stated that concessions can be cancelled within the time limit given in L79C, normally 30 minutes after the end of the tournament if there is no way a conceded trick can be lost by any legal play. In addition the concession can be cancelled if there is no "normal" play (although legal) by which a conceded trick can be lost, but for this alternative the time limit was until the condeding side makes a call on a subsequent board or the round ends (whichever comes first). Didn't this imply that there was a tighter time limit for correction when it takes an "irrational" play (L71C) than an "Illegal" play (L71A) to lose a conceded trick? Whatever, I must state that I am very comfortable with the present understanding. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 20:15:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QAF9o17125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:15:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5QAF4H17121 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:15:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.118] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id uchlvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:01:27 +0200 Message-ID: <007a01c21cf8$74fa8f00$763f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "BLML" References: <000801c21606$fe9815f0$9f06ba12@Herot><006d01c21616$9348ab60$3b9d68d5@default> <005401c21ca1$2742d940$949c68d5@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:01:35 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 1:36 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > As I am not a legal eagle, so would > be grateful for some information. > > 1. If you often reply "undiscussed", > refuse to amplify upon that answer, > but inevitably "guess" right in the > subsequent auction, do opponents > have any redress in law. There's some conflict about that. They are entitled to redress, if you regard the reply as MI. There is disagreement about what's an agreement. School 1: a right guess does not imply an agreement, because you didn't have an agreement when you guessed (no MI) School 2: guessing right implies you have an agreement from that point on and therefore requires you to explain your guess (MI then) > 2. If there is a possibility of such > redress, do you get lots of TD calls > about this issue and do you ever rule > that a player who claims "undiscussed" > is being economical with the truth? > If people did complain when this happened, > then in a large congress like Brighton, > you would expect several hundred such > TD calls per session so you would expect > to gather a fair quantity of statistics. You don't get that much TD calls, because people don't often have to explain a call as 'undiscussed' (I'm referring to the number of explanations in a session, not by a player). Secondly if they do, the opponents are rarely damaged. (They don't have to call the TD to preserve their rights.) > 3. I suspect that, in spite of it happening > so often, few people bother the director, > especially as they doubt that the poor > director would have the bottle to > practically accuse a pair of lying. > (although I am repeatedly assured that > TDs have no fear of slander actions). As I said many times before, giving an explanation, can't be a lie, because you have to give an explanation (even 'undiscussed'). MI is not considered to be a lie (not by me anyway), because you can honestly think you'r telling the truth, when you're not. > 4. If my suspicions are correct, then > perhaps you can understand one of our > concerns about the "undiscussed" mantra. Which is? If it makes you think players are going to be scared away, think again. The TD will only be called if the opponents think they have been damaged. This damage will a little more often occur if you explain a call as undiscussed, then when you give a meaningful explanation. (if right, no harm done, if wrong harm will rarely be done to the non-offending side) Changing the ruling on those rare occasions, that people explain calls as undiscussed AND the opponents feel they're damaged, will not scare people away. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 20:24:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QAOPD17141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:24:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5QAOKH17137 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:24:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.118] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id okhlvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:10:38 +0200 Message-ID: <008e01c21cf9$bd3d97c0$763f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: <002401c21a35$ed9a5aa0$653f23d5@cornelis> <007b01c21c2e$2f784640$683f23d5@cornelis> Subject: Re: [BLML] Eliminating Misinformation in Auctions or How to Have a Neverending Thread Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:10:46 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 2:20 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Eliminating Misinformation in Auctions or How to Have a Neverending Thread > Tom Cornelis writes > >From: "David Stevenson" > > >> If your worry is people lying then changing the Law to require people > >> to lie seems very strange. > >> > >> If your worry is people getting good boards through not knowing what > >> they are doing I like that: they get three times and more as many bad > >> boards against me by not knowing what they are doing! > >> > >> If your worry is the poor people who believe they *deserve* a good > >> score whenever their oppos make a mistake then it is time they learnt > >> about LIFE. > > > >Then why have Laws at all (L75C particularly)? > > Because you are meant to transmit your agreements, and L75C tells us > to. It does not tell us to lie about our agreements. Yes, but does LIFE tell you that? Don't get me wrong. I agree there are a lot of situations that players get a bad score they didn't deserve. But the Laws are partially there to prevent some of those situations. E.g. a pair may be damaged when their opponents revoked, and the Law covers that, because it's illegal, i.e. because it's the Law. The Law tells you what will be a lie and what not. You can't call my method lying under the current Law, because it would apply under a different Law. > >The Laws provide for transport of information from a player to his opponent. > >Why have that? > > Because that is what most of us want. You, however, are asking us to > tell a mixture of truth and lies, and that is not information. English is not my mother tongue, but I'm quite sure truth and lies are considered to be respectively information and desinformation. I require desinformation to be MI. Information we get from all our senses. Whether it's true or false, is under the provision of the Law. That's why I recommend a Law change, before my method would be applied. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 20:27:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QAQrL17153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:26:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5QAQmH17149 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:26:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.118] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id pmhlvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:13:11 +0200 Message-ID: <009401c21cfa$18f2eb10$763f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@pop.starpower.net> <005c01c21cdc$67d91ce0$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> <004a01c21cf0$414cdbc0$763f23d5@cornelis> <008601c21cf2$f9d5d8c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:13:20 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 11:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical > From: "Tom Cornelis" > ....... > > > Say an expert player is partnering a novice and they decide to play > > > one way transfer bids, so the expert player will declare (almost) every > > > hand. > > > The novice opens the suit below the one he has, the expert signs off > > instead > > > of transfering after the novice opens 1NT...and so on... > > > This is of course highly unethical, but is it covered by the law?? > > > > Yes Law 75A: > > Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be > fully > > and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). ***Information > conveyed > > to partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and > > conditions of the current deal.*** > > > > This means you cannot play a different system. You or your partner making > > the call is not a call, play or condition of the current deal (i.e. dealer > + > > vulnerability). > > Sorry Tom, you had better read Law 40E1. > > The Laws do not require both players in a pair to use the same system or > the same (detailed) agreements on particular calls. But law 40E1 allows > a sponsoring organization to issue regulations including such requirements. Law 40E1 then conflicts with Law 75A. Another problem found. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 20:38:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QAcgv17171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:38:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5QAcbH17167 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:38:37 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g5QAP4E14337 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:25:04 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:25 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical 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: <200206252214.g5PMEC032142@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Ted Ying asks: > > In Germany this may be illegal. > > It is forbidden to adulterate the result of a tournament by bidding > > absurd contracts. Penalty: at least 50%, disqualifacation is possible. Examples snipped. > Is this also illegal? Tell me how you can > determine that this and case #3 above can be discerned by the > director. Does it really matter? With rules like this we are likely to get 4 groups of people. The vast majority will live in ignorance of the rule. If it comes up at their table they will tell the TD the truth and accept (perhaps grudgingly) the consequences. Most of the rest will say "OK, that's the rule better not do that". A small minority will say "OK, I see that's the rule but it is stupid and outside the SOs legitimate powers. I am going to make a test case out of this." the TD will have no problem discerning their intent! A tiny minority will deliberately infringe the rule and then lie to the TD - the experienced TDs in your area already know which ones are likely to do this! 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 Jun 26 21:55:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QBsds17223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 21:54:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu (PACIFIC-CARRIER-ANNEX.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5QBsWH17219 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 21:54:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from grand-central-station.mit.edu (GRAND-CENTRAL-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.82]) by pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id HAA00807 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 07:41:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.86]) by grand-central-station.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id HAA20492 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 07:38:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Herot (TANG-ELEVEN-EIGHTY-TWO.MIT.EDU [18.186.6.159]) by melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id HAA21021 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 07:38:27 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "richard willey" To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" Subject: FW: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 07:38:22 -0400 Organization: mit Message-ID: <001701c21d05$fa129900$9f06ba12@Herot> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: richard willey [mailto:rwilley@mit.edu] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 7:19 AM To: 'Tom Cornelis' Subject: RE: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Tom This is a wonderful idea!!! I strongly suggest that you develop and promote your international bidding standard. Once this has been accepted and ratified by the Zonal authorities, I'm sure that the legal structure will adjust to take advantage this new system. BTW, for what its worth, I think there are some enormous problems with the approach that your suggesting. Here is a case in point. Last year at the ACBL Fall Nationals, David Stevenson graciously agreed to play a session with me. To my knowledge, David and I had never played before. We had about 15 minutes to work on a card and pretty much agreed to play Acol with a few tweaks in competitive structure. As I recall, we had agreed to cue bid first or second round controls. I was dealt (approximately) the followig hand AKxxx Axxx VOID AQxx And heard the auction start (1D) - P - (2D) - ? I doubled and our auction proceeded (1D) - P - (2D) - X (P) - 3C - (P) - 4D (P) - 4S - (P) - ??? At this point in time, I had to decide whether 4S was a shortness showing cue bid in support of a Diamond slam or a choice of games. I went into a deep tank, and made a decision. I sure as hell didn't do so based on any kind of explicit or implicit agreement that I had with David. Instead, I made a guess about what was going on. I think it would have been unethical to explain to the opponents that we had any kind of concrete agreement governing this auction. We have an obligation to explain our uncertainty. If nothing else, it might discourage them from making a penalty double that would expose the fact that we're about to play in a 5-1 Spade fit instead of 6C. [In fact, David was offering a choice of game. I guessed properly and passed 4S, however, this wasn't an easy decision] In the past, many people have stressed the requirement to establish meta agreements with their partners. I concur. I think that meta agreements are a great thing. However, if you don't have the appropriate agreements, you don't have the appropriate agreements. Hi all, for the sake of the discussion, I'm going to write down the set of rules I'm talking about: The following rules apply in order of their priority: 1) when there was an agreement that explains the call, that's the meaning of the call, even if judgement would suggest otherwise (note that the standard need not be followed) 2) when there was no agreement to suggest the meaning of a call, this call should be interpreted as natural (length). It is forcing when the hand that made the call is unlimited and the call was a suit call made without jump. Otherwise it's not forcing. 3) when there was no agreement to suggest the meaning of a call, this call should be interpreted as strength if it can't be natural. 4) when there was no agreement to suggest the meaning of a call, this call should be interpreted as cue if it was made with a jump in a suit that 1 level lower would have been forcing. The last shown natural suit is the trump suit. 5) when undiscussed, 4NT or 5NT is natural (quant if lower NT available) 6) when undiscussed, 4NT is simple Blackwood if it can't be natural 7) when undiscussed, 5NT is a grand slam try if it can't be natural Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 21:58:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QBwSp17238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 21:58:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5QBwMH17234 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 21:58:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA07872; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:42:22 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA04417; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:44:46 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020626135159.00aab610@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:52:26 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@pop.starpower.net> References: <3D18C7F0.1040108@vwalther.de> <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@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 17:06 25/06/2002 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 03:43 PM 6/25/02, Volker wrote: > >>Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>>3) purposely deciding to play an inferior contract, to get training for >>>playing NT (or, conversely, suit) >>>etc. >> >>In Germany this may be illegal. >>It is forbidden to adulterate the result of a tournament by bidding >>absurd contracts. Penalty: at least 50%, disqualifacation is possible. > >Player A decides that he needs practice playing NT contracts, so for a >session he plays every hand that goes his way in NT. > >Player B thinks it might be winning tactics to play every contract in NT, >and decides to test that hypothesis, so for a session he plays every hand >that goes his way in NT. > >Do the laws (or anyone's local regulations) distinguish these cases? AG : nope, but ethics do. That was my point. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 22:03:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QC38H17254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:03:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5QC32H17250 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:03:02 +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 NAA29520; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:47:26 +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 NAA08785; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:49:12 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020626135639.00ab8100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:57:02 +0200 To: "Willy Teigen" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: <005c01c21cdc$67d91ce0$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@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 08:40 26/06/2002 +0200, Willy Teigen wrote: > > Eric Landau wrote... > > Player A decides that he needs practice playing NT contracts, so for a > > session he plays every hand that goes his way in NT. > > > > Player B thinks it might be winning tactics to play every contract in > > NT, and decides to test that hypothesis, so for a session he plays > > every hand that goes his way in NT. > > > > Do the laws (or anyone's local regulations) distinguish these cases? > > >Well, let's pull this even further. >Say an expert player is partnering a novice and they decide to play >one way transfer bids, so the expert player will declare (almost) every >hand. >The novice opens the suit below the one he has, the expert signs off instead >of transfering after the novice opens 1NT...and so on... >This is of course highly unethical, but is it covered by the law?? AG : it is. Both players must play the same system. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 22:05:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QC52917266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:05:02 +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 (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5QC4uH17262 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:04:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA12870; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:48:58 +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 NAA10752; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:51:23 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020626135740.00abb790@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:59:12 +0200 To: "Tom Cornelis" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: <004a01c21cf0$414cdbc0$763f23d5@cornelis> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@pop.starpower.net> <005c01c21cdc$67d91ce0$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:02 26/06/2002 +0200, Tom Cornelis wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Willy Teigen" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" ; "Eric >Landau" >Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 8:40 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical > > > > > Eric Landau wrote... > > > Player A decides that he needs practice playing NT contracts, so for a > > > session he plays every hand that goes his way in NT. > > > > > > Player B thinks it might be winning tactics to play every contract in > > > NT, and decides to test that hypothesis, so for a session he plays > > > every hand that goes his way in NT. > > > > > > Do the laws (or anyone's local regulations) distinguish these cases? > > > > > Well, let's pull this even further. > > Say an expert player is partnering a novice and they decide to play > > one way transfer bids, so the expert player will declare (almost) every > > hand. > > The novice opens the suit below the one he has, the expert signs off >instead > > of transfering after the novice opens 1NT...and so on... > > This is of course highly unethical, but is it covered by the law?? > >Yes Law 75A: >Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully >and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). ***Information conveyed >to partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and >conditions of the current deal.*** > >This means you cannot play a different system. You or your partner making >the call is not a call, play or condition of the current deal (i.e. dealer + >vulnerability). AG : I'd welcome an addition of "conditions of the match or tournament". You should be allowed eg to loosen your opening bid requirements when trailing. Many do this, and the Laws force disclosure of suh tendencies. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 22:09:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QC95317289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:09:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5QC8sH17275 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:08:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g5QBtL219198 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:55:21 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:55 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations 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: <+aYR2YCFyRG9Ewqf@blakjak.demon.co.uk> > Tim West-meads writes > > >L72A2 does not explicitly require either legal plays or plausible ones. > >It is almost always possible to lose an extra trick if one plays from > the >wrong hand/revokes/allows a defender to lead. It never occurred > to me to >read L72A2 as anything other than "It's wrong to knowingly > accept a trick >you don't believe you'd get if the TD applied law > 71A/B/C". I recognise >that there is some ambiguity here but does > anyone actually want the law to >condone players deliberately taking > advantage of implausible or legally >impossible concessions. > > I do not believe there is any ambiguity whatever, and my wishes have > nothing to do with it. If you wish to apply a general level of ethics > to players above and beyond what is required by the Laws then I am of > course on your side, and I expect my partners and I to conform to such a > level. Ideally I would wish the law to be amended/clarified so that L72A2 *was* brought into line with L71abc - as I had always thought it was! > But none of that gives any of us the right to mis-apply the Law to > suit our own feelings. L72A2 is explicit when it refers to a trick the > opponents could not lose. It's a matter of interpretation, rather than feelings, when actually applying the law. I could *very* easily be persuaded that those writing L72A felt that they had just defined what was meant by "could not lose" in 71abc and saw no need to go repeating it in 72A2. I am sure the WBFLC could issue an "interpretation" to that effect (it would be a much smaller change than some "interpretations" they have given). An analogy is the "I know I revoked earlier" when declarer claims. I wouldn't criticise anyone who clearly displayed their hand. I would consider it trying to pull a fast one if they just say nothing and put their cards back in the pocket. I'd expect the same minimum standard to apply in "implausible concession cases". As a defender one can certainly apply one's feelings. 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 Jun 26 22:09:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QC96017290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:09:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5QC8tH17276 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:08:55 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g5QBtNB19225 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:55:23 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:55 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis 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: <005401c21ca1$2742d940$949c68d5@default> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > 1. If you often reply "undiscussed", > refuse to amplify upon that answer, I've never seen this happen. Even playing on-line where undiscussed is usually the correct "short" answer a follow-up enquiry will get you at least a reply like "First time played together". > but inevitably "guess" right in the > subsequent auction, do opponents > have any redress in law. Either undiscussed is accurate or it isn't. The subsequent guess doesn't affect that. Opponents have a possibility of redress if disclosable information has been withheld. > If people did complain when this happened, > then in a large congress like Brighton, > you would expect several hundred such > TD calls per session so you would expect Most pairs at Brighton have played regularly, "undiscussed" will seldom be sufficient. In the absence of the expected 100s of TD calls perhaps we should assume that the vast majority of people are giving fuller answers (or follow up answers) when asked. A far more common* problem is people explaining bids with names like "Benji" when they actually include hands like KQJT9xxx,x,KQx,x in the 2C opener or who think that "Lebensohl" is sufficient disclosure to pair which includes an obvious novice. *more common in that I encounter something like it every session. 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 Jun 26 22:09:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QC97N17291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:09:07 +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 g5QC8uH17279 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:08:57 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g5QBtOL19248 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:55:24 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:55 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical 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: <004a01c21cf0$414cdbc0$763f23d5@cornelis> > Yes Law 75A: > Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be > fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). ***Information > conveyed to partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, > plays and conditions of the current deal.*** > > This means you cannot play a different system. You or your partner > making the call is not a call, play or condition of the current deal > (i.e. dealer + vulnerability). Of course the information arises from "the call" in conjunction with "the agreements". No other interpretation is workable. My 1N/weak 2s include more hands than my partner's and this is both legal and disclosable. It also seems to me that "It is Tim's turn to bid" is fairly obviously a condition of the current deal. Many SOs (including the EBU) have regulations requiring "same system, judgement allowed". I may not always consider such restrictions desirable but I am sure they are necessary if the SO wants to outlaw "Advanced Hog". 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 Jun 26 22:25:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QCOrv17419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:24:53 +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 g5QCOiH17415 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:24:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-55.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.55] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17NBdg-00069K-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:11:12 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020626080533.00b1f340@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:12:06 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <005401c21ca1$2742d940$949c68d5@default> References: <000801c21606$fe9815f0$9f06ba12@Herot> <006d01c21616$9348ab60$3b9d68d5@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:36 PM 6/25/02, Nigel wrote: >1. If you often reply "undiscussed", > refuse to amplify upon that answer, > but inevitably "guess" right in the > subsequent auction, do opponents > have any redress in law. > >2. If there is a possibility of such > redress, do you get lots of TD calls > about this issue and do you ever rule > that a player who claims "undiscussed" > is being economical with the truth? > If people did complain when this happened, > then in a large congress like Brighton, > you would expect several hundred such > TD calls per session so you would expect > to gather a fair quantity of statistics. > >3. I suspect that, in spite of it happening > so often, few people bother the director, > especially as they doubt that the poor > director would have the bottle to > practically accuse a pair of lying. > (although I am repeatedly assured that > TDs have no fear of slander actions). > >4. If my suspicions are correct, then > perhaps you can understand one of our > concerns about the "undiscussed" mantra. Nigel's suspicions may well be correct (if, parhaps, a bit exaggerated), but all that would lead me to understand is that there are less-than-ethical players out there who will cheat when they can get away with it. The law provides them with dozens of opportunities to do so, of which this is one among many, and not, IMO, the most worrisome. If our laws were aimed at stopping cheaters at all costs without regard to the effect that would have on the way in which the ethical majority were forced to play the game, they would be very, very different from what they are. 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 Jun 26 22:27:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QCRFv17463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:27:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g5QCQlH17432 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:26:48 +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 17NBfc-000CzE-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:13:15 +0100 Message-ID: <3QMz09FVCaG9Ewb$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:08:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@pop.starpower.net> <005c01c21cdc$67d91ce0$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> <004a01c21cf0$414cdbc0$763f23d5@cornelis> In-Reply-To: <004a01c21cf0$414cdbc0$763f23d5@cornelis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis writes >From: "Willy Teigen" >> Well, let's pull this even further. >> Say an expert player is partnering a novice and they decide to play >> one way transfer bids, so the expert player will declare (almost) every >> hand. >> The novice opens the suit below the one he has, the expert signs off >instead >> of transfering after the novice opens 1NT...and so on... >> This is of course highly unethical, but is it covered by the law?? >Yes Law 75A: >Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully >and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). ***Information conveyed >to partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and >conditions of the current deal.*** > >This means you cannot play a different system. You or your partner making >the call is not a call, play or condition of the current deal (i.e. dealer + >vulnerability). There is no way that the dealer is legitimate information, the vulnerability is legitimate information, and the position of the call is not. You can certainly play a different system, unless your SO decrees otherwise under L40E1. Of course, most SOs do. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 22:27:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QCRCu17461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:27:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g5QCQkH17429 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:26:46 +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 17NBfa-000CzC-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:13:14 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:53:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <000801c21606$fe9815f0$9f06ba12@Herot> <006d01c21616$9348ab60$3b9d68d5@default> <005401c21ca1$2742d940$949c68d5@default> In-Reply-To: <005401c21ca1$2742d940$949c68d5@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie writes > As I am not a legal eagle, so would > be grateful for some information. > >1. If you often reply "undiscussed", > refuse to amplify upon that answer, > but inevitably "guess" right in the > subsequent auction, do opponents > have any redress in law. Surely. There are clearly undisclosed agreements. >2. If there is a possibility of such > redress, do you get lots of TD calls > about this issue and do you ever rule > that a player who claims "undiscussed" > is being economical with the truth? > If people did complain when this happened, > then in a large congress like Brighton, > you would expect several hundred such > TD calls per session so you would expect > to gather a fair quantity of statistics. My experience as a player is that in the very rare cases where someone says "undiscussed" they clearly have either got nor clue or [more often] I have as much clue as them. For example, if the bidding goes 1S P 2NT P 4NT then [a] club players will not have discussed it and [b] it is likely to be Blackwood 60% to natural 40%. I know this and they must guess. >3. I suspect that, in spite of it happening > so often, few people bother the director, > especially as they doubt that the poor > director would have the bottle to > practically accuse a pair of lying. > (although I am repeatedly assured that > TDs have no fear of slander actions). I do not believe it is at all common except in positions where you know 'undiscussed' is the correct and obvious answer. No-one accuses a player of lying. I am perfectly prepared to make a judgement that means a pair has an explicit or implicit agreement. I don't have to say which and I am not accusing people of lying. My experience of directing is that players accusing themselves of lying constitute 98% of all such accusations, and they do not impress me. "That's tantamount to calling me a cheat" does not impress me. If I call someone a cheat I do so - and I cannot remember last time I did. Well, I can remember one particular case in approximately 1965, and I still believe he was. >4. If my suspicions are correct, then > perhaps you can understand one of our > concerns about the "undiscussed" mantra. I think you are overly suspicious about something that does not seem to be happening as far as 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 Wed Jun 26 22:27:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QCRFo17462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:27:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g5QCQkH17428 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:26:46 +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 17NBfa-000CzD-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:13:13 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:02:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@pop.starpower.net> <005c01c21cdc$67d91ce0$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> <007901c21cdd$f9e6d540$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <007901c21cdd$f9e6d540$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: "Willy Teigen" >...... >> Well, let's pull this even further. >> Say an expert player is partnering a novice and they decide to play >> one way transfer bids, so the expert player will declare (almost) every >> hand. >> The novice opens the suit below the one he has, the expert signs off >instead >> of transfering after the novice opens 1NT...and so on... >> This is of course highly unethical, but is it covered by the law?? > >Why is this unethical, provided of course that this "system" is >declared properly? > >(There is an interesting question if this can be considered a violation >of the rule that both players in a pair must use the same system, but >for the purpose of training a novice I might even allow it if that question >were raised) Don't forget that the 'rule' to which you refer is a regulation of the SO, nothing more. So if Norway does not allow this difference in system they could go further and interpret whether it applies in this case. Alternatively, Norway could just allow different systems for the partnership. To be honest, I have never seen anything wrong with it. At university I was convinced that K from AK was more helpful to partner than A from AK, but my partner thought otherwise. So I led A from AK [sic] and he led K from AK [sic] so that partner would see what he thought most useful. I still have no idea why that is now illegal in England [and many other places]. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 22:27:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QCRIY17464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:27:18 +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-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 g5QCQpH17444 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:26:52 +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 17NBfh-000Cz8-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:13:19 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:11:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Terminological inexactitude References: <00c401c21cbe$47e5c640$949c68d5@default> In-Reply-To: <00c401c21cbe$47e5c640$949c68d5@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie writes >Richard Hills: > >In the thread, "Steps in an appeal analysis", >Nigel Guthrie asked: > >[big snip] > >>do you ever rule that a player who claims "undiscussed" >>is being economical with the truth? > >[big snip] > > Richard: > I heard of an amusing case when a TD was > called after a player claimed that a 2C > bid conventionally showed "13 cards", and > an opponent thought that the "explanation" > might be economical with the truth. > > The TD asked a series of questions: > "Does it deny 16-18 balanced?" > "Yes." > "Does it deny a pre-empt?" > "Yes." > Etc. etc. > After an embarassingly long series of > questions from the TD, eventually it > emerged that the "13 cards" included > only a limited number of specific > holdings. > > *But*, merely because some players are > economical with the truth does *not* > justify a blanket regulation forbidding > economical and non-economical players > alike from explaining, "undiscussed". > >Nigel Guthrie... > > Well Richard, > :( Sigh ): > :( my arguments & queries snipped again ): > > Was this expert penalised for breaking > the law? Were his opponents awarded > adjusted scores on previous boards where > there was likely damage? I doubt it Are you sure you are not confusing appalling TD practices with what the Law should be? If this player was an expert in England then [a] he would be subject to a sizeable penalty which would be given and [b] the matter would be referred to the L&EC. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 22:27:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QCRLK17465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:27:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g5QCQmH17435 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:26:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17NBfc-000CzH-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:13:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:08:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical References: <200206252214.g5PMEC032142@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: <200206252214.g5PMEC032142@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ted Ying writes >> From: "Sven Pran" >> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:35:41 +0200 >> >> From: "Volker R. Walther" >> > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> > >> > > ... >> > > 3) purposely deciding to play an inferior contract, to get training for >> > > playing NT (or, conversely, suit) >> > > etc. >> > >> > In Germany this may be illegal. >> > It is forbidden to adulterate the result of a tournament by bidding >> > absurd contracts. Penalty: at least 50%, disqualifacation is possible. >> > >> > Greetings, Volker >> >> Interesting, but I foresee a legal problem here. I suppose you do not >> apply any regulation like this on every absurd contract that pops up >> during an event, you have to prove intent - don't you? >> >> And once intent is proven then you can at least use Laws 74C6 and >> 72B2 with a ruling contempt of the game, there is no need for any >> special regulation on this point. >> > >Even more interesting. Say you are on a team and are playing >a seeded team that is a significantly stronger team. At the >half, you find that you are down significantly (let's say 80+ >on 28 boards). You come back in the second half and you decide >that you'll try to swing. So, on one deal, partner opens 1H >showing 5 and with your 10 count with 4 hearts, you decide to >bid a non-forcing notrump and get to play it there. You find >the hand particularly unpleasant with everything breaking wrong >(including trumps) and the 4H contract that partner would have >bid if you had made a 4-card limit-raise goes down and your >+120 picks up IMPs. Is this also illegal? Tell me how you can >determine that this and case #3 above can be discerned by the >director. You make a judgement in the way that as a TD you make any other judgement. You ask questions, listen to the answers, and judge. But in case 3 *of course* you are unlikely to pick up one case. The way it was worded a player is going to make strange bids for a session. >Another case. The barometer finals of a 4-session pair event >and you are 2 boards out of first with 2 rounds to play. You >pick up QJxx/T9xx/QJTx/A and partner opens 1H and for better >or worse, you bid 1S and pass partner's 1NT rebid. 4H goes >down and 1NT makes +120. So, how can a director tell this >wasn't case #3 (or letting partner practice playing NT) instead >of an attempt to swing. Just ask. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 22:28:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QCRWc17466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:27:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5QCR1H17453 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:27:02 +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 17NBfs-000CzD-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:13:29 +0100 Message-ID: <6zVAsrKz6aG9EwYT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:08:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Asking for help in a ruling MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If you are just asking for help in a ruling there is the International Bridge laws forum [IBLF] at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm For those of you who have used it before I have moved it to a new host - opinions welcome. You can just ask a simple question without fuss. Alternatively, if you register, there are lots of possibilities. It is not a suitable place for Laws discussions. For them I suggest either here on BLML or at an easier level on RGB. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 22:28:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QCRYo17467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:27:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5QCR2H17454 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:27:03 +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 17NBfs-000CzC-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:13:30 +0100 Message-ID: <6TUA03K19aG9Ew6G@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:11:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Usenet Bridge abbreviations References: <005401c2109b$418c8a60$d85f003e@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 Brambledown writes >> Robin Barker writes: >> David's is a list of bridge abbreviations, >> Chas's claimed omissions are general usenet abbreviations >> and IMHO belong on a different list. >Maybe so, but David's list is not confined to bridge acronyms since it >contains: > >BTW, FAQ, HTH, IIRC, IMHO, IMO, NG, NP, OBM, OTOH, WTP & ZT > >No specific bridge connotations, AFAIK :-)) OK, I am sorry that I tried to be helpful, I shall delete all the non- bridge ones. Someone suggested a couple of new ones, but I forget them, except IB. Any others please let me know, and I shall post a new list in a day or two. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 22:39:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QCccf17515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:38:38 +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 g5QCcXH17511 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:38:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-55.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.55] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17NBr3-0007aF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:25:01 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020626081946.00b1f890@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:25:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical 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 12:19 AM 6/26/02, richard wrote: > >Player A decides that he needs practice playing NT contracts, so for a > >session he plays every hand that goes his way in NT. > > > >Player B thinks it might be winning tactics to play every contract in > >NT, and decides to test that hypothesis, so for a session he plays > >every hand that goes his way in NT. > > > >Do the laws (or anyone's local regulations) distinguish these cases? > > > >Eric Landau > >In Australia, Player B is the famous Tim Seres. Tim more often holds >balanced hands than other Australian experts. :-) > >...But is also more frequently successful in 3NT than other Australian >experts. Player C sees Mr. Seres' success, and decides to emulate it. Unfortunately for him, he lacks Mr. Seres' ability to outplay the field in NT contracts, and winds up scattering tops to various opponents at random. The real question, of course, is: If one holds that player A is guilty of disrupting the contest, what does one make of player C? 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 Jun 26 22:55:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QCtD217533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:55:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5QCt6H17529 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:55:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-55.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.55] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17NC75-0001lY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:41:35 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020626083537.00b24670@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:42:29 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: <005c01c21cdc$67d91ce0$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:40 AM 6/26/02, Willy wrote: >Say an expert player is partnering a novice and they decide to play >one way transfer bids, so the expert player will declare (almost) every >hand. >The novice opens the suit below the one he has, the expert signs off >instead >of transfering after the novice opens 1NT...and so on... >This is of course highly unethical, but is it covered by the law?? No. But the ACBL, using its L40D power, has outlawed it, and it's my impression, although I don't know for sure, that many/most other NCBOs have similar regulations. It is subject to debate (and, indeed, the debate has been engaged here more than once) whether such a tactic can possibly be called "highly unethical" when used under the jurisdiction of an NCBO that has chosen to permit it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 22:55:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QCtbe17539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:55:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5QCtVH17535 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:55:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.156.218]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020626124158.DXDJ4626.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:41:58 +0100 Message-ID: <008e01c21d0f$deddfbc0$da9c68d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <00c501c21967$55c38cc0$a49568d5@default><00ef01c21974$fae1d4c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com><01a301c2197d$009709a0$a49568d5@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:20:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie: > Finally, any law which asks a TD to rule > favourably for an "expert" (?crony ?) but > stigmatises the average stranger as > ignorant / unskilful /irrational is not > just chauvinist. It should engender legal > actions for slander. David Stevenson: Good thing we do not have such a law then, isn't it? Nigel: Thanks. No discrimination is good news. Well my questions are genuine so I am pleased when I get a reply. Please reassure me further on this topic Suppose, without play, I concede one down in my contract; my expert partner explains that the only chance, "a hexagon clash squeeze" would succeed. I ask the TD to retract my rash and daft concession, claiming, correctly, that the only rational play brings home my contract. Will the TD rule in my favour? or has the Law assigned a new meaning to "Rational"? (i.e "Irrational")? In similar cases, are there no circumstances where the TD would rule more favourably for an expert than a tyro? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 23:02:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QD2cO17561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:02:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5QD2WH17557 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:02:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.156.218]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020626124900.EESZ4626.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:49:00 +0100 Message-ID: <008f01c21d10$da648c20$da9c68d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:55:58 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Please, please, allay my fears about law 71C which seems to have ludicrous effects. I lead a trump towards dummy's AQJx; LHO shows out; and I am sure that RHO has the well guarded king. Does law 71C imply it is "irrational" to to play the queen? Depending on other circumstances, it may or may not be optimal but it is certainly "rational", sometimes. (1) Unless the queen-play is irrational, how can a TD justify reversing a concession by a player who (apparently) drastically miscounted trumps. :(Yes, you guessed, the king was single): (2) And if a player suffers such a mental aberration, are non-scumbags honour-bound to insist that he benefit from 20-20 hind-sight. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 23:03:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QD3Nv17573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:03:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5QD3IH17569 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:03:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-55.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.55] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17NCF1-0002v5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:49:47 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020626084642.00aad9c0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:50:41 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations In-Reply-To: References: <200206211712.SAA00198@tempest.npl.co.uk> <200206211712.SAA00198@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:07 PM 6/25/02, David wrote: > Please note that, contrary to several statements in this thread, there >is no change in the Law mentioned in this minute. It is merely an >interpretation that the second sentence is redundant. It's "merely an interpretation" that says that "until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends" really means "unless the sponsoring organization specifies a later time,... 30 minutes after the official score has been made available"? That's quite an interpretation. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 23:05:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QD5an17585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:05:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (virtueelmuseum.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5QD5UH17581 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:05:31 +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 OAA12769; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:49:56 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA09095; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:51:42 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020626144150.00aacb80@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:59:31 +0200 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Usenet Bridge abbreviations In-Reply-To: <6TUA03K19aG9Ew6G@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <005401c2109b$418c8a60$d85f003e@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 13:11 26/06/2002 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Brambledown writes > >> Robin Barker writes: > > >> David's is a list of bridge abbreviations, > >> Chas's claimed omissions are general usenet abbreviations > >> and IMHO belong on a different list. > > >Maybe so, but David's list is not confined to bridge acronyms since it > >contains: > > > >BTW, FAQ, HTH, IIRC, IMHO, IMO, NG, NP, OBM, OTOH, WTP & ZT > > > >No specific bridge connotations, AFAIK :-)) AG : none, but the context may make some of them bridge-sensitive. 1) Some acronyms apart from those you mentioned would be useful on blml : BTAICBW CFV IBTD IMCDO IMOBO PPPP SHTSI 2) Some are quite useful at the table or in describing what happened to you at the table : BMHATW BOHOF BRBIGP DTRT E&OE FTL FJP GJP GTGB IIRC KISS LDTO 3) some take a specific sense when referring to bridge : BAD (Broken As Designed) to describe your preempts (at least, mine) NMS (Not My Style) - I use this quite often to describe suggested bids PBNFL (Possible But Not F** Likely) or CPF (Can Pigs Fly) to translate "your played East for 14 cards, didn't you ?" SEP (Somebody Else's Problem) when bidding one more to "give them the last guess" SWAG (Scientific Wild Assed Guess) describes some bids fairly well YWSYLS (You Win Some You Lose Some) for risky bids As my personal bridge players network (in the Social Science sense of the word) includes many mathematicians and informaticians, I'm prone to use them, but YMMV. 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 Jun 26 23:08:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QD8Xn17597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:08:33 +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 (virtueelmuseum.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5QD8RH17593 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:08:28 +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 OAA13522; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:53:08 +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 OAA12246; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:54:54 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020626150000.00abc540@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:02:44 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020626081946.00b1f890@pop.starpower.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:25 26/06/2002 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 12:19 AM 6/26/02, richard wrote: > >> >Player A decides that he needs practice playing NT contracts, so for a >> >session he plays every hand that goes his way in NT. >> > >> >Player B thinks it might be winning tactics to play every contract in >> >NT, and decides to test that hypothesis, so for a session he plays >> >every hand that goes his way in NT. >> > >> >Do the laws (or anyone's local regulations) distinguish these cases? >> > >> >Eric Landau >> >>In Australia, Player B is the famous Tim Seres. Tim more often holds >>balanced hands than other Australian experts. :-) >> >>...But is also more frequently successful in 3NT than other Australian >>experts. > >Player C sees Mr. Seres' success, and decides to emulate >it. Unfortunately for him, he lacks Mr. Seres' ability to outplay the >field in NT contracts, and winds up scattering tops to various opponents >at random. The real question, of course, is: If one holds that player A >is guilty of disrupting the contest, what does one make of player C? AG : nothing at all. Tim Seres and player C try to optimize their results, with varying degrees of success, while player A is just making a fool of himself and the game of bridge. That's the difference. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 00:21:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QEKj817669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 00:20:45 +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 g5QEKdH17665 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 00:20:39 +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 QAA20794; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:04:41 +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 QAA22874; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:07:06 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020626160541.00aaf9c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:14:55 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020626083537.00b24670@pop.starpower.net> References: <005c01c21cdc$67d91ce0$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@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 08:42 26/06/2002 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 02:40 AM 6/26/02, Willy wrote: > >>Say an expert player is partnering a novice and they decide to play >>one way transfer bids, so the expert player will declare (almost) every >>hand. >>The novice opens the suit below the one he has, the expert signs off instead >>of transfering after the novice opens 1NT...and so on... >>This is of course highly unethical, but is it covered by the law?? > >No. But the ACBL, using its L40D power, has outlawed it, and it's my >impression, although I don't know for sure, that many/most other NCBOs >have similar regulations. AG : the signoff vs transfer is an interesting problem. I play that there are two ways to play in 4M over 1NT : trannsfer-then-4M, and direct 4M. There is no explicit difference between them, but of course I will bid 4H over a 11-14 NT (my usual range) with Kx - AJxxxx - Kx - Qxx and 2D with Ax - KQxxxx - Ax - xxx If there exists a pair in which one player transfers most of the time, and the other hogs most of the time, can such L40B regulations apply ? In the course of the last season, Alex and I each asked the other once to hog the deals until the end of the session, because of a stroke of bad form. We nevertheless would play the same system. Alex overcalled 1NT over 1C with a strong spade suit, and got 11IMPs for his trouble. I would of course have overcalled 1S and seen him play 3NT the other way round. How can you disallow this ? 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 Jun 27 00:28:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QES5O17682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 00:28:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5QES0H17678 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 00:28:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.156.221]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020626141424.UOVL295.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:14:24 +0100 Message-ID: <012301c21d1c$caf467e0$da9c68d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish List Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:14:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I believe, initially, many card laws assumed no deliberate cheating. At whist-like games, however, it was possible to gain a lot by revokes with little chance of detection, so harsh penalties may have been introduced to discourage that habit. (Now, at duplicate bridge, where revokes are easier to detect, perhaps the law should be less cruel). We should deplore weak or unenforceable laws that encourage abuse e.g. about alerts or "undiscussed" explanations; because people are only to happy to rationalise what they know they can always get away with - they are not really cheats -- just hypocrites. Nevertheless, it severely handicaps (and reduces the number of) honest players. IMO, the game suffers. Look at what has happened to football where top players must be RADA graduates with black-belts in kick-boxing. You can hardly blame the fans for adopting the ethics of their heroes. OK. OK. Cricket is no 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 Thu Jun 27 00:48:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QEmIH17699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 00:48:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5QEmDH17695 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 00:48:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.156.221]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020626143440.FMKE19225.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:34:40 +0100 Message-ID: <013501c21d1f$9e034000$da9c68d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <005401c2109b$418c8a60$d85f003e@mycomputer> <6TUA03K19aG9Ew6G@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Usenet Bridge abbreviations Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:41:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi David, Please do note delete but add new useful non-bridge acronyms to your lexicon, including those suggested by Brambeldown and Alain below. Regards, Nigel Brambledown(?): Maybe so, but David's list is not confined to bridge acronyms since it contains: BTW, FAQ, HTH, IIRC, IMHO, IMO, NG, NP, OBM, OTOH, WTP & ZT No specific bridge connotations, AFAIK :-)) David Stevenson: OK, I am sorry that I tried to be helpful, I shall delete all the non- bridge ones. Someone suggested a couple of new ones, but I forget them, except IB. Alain Gottcheiner: 1) Some acronyms apart from those you mentioned would be useful on blml : BTAICBW CFV IBTD IMCDO IMOBO PPPP SHTSI 2) Some are quite useful at the table... BMHATW BOHOF BRBIGP DTRT E&OE FTL FJP GJP GTGB IIRC KISS LDTO 3) some take a specific sense when referring to bridge : BAD (Broken As Designed) to describe your preempts (at least, mine) NMS (Not My Style) - I use this quite often to describe suggested bids PBNFL (Possible But Not F** Likely) or CPF (Can Pigs Fly) to translate "your played East for 14 cards, didn't you ?" SEP (Somebody Else's Problem) when bidding one more to "give them the last guess" SWAG (Scientific Wild Assed Guess) describes some bids fairly well YWSYLS (You Win Some You Lose Some) for risky bids ...YMMV. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 01:31:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QFU1f17723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 01:30:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5QFTuH17719 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 01:29:56 +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 RAA12487; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:13:57 +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 RAA26372; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:16:23 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020626172345.00aad5f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:24:09 +0200 To: "Nigel Guthrie" , "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Usenet Bridge abbreviations In-Reply-To: <013501c21d1f$9e034000$da9c68d5@default> References: <005401c2109b$418c8a60$d85f003e@mycomputer> <6TUA03K19aG9Ew6G@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 15:41 26/06/2002 +0100, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >Hi David, > >Please do note delete but add new useful >non-bridge acronyms to your lexicon, >including those suggested by Brambeldown >and Alain below. > >Regards, Nigel > >Brambledown(?): > Maybe so, but David's list is not > confined to bridge acronyms since > it contains: > BTW, FAQ, HTH, IIRC, IMHO, IMO, NG, > NP, OBM, OTOH, WTP & ZT > > No specific bridge connotations, > AFAIK :-)) > >David Stevenson: > OK, I am sorry that I tried to be > helpful, I shall delete all the non- > bridge ones. Someone suggested a > couple of new ones, but I forget > them, except IB. > >Alain Gottcheiner: > 1) Some acronyms apart from those you > mentioned would be useful on blml : > BTAICBW CFV IBTD IMCDO IMOBO PPPP SHTSI > 2) Some are quite useful at the table... > BMHATW BOHOF BRBIGP DTRT E&OE FTL > FJP GJP GTGB IIRC KISS LDTO > AG : sorry. It's not FJP, but FUD. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 01:31:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QFUP417729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 01:30:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f159.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.159]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5QFUKH17725 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 01:30:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:16:44 -0700 Received: from 204.52.135.62 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:16:44 GMT X-Originating-IP: [204.52.135.62] From: "Roger Pewick" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:16:44 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2002 15:16:44.0533 (UTC) FILETIME=[7B5A2A50:01C21D24] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Sven Pran" >To: >Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations >Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:45:16 +0200 > >From: "David Stevenson" >....... > > >It's not a question of "obsolete." There is a general introduction to > > >L71 (before part A) that gives a less restrictive time interval than > > >the second sentence of L71C. The WBFLC resolved this apparent > > >conflict by saying that the general introduction controls. > > > > When read carefully you will discover there is no conflict whatever, > > merely a redundancy. Thus the WBFLC made an interpretation not a change > > to confirm that the Law meant what it said, despite the wording being > > very strange. The point I that the second sentence can effectively be > > ignored because whenever it applies, so does the first sentence, but not > > vice versa. >....... >Thanks for your clarification David and i think I understand the general >state. > >But, I have a little problem with your statement that the second sentence >in >L71C should have been redundant? > >The way I read L71 it stated that concessions can be cancelled within the >time limit given in L79C, normally 30 minutes after the end of the >tournament >if there is no way a conceded trick can be lost by any legal play. >In addition the concession can be cancelled if there is no "normal" play >(although legal) by which a conceded trick can be lost, but for this >alternative >the time limit was until the condeding side makes a call on a subsequent >board or the round ends (whichever comes first). >Didn't this imply that there was a tighter time limit for correction In my book there was no implication whatsoever. It said it straight out. >when it >takes an "irrational" play (L71C) than an "Illegal" play (L71A) to >lose a >conceded trick? > >Whatever, I must state that I am very comfortable with the present >understanding. I find it very uncomfortable. There is a world of difference between tricks that can't be lost legally and tricks that can be lost legally but not necessarily. If players are to be given what amounts to 'unlimited time of L79C' to work out their gaff this is less equitable to those who don't get second chances. If something is irrational it ought to be apparent immediately as opposed to after some consideration, and as such the window ought to expire soon. regards roger pewick >regards Sven _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 01:54:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QFsT117759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 01:54:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5QFsOH17755 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 01:54:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.100] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id implvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:40:46 +0200 Message-ID: <001401c21d27$dba7ea20$643f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <005c01c21cdc$67d91ce0$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020626160541.00aaf9c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:40:53 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Eric Landau" ; "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 4:14 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical > At 08:42 26/06/2002 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >At 02:40 AM 6/26/02, Willy wrote: > > > >>Say an expert player is partnering a novice and they decide to play > >>one way transfer bids, so the expert player will declare (almost) every > >>hand. > >>The novice opens the suit below the one he has, the expert signs off instead > >>of transfering after the novice opens 1NT...and so on... > >>This is of course highly unethical, but is it covered by the law?? > > > >No. But the ACBL, using its L40D power, has outlawed it, and it's my > >impression, although I don't know for sure, that many/most other NCBOs > >have similar regulations. > > AG : the signoff vs transfer is an interesting problem. > I play that there are two ways to play in 4M over 1NT : trannsfer-then-4M, > and direct 4M. There is no explicit difference between them, but of course > I will bid 4H over a 11-14 NT (my usual range) with > Kx - AJxxxx - Kx - Qxx > and 2D with > Ax - KQxxxx - Ax - xxx > If there exists a pair in which one player transfers most of the time, and > the other hogs most of the time, can such L40B regulations apply ? > In the course of the last season, Alex and I each asked the other once to > hog the deals until the end of the session, because of a stroke of bad > form. We nevertheless would play the same system. > Alex overcalled 1NT over 1C with a strong spade suit, and got 11IMPs for > his trouble. I would of course have overcalled 1S and seen him play 3NT the > other way round. How can you disallow this ? This is not disallowed. Making a different call is not the same as playing different methods. Surely you and your partner can adopt your own style in bidding, but must still play the same methods. What wouldn't have been allowed is that you play 1S transfer to NT and partner 1S and 1NT natural. You must play the same methods. L40E1 and L75A contradict each other in this matter. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 02:06:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QG6as17776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 02:06:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5QG6VH17772 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 02:06:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.100] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id otplvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:52:48 +0200 Message-ID: <006401c21d29$89c30800$643f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@pop.starpower.net> <005c01c21cdc$67d91ce0$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> <004a01c21cf0$414cdbc0$763f23d5@cornelis> <3QMz09FVCaG9Ewb$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:52:55 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 1:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical > Tom Cornelis writes > >From: "Willy Teigen" > > >> Well, let's pull this even further. > >> Say an expert player is partnering a novice and they decide to play > >> one way transfer bids, so the expert player will declare (almost) every > >> hand. > >> The novice opens the suit below the one he has, the expert signs off > >instead > >> of transfering after the novice opens 1NT...and so on... > >> This is of course highly unethical, but is it covered by the law?? > > >Yes Law 75A: > >Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully > >and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). ***Information conveyed > >to partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and > >conditions of the current deal.*** > > > >This means you cannot play a different system. You or your partner making > >the call is not a call, play or condition of the current deal (i.e. dealer + > >vulnerability). > > There is no way that the dealer is legitimate information, the > vulnerability is legitimate information, and the position of the call is > not. You can certainly play a different system, unless your SO decrees > otherwise under L40E1. Of course, most SOs do. Of course the position of the call is legitimate information. However: board 1, first bid: '1NT by you' and '1NT by your partner' are the same calls. You are your partner making the call is therefore not legitimate information that arises from the call. (but L40E1 contradicts this) Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 02:18:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QGIJd17793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 02:18:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5QGIEH17789 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 02:18:15 +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 JAA17412; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:04:37 -0700 Message-Id: <200206261604.JAA17412@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Jun 2002 02:38:41 BST." Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:05:19 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > >So the time limit for Law 71C is now the same as that for Laws 71A & B. > > If you read it carefully it has been since 1997, though it does not > look like it at first read. I can't agree with this. If you read it carefully, you do see two contradictory clauses---"within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C" in L71, and "Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board ..." in L71C. One possible interpretation is that the phrase in L71C is redundant, since the time period specified in L71C is a proper subset of that described in L71; however, another reasonable interpretation is that the time period given in L71C is intended to *supersede* the one given in L71, in the case of a concession covered by L71C (that is not covered by L71A or B). Both interpretations are reasonable IMHO, and therefore I think it takes more than a careful reading to determine that the time limit for L71C is the same as for A and B. In fact, I'd consider the "supersede" interpretation to be more reasonable, on the grounds that it doesn't make sense that someone would include this clause in L71C unless they intended it to supersede the other time period. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 03:05:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QH55I17828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 03:05:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5QH4xH17824 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 03:05:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.148.106]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020626165127.WIKO2755.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:51:27 +0100 Message-ID: <02a801c21d32$ba5e2ea0$da9c68d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:55:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Suppose, with one set of boards left, > you are down a lot against a better team. > In team discussions about such a > contingency, you have decided that your > partnership will play conservatively and > your other pair will shoot everything. > Must you declare these tactics to > opponents? (IMO yes). If you do tell > opponents, can they insist on being > allowed time for a team-discussion to > devise counter-measures? Richard Hills: Edgar Kaplan discussed this issue in a Bridge World editorial. His view was that you must tell your immediate opponents that your partnership is playing a conservative, non-shooting style this set of boards, as required by L40B. However your immediate opponents are not entitled by Law to know what is going to happen in the other room. Similarly, in the other room, the other opposing pair is entitled to know that your team-mates will shoot everything. But they are not entitled by Law to know whether or not your partnership is also shooting. Nigel Guthrie: Thank you Richard. In those brilliant books "Miami Vice" and so on, was Kaplan the spoil-sport who kept introducing common-sense into the otherwise hilarious proceedings? I did not always agree with his BW editorials but in this case, his interpretation seems reasonable; although it leaves your opponents at a disadvantage unless they too can now adopt a concerted strategy. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 03:11:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QHB3k17870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 03:11:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5QHAvH17862 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 03:10:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1457.bb.online.no [80.212.213.177]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA28769 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 18:57:20 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004a01c21d32$89056e40$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@pop.starpower.net> <005c01c21cdc$67d91ce0$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> <004a01c21cf0$414cdbc0$763f23d5@cornelis> <3QMz09FVCaG9Ewb$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006401c21d29$89c30800$643f23d5@cornelis> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 18:57:19 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Tom Cornelis" ....... > > >This means you cannot play a different system. You or your partner making > > >the call is not a call, play or condition of the current deal (i.e. > dealer + > > >vulnerability). > > > > There is no way that the dealer is legitimate information, the > > vulnerability is legitimate information, and the position of the call is > > not. You can certainly play a different system, unless your SO decrees > > otherwise under L40E1. Of course, most SOs do. > > Of course the position of the call is legitimate information. > However: board 1, first bid: '1NT by you' and '1NT by your partner' are the > same calls. You are your partner making the call is therefore not legitimate > information that arises from the call. (but L40E1 contradicts this) I have a strong feeling that you are stretching L75A too far: An opening bid 1NT by player A and an opening bid 1NT by player B (both seated in the same position relative to the dealer) are not neccessarily the same calls. Just consider the following declaration of the 1NT opening bid: 15-17HCP but player A tends to be on the strong side (16-18). There is no doubt that this declaration is accurate, disclosing not only the agreement but also the personal habit. What more, I think such a declaration is commendable when relevant. If you accept this declaration then consider another addition: .... while player B tends to be on the weaker side (14-16). Will you accept this? Just continue ad.lib. Sooner or later you will have two entirely different systems, and when will you say STOP? L75A definitely does not require players A and B to have exactly the same habits. IMO it doesn't even require them to play the same system. What L75A does not allow is partnership agreements that depend upon for instance how a player holds his cards or how he arranges his completed tricks. When L75A uses the words "calls, plays and conditions of the current deal" I feel that the knowledge of whether it is player A or player B who takes an action that is to be explained is part of the "conditions of the current deal", knowledge that is available to all four players around the table and not arosen from illegal communications between partners. . . . . . . . . . An entirely different matter is the fact that (as I believe it) most sponsoring organizations around the world now have regulations enforcing the requirement that both players in a pair shall play the same system. However, given the example above I do not accept that this shall prevent one player to habitually use 16-18 strength for his 1NT opening bids while the declared strength (and the one used by his partner) is 15-17, provided of course that this discrepancy is properly declared. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 04:10:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QI9dU17902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 04:09:39 +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 g5QI9XH17898 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 04:09:34 +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 NAA15932 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:56:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA22713 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:56:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:56:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200206261756.NAA22713@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] BLML FAQ X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Perhaps it is time someone produced a FAQ for BLML. ... > If someone produced one for all the common questions of course I would > put it on my site. It might be easier than endless repetition because > we get new people. An excellent idea. Rather than asking for one person to do all the work, I suggest a top-down approach. First develop some major sections, then list some relevant questions for each section, then solicit answers from whomever is motivated (and knowledgeable enough) to write them. Answers can be reviewed by anyone on BLML, but the compiler (David, presumably, if the material goes on his web site) has to decide what to accept. A first cut at major sections might be: 1. The WBF, Zones, and Laws editions 2. NCBO's and SO's, regulations 3. Event administration 4. Specific Laws 5. BLML controversies Here are some examples of questions that might go in each section. These are far from complete. Some are very broad and might well be broken into narrower questions, but perhaps they will give some flavor of what might be useful. 1.01 What are the relevant WBF committees? 1.02 What Laws editions exist? 1.03 Which Zones allow defenders to ask partner about a revoke? 2.01 What convention rules are in place in different areas? 2.02 What alert rules are in place in different areas? 3.01 How do I handle artificial adjusted scores? 3.02 How do I handle assigned adjusted scores? 3.03 What are best practices for an appeals committee? 4.01 Can dummy revoke? 4.02 What if dummy has a card hidden? 4.03 When can a played card be changed? 4.04 What is AI and UI with regard to a penalty card? 4.05 How do we assign scores after IWoG actions? (In section 5, I would propose explaining the controversy and stating the major arguments on each side.) 5.01 When there is a contested claims, what plays are irrational? 5.02 What is a convention? 5.03 Can the SO regulate (various things)? Perhaps Herman can tell us what the longest threads have been so we know what to put here. Of course all the above is only one of many possible outlines. I wouldn't argue very hard for any particular piece, but I do think the top-down style of organization leading to individual questions works well. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 04:19:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QIJLt17918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 04:19:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5QIJGH17914 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 04:19:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id OAA16500 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:05:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA22730 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:05:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:05:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200206261805.OAA22730@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > Please, please, allay my fears about law > 71C which seems to have ludicrous effects. > I lead a trump towards dummy's AQJx; > LHO shows out; and I am sure that RHO has > the well guarded king. > :(Yes, you guessed, the king was single): I am not sure what your fears are or what you mean by "ludicrous." If you play the queen or jack (or ace or low, for that matter), Laws 45 through 47 are the relevant ones. Usually, though, you will not be allowed to change your play, whatever it is. If instead you concede a trick, Laws 68 to 71 are the relevant ones. (In this instance, you are claiming as well as conceding.) Often you will avoid losing to the bare king under L71. This seems to me a proper reward for claiming and conceding instead of prolonging play. If you don't like it, you can of course endeavor to have the laws changed. I hope you will be in a small minority. In any case, it should hardly be surprising that different actions at the table lead to different outcomes. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 05:31:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QJUQR17958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 05:30:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g5QJUJH17946 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 05:30:19 +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 17NIHU-000D2T-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:16:46 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:07:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@pop.starpower.net> <005c01c21cdc$67d91ce0$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> <5.1.0.14.0.20020626135639.00ab8100@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020626135639.00ab8100@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner writes >AG : it is. Both players must play the same system. As pointed out elsewhere, that may be true in Belgium, but it is not a requirement of the laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 05:31:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QJUac17967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 05:30:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g5QJULH17954 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 05:30:22 +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 17NIHU-000D2f-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:16:49 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:15:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations References: <200206212140.RAA29340@cfa183.harvard.edu> <009e01c21cf6$2d90ebc0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <009e01c21cf6$2d90ebc0$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" >....... >> >It's not a question of "obsolete." There is a general introduction to >> >L71 (before part A) that gives a less restrictive time interval than >> >the second sentence of L71C. The WBFLC resolved this apparent >> >conflict by saying that the general introduction controls. >> >> When read carefully you will discover there is no conflict whatever, >> merely a redundancy. Thus the WBFLC made an interpretation not a change >> to confirm that the Law meant what it said, despite the wording being >> very strange. The point I that the second sentence can effectively be >> ignored because whenever it applies, so does the first sentence, but not >> vice versa. >....... >Thanks for your clarification David and i think I understand the general >state. > >But, I have a little problem with your statement that the second sentence in >L71C should have been redundant? > >The way I read L71 it stated that concessions can be cancelled within the >time limit given in L79C, normally 30 minutes after the end of the >tournament >if there is no way a conceded trick can be lost by any legal play. Time you re-read L71C, methinks! The first sentence also refers to normal play rather than legal play. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 05:31:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QJUZa17966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 05:30:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5QJUMH17955 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 05:30:22 +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 17NIHV-000D2g-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:16:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:15:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@pop.starpower.net> <005c01c21cdc$67d91ce0$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> <004a01c21cf0$414cdbc0$763f23d5@cornelis> <008601c21cf2$f9d5d8c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <009401c21cfa$18f2eb10$763f23d5@cornelis> In-Reply-To: <009401c21cfa$18f2eb10$763f23d5@cornelis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis writes >From: "Sven Pran" >> Sorry Tom, you had better read Law 40E1. >> >> The Laws do not require both players in a pair to use the same system or >> the same (detailed) agreements on particular calls. But law 40E1 allows >> a sponsoring organization to issue regulations including such >requirements. >Law 40E1 then conflicts with Law 75A. > >Another problem found. Are you sure that you do not mean another problem invented? You play one system, your partner plays another, L40E1 does not bar this [though the SO may do so] and L75A says it should be fully and freely available to the opponents. No trace of conflict that I can see. "What's your 1NT?" "When my partner opens 1NT he shows 12-14 HCP: when I open 1NT it shows 15-17 HCP." WTP? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 05:31:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QJUbC17968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 05:30:37 +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-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 g5QJULH17950 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 05:30:23 +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 17NIHU-000D2e-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:16:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:14:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020610080327.00a9f340@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613093355.00aadc70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613132849.00aa51e0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020614092816.00aa6b60@pop.starpower.net> <00d701c213b6$04dc3070$713f23d5@cornelis> <005501c2160b$5f09bc00$6f3f23d5@cornelis> <1aAc3vAJB0F9EwDD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006a01c21c2d$2d9cec00$683f23d5@cornelis> <008c01c21cf3$37f92260$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <008c01c21cf3$37f92260$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" >> **Not used to playing penalty doubles?** What on earth do you think I >> was doing for the twenty years before negative doubles became popular? > >PASS ? >(Sorry David, I couldn't resist the temptation!) Look, Sven, I don't mind you taking the mickey, but please don't ever suggest that I have believed in passing hands. That's not what I pay my entrance fee for! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 07:35:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QLYkw18044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 07:34:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5QLYfH18040 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 07:34:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-55.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.55] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17NKDr-0004tY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:21:08 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020626171343.00b328d0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:22:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations In-Reply-To: <008e01c21d0f$deddfbc0$da9c68d5@default> References: <00c501c21967$55c38cc0$a49568d5@default> <00ef01c21974$fae1d4c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <01a301c2197d$009709a0$a49568d5@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:20 AM 6/26/02, Nigel wrote: > Suppose, without play, I concede one > down in my contract; my expert partner > explains that the only chance, > "a hexagon clash squeeze" would succeed. > > I ask the TD to retract my rash and daft > concession, claiming, correctly, that the > only rational play brings home my contract. > > Will the TD rule in my favour? or has the > Law assigned a new meaning to "Rational"? > (i.e "Irrational")? I hope he would not. The law (the footnote to L69-71) effectively assigns "rational" the meaning "'normal', where 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved". I refrain from reopening the debate as to whether this is or is not "a new meaning to 'rational'". > In similar cases, are there no > circumstances where the TD would rule > more favourably for an expert than a tyro? The WBF has recently adopted the BLML majority's interpretation of the footnote, by which TDs are forced to rule differently in these situations depending on "the class of player involved", so, yes, a TD or AC might be entitled to rule that a particular player is *so* good that it would be irrational *for him* to overlook the hexagon clash squeeze. I have been a strong dissenter on this issue; under the interpretation of the footnote I and a few others here would favor, he would be forced to make the same ruling regardless of who made the claim. 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 Jun 27 08:08:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QM8iJ18069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:08:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5QM8dH18065 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:08:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.156.229]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020626215505.JJOG2755.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:55:05 +0100 Message-ID: <034b01c21d5d$27ee7c20$da9c68d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <200206261805.OAA22730@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:59:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie: > Please, please, allay my fears about law > 71C which seems to have ludicrous effects. > I lead a trump towards dummy's AQJx; > LHO shows out; and I am sure that RHO has > the well guarded king. > :(Yes, you guessed, the king was single): Steve Willner: I am not sure what your fears are or what you mean by "ludicrous." If you play the queen or jack (or ace or low, for that matter), Laws 45 through 47 are the relevant ones. Usually, though, you will not be allowed to change your play, whatever it is. If instead you concede a trick, Laws 68 to 71 are the relevant ones. (In this instance, you are claiming as well as conceding.) Often you will avoid losing to the bare king under L71. This seems to me a proper reward for claiming and conceding instead of prolonging play. If you don't like it, you can of course endeavor to have the laws changed. I hope you will be in a small minority. In any case, it should hardly be surprising that different actions at the table lead to different outcomes. Nigel Guthrie, Thank you Steve, explaining it all so clearly and simply. You confirm what has been implied by others but which I could not really believe. I would be most grateful if you would answer my second question... As the opponent of a conceder, am I legally obliged to tell the conceder that rational play (however complex and obscure) will make his contract so that he can change his mind? Or may I legally keep quiet (at the risk of being derided as a scumbag)? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 08:36:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QMZmQ18112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:35:48 +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-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 g5QMZVH18090 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:35:32 +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 17NLAi-000Kgx-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:21:59 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 21:08:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations References: <200206261604.JAA17412@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200206261604.JAA17412@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 > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> >So the time limit for Law 71C is now the same as that for Laws 71A & B. >> >> If you read it carefully it has been since 1997, though it does not >> look like it at first read. > >I can't agree with this. If you read it carefully, you do see two >contradictory clauses---"within the correction period established in >accordance with Law 79C" in L71, and "Until the conceding side makes a >call on a subsequent board ..." in L71C. One possible interpretation is >that the phrase in L71C is redundant, since the time period specified >in L71C is a proper subset of that described in L71; however, another >reasonable interpretation is that the time period given in L71C is >intended to *supersede* the one given in L71, in the case of a >concession covered by L71C (that is not covered by L71A or B). Both >interpretations are reasonable IMHO, and therefore I think it takes >more than a careful reading to determine that the time limit for L71C >is the same as for A and B. In fact, I'd consider the "supersede" >interpretation to be more reasonable, on the grounds that it doesn't >make sense that someone would include this clause in L71C unless they >intended it to supersede the other time period. So why not just accept the WBFLC's interpretation? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 08:36:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QMZmK18111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:35:48 +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-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 g5QMZVH18088 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:35:31 +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 17NLAi-000Kh6-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:21:58 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 21:11:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations References: <200206211712.SAA00198@tempest.npl.co.uk> <200206211712.SAA00198@tempest.npl.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.0.20020626084642.00aad9c0@pop.starpower.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020626084642.00aad9c0@pop.starpower.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >At 10:07 PM 6/25/02, David wrote: > >> Please note that, contrary to several statements in this thread, there >>is no change in the Law mentioned in this minute. It is merely an >>interpretation that the second sentence is redundant. > >It's "merely an interpretation" that says that "until the conceding >side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends" >really means "unless the sponsoring organization specifies a later >time,... 30 minutes after the official score has been made >available"? That's quite an interpretation. The interpretation is that there is no case covered by the second sentence that is not also covered by the first, so the second is superfluous. That's not much of an interpretation, and accords with what the English language suggests. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 08:36:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QMZpp18115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:35:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g5QMZXH18094 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:35:34 +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 17NLAi-000Kh7-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:22:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 21:15:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations References: <00c501c21967$55c38cc0$a49568d5@default> <00ef01c21974$fae1d4c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <01a301c2197d$009709a0$a49568d5@default> <008e01c21d0f$deddfbc0$da9c68d5@default> In-Reply-To: <008e01c21d0f$deddfbc0$da9c68d5@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie writes >Nigel Guthrie: > >> Finally, any law which asks a TD to rule >> favourably for an "expert" (?crony ?) but >> stigmatises the average stranger as >> ignorant / unskilful /irrational is not >> just chauvinist. It should engender legal >> actions for slander. > >David Stevenson: > Good thing we do not have such a law > then, isn't it? > >Nigel: > > Thanks. No discrimination is good news. > Well my questions are genuine so I am > pleased when I get a reply. > Please reassure me further on this topic > > Suppose, without play, I concede one > down in my contract; my expert partner > explains that the only chance, > "a hexagon clash squeeze" would succeed. > > I ask the TD to retract my rash and daft > concession, claiming, correctly, that the > only rational play brings home my contract. > > Will the TD rule in my favour? or has the > Law assigned a new meaning to "Rational"? > (i.e "Irrational")? > > In similar cases, are there no > circumstances where the TD would rule > more favourably for an expert than a tyro? No doubt there are, but since there are also cases the other way they are not discriminatory in effect. If you set up a clinic for lung cancer but only allow men to use it you seem to be discriminating. If you set up two clinics, one for testicular cancer, and the other for breast cancer, and only allow men into the first and women into the second you have no doubt discriminated in the technical sense. But people accept that as being fair. We have Laws that are fair because sometimes judgement supports the expert, and sometimes the tyro. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 08:36:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QMZoC18113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:35:50 +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-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 g5QMZWH18093 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:35:33 +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 17NLAj-000Kh9-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:22:00 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 21:19:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical References: <005c01c21cdc$67d91ce0$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020626160541.00aaf9c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001401c21d27$dba7ea20$643f23d5@cornelis> In-Reply-To: <001401c21d27$dba7ea20$643f23d5@cornelis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis writes >What wouldn't have been allowed is that you play 1S transfer to NT and >partner 1S and 1NT natural. You must play the same methods. >L40E1 and L75A contradict each other in this matter. Neither of them say you have to play the same system as your partner so in what way do they contradict each other? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 08:36:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QMZpO18114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:35:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g5QMZYH18100 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:35:35 +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 17NLAi-000Kh8-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:22:02 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 21:17:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@pop.starpower.net> <005c01c21cdc$67d91ce0$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> <004a01c21cf0$414cdbc0$763f23d5@cornelis> <3QMz09FVCaG9Ewb$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006401c21d29$89c30800$643f23d5@cornelis> In-Reply-To: <006401c21d29$89c30800$643f23d5@cornelis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis writes >Of course the position of the call is legitimate information. >However: board 1, first bid: '1NT by you' and '1NT by your partner' are the >same calls. You are your partner making the call is therefore not legitimate >information that arises from the call. (but L40E1 contradicts this) They are not the same calls. It is perfectly legitimate to play a different no-trump range by position, for example. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 08:46:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QMk9k18159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:46:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (mta06-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5QMk3H18155 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:46:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.156.229]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020626223225.FWOY4119.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:32:25 +0100 Message-ID: <035c01c21d62$604db0e0$da9c68d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <00c501c21967$55c38cc0$a49568d5@default><00ef01c21974$fae1d4c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com><01a301c2197d$009709a0$a49568d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20020626171343.00b328d0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:39:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel wrote: > Suppose, without play, I concede one > down in my contract; my expert partner > explains that the only chance, > "a hexagon clash squeeze" would succeed. > > I ask the TD to retract my rash and daft > concession, claiming, correctly, that the > only rational play brings home my contract. > > Will the TD rule in my favour? or has the > Law assigned a new meaning to "Rational"? > (i.e "Irrational")? Eric Landau: I hope he would not. The law (the footnote to L69-71) effectively assigns "rational" the meaning "'normal', where 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved". I refrain from reopening the debate as to whether this is or is not "a new meaning to 'rational'". Nigel: > In similar cases, are there no > circumstances where the TD would rule > more favourably for an expert than a tyro? Eric: The WBF has recently adopted the BLML majority's interpretation of the footnote, by which TDs are forced to rule differently in these situations depending on "the class of player involved", so, yes, a TD or AC might be entitled to rule that a particular player is *so* good that it would be irrational *for him* to overlook the hexagon clash squeeze. I have been a strong dissenter on this issue; under the interpretation of the footnote I and a few others here would favor, he would be forced to make the same ruling regardless of who made the claim. Nigel: Thank you, Eric I appreciate the trouble you take to make the law and your viewpoint intelligible to someone like me. I share your misgivings about the WBF directive to label players "irrational" (although for 99% of us, I suppose it is accurate). And I still think that this law is daft. Will a TD ever dispute what is "rational" with Helgemo? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 09:16:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QNGfU18201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 09:16:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5QNGaH18197 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 09:16:36 +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 QAA20037; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:02:57 -0700 Message-Id: <200206262302.QAA20037@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Jun 2002 21:08:36 BST." Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:03:44 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan writes > > > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> >So the time limit for Law 71C is now the same as that for Laws 71A & B. > >> > >> If you read it carefully it has been since 1997, though it does not > >> look like it at first read. > > > >I can't agree with this. If you read it carefully, you do see two > >contradictory clauses---"within the correction period established in > >accordance with Law 79C" in L71, and "Until the conceding side makes a > >call on a subsequent board ..." in L71C. One possible interpretation is > >that the phrase in L71C is redundant, since the time period specified > >in L71C is a proper subset of that described in L71; however, another > >reasonable interpretation is that the time period given in L71C is > >intended to *supersede* the one given in L71, in the case of a > >concession covered by L71C (that is not covered by L71A or B). Both > >interpretations are reasonable IMHO, and therefore I think it takes > >more than a careful reading to determine that the time limit for L71C > >is the same as for A and B. In fact, I'd consider the "supersede" > >interpretation to be more reasonable, on the grounds that it doesn't > >make sense that someone would include this clause in L71C unless they > >intended it to supersede the other time period. > > So why not just accept the WBFLC's interpretation? I've never said I don't--that's not the point. I have no problem accepting the WBFLC's interpretation. I *do* have a problem with your contention that the meaning of Law 71C is clear (and means what the WBFLC later said it means) if you just read it carefully. It does appear to me that the WBFLC's "interpretation" was actually a change of some sort. Somebody intended to make a rule that an "implausible concession" could be cancelled only up until the conceding side calls on the next board or the round ends. Whether they really wanted to provide a shorter time limit in that case, or whether they just didn't notice that there was already a time limit stated in the beginning of L71, I don't know; but it's clear that a certain narrow time limit was prescribed for cancelling implausible concessions, and the WBFLC revoked this. No other conclusion makes sense. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 09:17:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QNHBg18213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 09:17:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (mta06-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5QNH6H18209 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 09:17:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.156.229]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020626230332.HBFE4119.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 00:03:32 +0100 Message-ID: <038c01c21d66$b7cc89a0$da9c68d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <00c501c21967$55c38cc0$a49568d5@default><00ef01c21974$fae1d4c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com><01a301c2197d$009709a0$a49568d5@default><008e01c21d0f$deddfbc0$da9c68d5@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 00:10:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel: > In similar [L71c] cases, are there no > circumstances where the TD would rule > more favourably for an expert than a tyro? David Stevenson: No doubt there are, but since there are also cases the other way they are not discriminatory in effect. If you set up a clinic for lung cancer but only allow men to use it you seem to be discriminating. If you set up two clinics, one for testicular cancer, and the other for breast cancer, and only allow men into the first and women into the second you have no doubt discriminated in the technical sense. But people accept that as being fair. We have Laws that are fair because sometimes judgement supports the expert, and sometimes the tyro. Nigel Guthrie: L71C seems to supports the expert, as do similar laws. I accept that TDs will attempt to waive the full effect of some laws on tyros. But are there any laws that in themselves favour tyros? Or are tyros waiting for their PFI clinic to be built? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 09:25:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5QNPlb18229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 09:25:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (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 g5QNPhH18225 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 09:25:43 +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 QAA20104; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:12:04 -0700 Message-Id: <200206262312.QAA20104@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Jun 2002 21:11:15 BST." Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:12:51 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Eric Landau writes > >At 10:07 PM 6/25/02, David wrote: > > > >> Please note that, contrary to several statements in this thread, there > >>is no change in the Law mentioned in this minute. It is merely an > >>interpretation that the second sentence is redundant. > > > >It's "merely an interpretation" that says that "until the conceding > >side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends" > >really means "unless the sponsoring organization specifies a later > >time,... 30 minutes after the official score has been made > >available"? That's quite an interpretation. > > The interpretation is that there is no case covered by the second > sentence that is not also covered by the first, so the second is > superfluous. That's not much of an interpretation, and accords with > what the English language suggests. Not quite true, I think. Some of us have argued in the past---and I believe you have supported this argument---that a statement like "You may do X if condition Y is true" often implies the converse, i.e. "You may *not* do X if condition Y is *not* true". It wouldn't be true in a context where things are expected to be formulated as logical propositions, but normal English isn't often that precise. (For example: Are you allowed to look at an opponent's CC when it's not your turn to call or play?) Since (IIRC) you've argued this way in the past, I think you can see that in the same way, a statement like "You may do X until some event E has transpired" often implies "You may *not* do X *after* E has transpired." Thus, the phrase "until the conceding side makes a call blah-blah-blah" should be interpreted as "until the conceding side makes a call etc. BUT NOT AFTERWARD", and similarly "until the correction period expires" means "until the correction period expires BUT NOT AFTERWARD". If you can accept this, then there *are* cases covered first phrase that aren't covered by the second. Thus, the rule in L71C actually does conflict with the rule at the beginning of L71; it's not merely redundant or superfluous. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 10:08:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5R086h18265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:08:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5R082H18261 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:08:02 +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 KAA29551 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:09:14 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 09:50:31 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 09:53:57 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 27/06/2002 09:50:12 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis wrote: [big snip] >I agree you have to explain this call as a penalty >double, according to your agreements. But it's a lie, >because you *know* it's not. However, Law requires >you to explain the call as such. [snip] 1. Law requires you to truthfully explain your *agreement*. 2. You truthfully explain your *agreement* that partner's double is for penalties. 3. Where is the lie? 4. You know from the cards in your hand that partner has misbid, and partner's *hand* corresponds to a takeout double. 5. You made no statement about what is in partner's *hand*. 6. Where is the lie? 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 Jun 27 10:56:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5R0uXB18292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:56:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5R0uRH18288 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:56:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.152.6]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020627004248.TCKW295.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 01:42:48 +0100 Message-ID: <040401c21d74$96a4f4c0$da9c68d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <000801c21606$fe9815f0$9f06ba12@Herot><006d01c21616$9348ab60$3b9d68d5@default> <005401c21ca1$2742d940$949c68d5@default> <007a01c21cf8$74fa8f00$763f23d5@cornelis> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 01:47:14 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel > 1. If you often reply "undiscussed", > refuse to amplify upon that answer, > but inevitably "guess" right in the > subsequent auction, do opponents > have any redress in law. Tom Cornelis: There's some conflict about that. They are entitled to redress, if you regard the reply as MI. There is disagreement about what's an agreement. School 1: a right guess does not imply an agreement, because you didn't have an agreement when you guessed (no MI) School 2: guessing right implies you have an agreement from that point on and therefore requires you to explain your guess (MI then) > 2. If there is a possibility of such > redress, do you get lots of TD calls > about this issue and do you ever rule > that a player who claims "undiscussed" > is being economical with the truth? > If people did complain when this happened, > then in a large congress like Brighton, > you would expect several hundred such > TD calls per session so you would expect > to gather a fair quantity of statistics. Tom: You don't get that much TD calls, because people don't often have to explain a call as 'undiscussed' (I'm referring to the number of explanations in a session, not by a player). Secondly if they do, the opponents are rarely damaged. (They don't have to call the TD to preserve their rights.) Nigel: > I suspect that, in spite of it happening > so often, few people bother the director, > especially as they doubt that the poor > director would have the bottle to > practically accuse a pair of lying. > (although I am repeatedly assured that > TDs have no fear of slander actions). Tom: As I said many times before, giving an explanation, can't be a lie, because you have to give an explanation (even 'undiscussed'). MI is not considered to be a lie (not by me anyway), because you can honestly think you're telling the truth, when you're not. Nigel: > 4. If my suspicions are correct, then > perhaps you can understand one of our > concerns about the "undiscussed" mantra. Tom: Which is? If it makes you think players are going to be scared away, think again. The TD will only be called if the opponents think they have been damaged. This damage will a little more often occur if you explain a call as undiscussed, then when you give a meaningful explanation. (if right, no harm done, if wrong harm will rarely be done to the non-offending side) Changing the ruling on those rare occasions, that people explain calls as undiscussed AND the opponents feel they're damaged, will not scare people away. Nigel: Hi Tom, Thank you for your informative views. Sorry for my delay in replying. I thought we were on the same side on this issue because one eventual effect of "standard system" law may be to make "undiscussed" obsolete as an explanation. My friends and I may be unlucky about the number of our opponents who claim "undiscussed" and guess well. But everybody experiences a suspicious "undiscussed", sometimes. Even when there may be damage, I confess that I never call the director. Do you know anyone who has? Unless you regularly call the director and directors start to keep long-term comprehensive (inter-)national records, there is little prospect of evidence even for your "School 2" MI. How many such cases does the average director rule on in a year? What is the usual penalty imposed? My guess is that, even if the TD is called, the miscreant is not penalised. The spread of this contagion may be debatable but in principle this abuse is hard to stop without law change. Regards, Nigel -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 11:23:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5R1Mpn18317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:22:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5R1MkH18313 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:22:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA11617 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:23:59 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:05:15 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] 4NT is...? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:08:45 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 27/06/2002 11:04:55 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This problem appeared in the May 2002 issue of the Australian Directors' Bulletin: Pairs - aggregate (total points) scoring. Bd. 2 / E / NS AJ AK Q9543 9852 K8632 104 J1085 9764 J2 106 A10 K7643 Q975 Q32 AK87 QJ West North East South - - Pass 1D 1S 2C(1) Pass 2NT(2) Pass 4NT(3) All Pass 1. Alerted and explained as non-forcing (6-card suit, less than 10 HCP). 2. Explained as "stronger than our No Trump opening" (15-17) when West inquired. 3. After a long hesitation: intended as an Ace ask. Result: N/S + 630 E/W are unhappy about South's decision to pass 4NT given the explanations and the huddle. South says that 4NT has no meaning in this sequence. He also says he believed it would have been wrong of him to bid on after the tempo break because he now knew that North must have a strong hand. 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 Jun 27 11:45:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5R1ipO18338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:44:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (mta06-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5R1ikH18334 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:44:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.152.4]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020627013111.MAZI4119.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 02:31:11 +0100 Message-ID: <044a01c21d7b$5957bba0$da9c68d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] BLML FAQ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 02:38:14 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson: > Perhaps it is time someone produced a FAQ for BLML. ... > If someone produced one for all the common > questions of course I would put it on my > site. It might be easier than endless > repetition because we get new people. Steve Willner: An excellent idea. Rather than asking for one person to do all the work, I suggest a top-down approach. First develop some major sections, then list some relevant questions for each section, then solicit answers from whomever is motivated (and knowledgeable enough) to write them. Answers can be reviewed by anyone on BLML, but the compiler (David, presumably, if the material goes on his web site) has to decide what to accept. A first cut at major sections might be: 1. The WBF, Zones, and Laws editions 2. NCBO's and SO's, regulations 3. Event administration 4. Specific Laws 5. BLML controversies Here are some examples of questions that might go in each section. These are far from complete. Some are very broad and might well be broken into narrower questions, but perhaps they will give some flavor of what might be useful. 1.01 What are the relevant WBF committees? 1.02 What Laws editions exist? 1.03 Which Zones allow defenders to ask partner about a revoke? 2.01 What convention rules are in place in different areas? 2.02 What alert rules are in place in different areas? 3.01 How do I handle artificial adjusted scores? 3.02 How do I handle assigned adjusted scores? 3.03 What are best practices for an appeals committee? 4.01 Can dummy revoke? 4.02 What if dummy has a card hidden? 4.03 When can a played card be changed? 4.04 What is AI and UI with regard to a penalty card? 4.05 How do we assign scores after IWoG actions? (In section 5, I would propose explaining the controversy and stating the major arguments on each side.) 5.01 When there is a contested claims, what plays are irrational? 5.02 What is a convention? 5.03 Can the SO regulate (various things)? Perhaps Herman can tell us what the longest threads have been so we know what to put here. Of course all the above is only one of many possible outlines. I wouldn't argue very hard for any particular piece, but I do think the top-down style of organization leading to individual questions works well. Nigel: As a relatively new cook who must have clumsily rehashed stale dishes, I would welcome such an FAQ list. Sections I would like are: (1) Interpretation of existing laws each set of FAQs (prefixed by the relevant law number). (2) Suggestions for "corrections", "improvements", "simplifications". and "new" laws (by existing law number, if appropriate). (3) Meta discussions -- when, by whom, and how law revisions are decided, published, enforced, standardised -- and what changes if any should be made to this protocol. Hi Steve Sorry I sent you extra copies by mistake Regards, Nigel -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 13:06:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5R36K418394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:06:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5R36FH18390 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:06:16 +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 NAA28459 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:07:27 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:48:45 +0000 (EST) Subject: RE: [BLML] Your call (judgment case) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:06:13 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 27/06/2002 12:48:25 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] Jeff Rubens wrote: [big snip] >>>Suppose North hesitantly doubles five hearts in a >>>competitive auction, and South then faces a decision >>>that the relevant public rates, in the absence of >>>unauthorized information, as fifty-fifty between >>>passing and bidding five spades. The 12C3-deniers >>>fear that if a combination score were permitted, the >>>appeals committee will give both sides half the result >>>in five hearts doubled plus half the result after >>>South bids five spades. [snip] >>>The error in such thinking is that it is only an >>>artificial construction in the present Laws - a >>>foolishness in Law 12C2 - that proclaims that North's >>>huddle implies North-South deserve the score in five >>>hearts doubled [snip] >>>Equity, which should govern adjudications, says >>>otherwise. Both pairs are entitled to the expected >>>outcome, combination score or not, had there been no >>>irregularity. [big snip] I responded: >>In reply to Rubens, I note that the irregularity in >>his example is *not* North's hesitant double. Rather, >>it is South selecting from amongst logical alternatives >>the removal of the double. Therefore, 5Hx is the >>expected contract had there been no irregularity. >> >>Rubens' editorial notionally attacked L12C2, but it >>seems that his real target (which perhaps even Rubens >>did not realise) was the more fundamental L16 and L73C. In the context of the General Review of the Laws, the CTD of New Zealand (Arie Geursen) is also suggesting the abolition of L73C. To justify his suggestion, Arie Geursen wrote (in the May 2002 Australian Directors' Bulletin): [snip] >I will leave it to others to decide whether the new >Laws ought to reflect a tolerant approach to the game >and thereby set the whole framework for the spirit in >which the game ought to be played versus an >intolerant one pre-occupied with cheating and lots >of litigation. My rebuttal: 1. I believe in a tolerant approach to *players* who use UI. But I do not believe in tolerating *use* of UI. Adjusting the score after use of UI is *not* a pre-occupation with cheating. Use of UI is merely an infraction. Finger signals are cheating. 2. I also believe in reduction of unnecessary bridge litigation. But quasi-legalising use of UI is not an appropriate solution to the problem. 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 Jun 27 16:55:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5R6sWi18480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:54:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5R6sQH18476 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:54:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1003.bb.online.no [80.212.211.235]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA16797 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:40:47 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000e01c21da5$91fecf00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] 4NT is...? Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:40:46 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk None of the explanations given correspond with the actual hands, so my first question is: What is going on here? I would not attempt any ruling before I have more information (evidence) on the actual agreements North-South. (In "my" system the 2NT bid shows a 12-14 NT opening hand and the raise to 4NT is quantitative, suggesting 6NT when opener has maximum. If this turns out to be the agreements here I would adjust to 6NT, two down). Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: > This problem appeared in the May 2002 issue of the > Australian Directors' Bulletin: > > Pairs - aggregate (total points) scoring. > Bd. 2 / E / NS > > AJ > AK > Q9543 > 9852 > K8632 104 > J1085 9764 > J2 106 > A10 K7643 > Q975 > Q32 > AK87 > QJ > > West North East South > - - Pass 1D > 1S 2C(1) Pass 2NT(2) > Pass 4NT(3) All Pass > > 1. Alerted and explained as non-forcing (6-card suit, > less than 10 HCP). > > 2. Explained as "stronger than our No Trump > opening" (15-17) when West inquired. > > 3. After a long hesitation: intended as an Ace ask. > > Result: N/S + 630 > > E/W are unhappy about South's decision to pass 4NT > given the explanations and the huddle. South says > that 4NT has no meaning in this sequence. He also > says he believed it would have been wrong of him to > bid on after the tempo break because he now knew > that North must have a strong hand. > > 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 Jun 27 17:07:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5R77Mk18496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:07:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5R77IH18492 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:07:18 +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 RAA04688 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:08:28 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:49:46 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:53:20 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 27/06/2002 04:49:26 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >>>>Player A decides that he needs practice playing NT contracts, so for a >>>>session he plays every hand that goes his way in NT. >>>> >>>>Player B thinks it might be winning tactics to play every contract in >>>>NT, and decides to test that hypothesis, so for a session he plays >>>>every hand that goes his way in NT. >>>> >>>>Do the laws (or anyone's local regulations) distinguish these cases? I noted: >>>In Australia, Player B is the famous Tim Seres. Tim more often holds >>>balanced hands than other Australian experts. :-) >>> >>>...But is also more frequently successful in 3NT than other Australian >>>experts. Eric Landau continued: >>Player C sees Mr. Seres' success, and decides to emulate >>it. Unfortunately for him, he lacks Mr. Seres' ability to outplay the >>field in NT contracts, and winds up scattering tops to various opponents >>at random. The real question, of course, is: If one holds that player A >>is guilty of disrupting the contest, what does one make of player C? Alain Gottcheiner contradicted: >nothing at all. Tim Seres and player C try to optimize their results, >with varying degrees of success, while player A is just making a fool of >himself and the game of bridge. That's the difference. Put me in Eric Landau's camp. If the SO has not passed a regulation dictating a mode of play for an event, then all three of A, B & C are acting ethically in that event. What is wrong with Player A practising NT declarer play - or practising a new bidding system - in a trivial walk-in event? If Player A's object in so doing is to play better bridge in a subsequent more significant event, then Player A should be applauded rather than disqualified. However, I have no objection to an SO passing a regulation to quarantine its major events from players operating in a practice mode. The WBF has logically passed such a regulation for its international events. 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 Jun 27 18:27:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5R8Q6r18531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 18:26:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5R8Q1H18527 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 18:26:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id adbmvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:12:22 +0200 Message-ID: <002101c21db2$6338db90$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@pop.starpower.net> <005c01c21cdc$67d91ce0$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> <004a01c21cf0$414cdbc0$763f23d5@cornelis> <3QMz09FVCaG9Ewb$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006401c21d29$89c30800$643f23d5@cornelis> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:12:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 10:17 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical > Tom Cornelis writes > > >Of course the position of the call is legitimate information. > >However: board 1, first bid: '1NT by you' and '1NT by your partner' are the > >same calls. You are your partner making the call is therefore not legitimate > >information that arises from the call. (but L40E1 contradicts this) > > They are not the same calls. It is perfectly legitimate to play a > different no-trump range by position, for example. What position? The position of a call is determined by the previous calls. What position is 'first bid 1NT by you'? What position is 'first bid 1NT by your partner'? (first bid in the auction, i.e. call made by dealer) According to me they are in the same position, i.e. the first. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 18:40:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5R8cwn18543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 18:38:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5R8crH18539 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 18:38:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id jmbmvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:25:10 +0200 Message-ID: <002f01c21db4$2d0ada80$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "BLML" References: <000801c21606$fe9815f0$9f06ba12@Herot><006d01c21616$9348ab60$3b9d68d5@default> <005401c21ca1$2742d940$949c68d5@default> <007a01c21cf8$74fa8f00$763f23d5@cornelis> <040401c21d74$96a4f4c0$da9c68d5@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:25:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 2:47 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > Nigel > > 1. If you often reply "undiscussed", > > refuse to amplify upon that answer, > > but inevitably "guess" right in the > > subsequent auction, do opponents > > have any redress in law. > > Tom Cornelis: > There's some conflict about that. > They are entitled to redress, if you > regard the reply as MI. There is > disagreement about what's an agreement. > School 1: a right guess does not > imply an agreement, because you didn't > have an agreement when you guessed (no MI) > School 2: guessing right implies you > have an agreement from that point on > and therefore requires you to explain > your guess (MI then) > > > 2. If there is a possibility of such > > redress, do you get lots of TD calls > > about this issue and do you ever rule > > that a player who claims "undiscussed" > > is being economical with the truth? > > If people did complain when this happened, > > then in a large congress like Brighton, > > you would expect several hundred such > > TD calls per session so you would expect > > to gather a fair quantity of statistics. > > Tom: > You don't get that much TD calls, > because people don't often have to > explain a call as 'undiscussed' > (I'm referring to the number of > explanations in a session, not by > a player). > Secondly if they do, the opponents are > rarely damaged. (They don't have to > call the TD to preserve their rights.) > > Nigel: > > I suspect that, in spite of it happening > > so often, few people bother the director, > > especially as they doubt that the poor > > director would have the bottle to > > practically accuse a pair of lying. > > (although I am repeatedly assured that > > TDs have no fear of slander actions). > > Tom: > As I said many times before, giving an > explanation, can't be a lie, because > you have to give an explanation (even > 'undiscussed'). MI is not considered > to be a lie (not by me anyway), because > you can honestly think you're telling > the truth, when you're not. > > Nigel: > > 4. If my suspicions are correct, then > > perhaps you can understand one of our > > concerns about the "undiscussed" mantra. > > Tom: > Which is? > If it makes you think players are going > to be scared away, think again. > The TD will only be called if the > opponents think they have been damaged. > This damage will a little more often occur > if you explain a call as undiscussed, > then when you give a meaningful > explanation. (if right, no harm done, > if wrong harm will rarely be done to > the non-offending side) > Changing the ruling on those rare > occasions, that people explain calls as > undiscussed AND the opponents feel > they're damaged, will not scare people > away. > > Nigel: > Hi Tom, Thank you for your informative > views. Sorry for my delay in replying. > I thought we were on the same side on > this issue because one eventual effect > of "standard system" law may be to make > "undiscussed" obsolete as an explanation. > My friends and I may be unlucky about the > number of our opponents who claim > "undiscussed" and guess well. > But everybody experiences a suspicious > "undiscussed", sometimes. > Even when there may be damage, I confess > that I never call the director. > Do you know anyone who has? > Unless you regularly call the director > and directors start to keep long-term > comprehensive (inter-)national records, > there is little prospect of evidence > even for your "School 2" MI. > How many such cases does the average > director rule on in a year? > What is the usual penalty imposed? > My guess is that, even if the TD is > called, the miscreant is not penalised. > The spread of this contagion may be > debatable but in principle this abuse > is hard to stop without law change. Indeed. I have been advocating my principles under the condition of a Law change. There are few such cases. That's why I don't see why this minor Law change wouldn't improve the Law. They constantly tell me it would be forcing to lie. However, when I give an example of a lie, that's not a lie under the current Law, suddenly other rules seem to apply the definition of a lie. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 18:48:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5R8kMf18560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 18:46:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5R8kHH18556 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 18:46:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id yrbmvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:32:38 +0200 Message-ID: <004e01c21db5$384cd280$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: Subject: Re: [BLML] steps in appeal analysis Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:32:48 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004B_01C21DC5.FB8DEB20" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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_004B_01C21DC5.FB8DEB20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 1:53 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > > Tom Cornelis wrote: > > [big snip] > > >I agree you have to explain this call as a penalty > >double, according to your agreements. But it's a lie, > >because you *know* it's not. However, Law requires > >you to explain the call as such. > > [snip] > > 1. Law requires you to truthfully explain your > *agreement*. > > 2. You truthfully explain your *agreement* that > partner's double is for penalties. > > 3. Where is the lie? > > 4. You know from the cards in your hand that > partner has misbid, and partner's *hand* > corresponds to a takeout double. > > 5. You made no statement about what is in > partner's *hand*. > > 6. Where is the lie? I shall be very glad to agree on this, but only if you agree my method = isn't lying either. It is under the current Law. That's why I recommend a Law change, under which it wouldn't be a lie. So I would be very glad that = the point of my method being a lie, is stopped to being pointed out, because it's wrong: it uses the premise that my method would be used under the current Law. Best regards, Tom. ------=_NextPart_000_004B_01C21DC5.FB8DEB20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

-----=20 Original Message -----
From: <richard.hills@immi.gov.au>
To: <bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au>
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 1:53 AM
Subject: Re: = [BLML]=20 Steps in an appeal analysis


>
> Tom Cornelis=20 wrote:
>
> [big snip]
>
> >I agree you have = to=20 explain this call as a penalty
> >double, according to your = agreements.=20 But it's a lie,
> >because you *know* it's not. However, Law=20 requires
> >you to explain the call as such.
>
>=20 [snip]
>
> 1.  Law requires you to truthfully explain=20 your
>     *agreement*.
>
> = 2.  You=20 truthfully explain your *agreement* that
>     = partner's double is for penalties.
>
> 3.  Where is the = lie?
>
> 4.  You know from the cards in your hand=20 that
>     partner has misbid, and partner's=20 *hand*
>     corresponds to a takeout=20 double.
>
> 5.  You made no statement about what is=20 in
>     partner's *hand*.
>
> = 6. =20 Where is the lie?

I shall be very glad to agree on this, but only = if you=20 agree my method isn't
lying either. It is under the current Law. = That's why I=20 recommend a Law
change, under which it wouldn't be a lie. So I would = be very=20 glad that the
point of my method being a lie, is stopped to being = pointed=20 out, because
it's wrong: it uses the premise that my method would be = used=20 under the
current Law.

Best=20 regards,

Tom.
------=_NextPart_000_004B_01C21DC5.FB8DEB20-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 19:03:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5R927r18597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:02:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (mail.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5R922H18592 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:02:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.111] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id accmvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:48:23 +0200 Message-ID: <006c01c21db7$6b8898d0$6f3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] 4NT is...? Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:48:33 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 3:08 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] 4NT is...? > > This problem appeared in the May 2002 issue of the > Australian Directors' Bulletin: > > Pairs - aggregate (total points) scoring. > Bd. 2 / E / NS > > AJ > AK > Q9543 > 9852 > K8632 104 > J1085 9764 > J2 106 > A10 K7643 > Q975 > Q32 > AK87 > QJ > > West North East South > - - Pass 1D > 1S 2C(1) Pass 2NT(2) > Pass 4NT(3) All Pass > > 1. Alerted and explained as non-forcing (6-card suit, > less than 10 HCP). > > 2. Explained as "stronger than our No Trump > opening" (15-17) when West inquired. > > 3. After a long hesitation: intended as an Ace ask. > > Result: N/S + 630 > > E/W are unhappy about South's decision to pass 4NT > given the explanations and the huddle. South says > that 4NT has no meaning in this sequence. He also > says he believed it would have been wrong of him to > bid on after the tempo break because he now knew > that North must have a strong hand. > > How would you rule? Assessments: * I suppose they have no written proof of their agreements (I would ask). * explanation (1) is wrong, UI for North * explanation (2) is wrong, induced by UI for North, UI for South * explanation (3) is right, not induced by UI for South (4NT must be a slam try) * the fnal pass of South could very well be induced by UI given to South with explanation (2) I have to decide between 6D -1 and 6NT -2. I believe it to be very likely North would have ended the contract in 6NT, and therefore rule 6NT -2. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 19:54:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5R9riU18647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:53:44 +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-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 g5R9rNH18631 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:53:23 +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 17NVkg-000J9z-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:39:49 +0100 Message-ID: <0M5zjwFDCmG9EwbK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 01:46:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations References: <200206262302.QAA20037@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200206262302.QAA20037@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 > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Adam Beneschan writes >> > >> >David Stevenson wrote: >> > >> >> >So the time limit for Law 71C is now the same as that for Laws 71A & B. >> >> >> >> If you read it carefully it has been since 1997, though it does not >> >> look like it at first read. >> > >> >I can't agree with this. If you read it carefully, you do see two >> >contradictory clauses---"within the correction period established in >> >accordance with Law 79C" in L71, and "Until the conceding side makes a >> >call on a subsequent board ..." in L71C. One possible interpretation is >> >that the phrase in L71C is redundant, since the time period specified >> >in L71C is a proper subset of that described in L71; however, another >> >reasonable interpretation is that the time period given in L71C is >> >intended to *supersede* the one given in L71, in the case of a >> >concession covered by L71C (that is not covered by L71A or B). Both >> >interpretations are reasonable IMHO, and therefore I think it takes >> >more than a careful reading to determine that the time limit for L71C >> >is the same as for A and B. In fact, I'd consider the "supersede" >> >interpretation to be more reasonable, on the grounds that it doesn't >> >make sense that someone would include this clause in L71C unless they >> >intended it to supersede the other time period. >> >> So why not just accept the WBFLC's interpretation? > >I've never said I don't--that's not the point. I have no problem >accepting the WBFLC's interpretation. I *do* have a problem with your >contention that the meaning of Law 71C is clear (and means what the >WBFLC later said it means) if you just read it carefully. OK, ok. It is completely clear to me, but not to you. Fine, no problem. >It does appear to me that the WBFLC's "interpretation" was actually a >change of some sort. Somebody intended to make a rule that an >"implausible concession" could be cancelled only up until the >conceding side calls on the next board or the round ends. Whether >they really wanted to provide a shorter time limit in that case, or >whether they just didn't notice that there was already a time limit >stated in the beginning of L71, I don't know; but it's clear that a >certain narrow time limit was prescribed for cancelling implausible >concessions, and the WBFLC revoked this. No other conclusion makes >sense. No other conclusion? How about that it was an accidental carry- forward from the previous Law book when the time limits were different? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 19:54:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5R9ra618645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:53:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5R9rNH18630 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:53:23 +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 17NVkg-000JA2-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:39:49 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 01:53:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations References: <00c501c21967$55c38cc0$a49568d5@default> <00ef01c21974$fae1d4c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <01a301c2197d$009709a0$a49568d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20020626171343.00b328d0@pop.starpower.net> <035c01c21d62$604db0e0$da9c68d5@default> In-Reply-To: <035c01c21d62$604db0e0$da9c68d5@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie writes > Thank you, Eric I appreciate the trouble > you take to make the law and your viewpoint > intelligible to someone like me. I share > your misgivings about the WBF directive > to label players "irrational" (although > for 99% of us, I suppose it is accurate). > And I still think that this law is daft. > Will a TD ever dispute what is "rational" > with Helgemo? No, he will just rule against him. You seem to have a very strange idea of how a TD approaches a ruling where a good player is involved. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 19:54:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5R9rcf18646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:53:38 +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-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 g5R9rLH18626 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:53:23 +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 17NVke-000JA0-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:39:47 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 01:49:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations References: <200206262312.QAA20104@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200206262312.QAA20104@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 >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Eric Landau writes >> >At 10:07 PM 6/25/02, David wrote: >> > >> >> Please note that, contrary to several statements in this thread, there >> >>is no change in the Law mentioned in this minute. It is merely an >> >>interpretation that the second sentence is redundant. >> > >> >It's "merely an interpretation" that says that "until the conceding >> >side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends" >> >really means "unless the sponsoring organization specifies a later >> >time,... 30 minutes after the official score has been made >> >available"? That's quite an interpretation. >> >> The interpretation is that there is no case covered by the second >> sentence that is not also covered by the first, so the second is >> superfluous. That's not much of an interpretation, and accords with >> what the English language suggests. > >Not quite true, I think. > >Some of us have argued in the past---and I believe you have supported >this argument---that a statement like "You may do X if condition Y is >true" often implies the converse, i.e. "You may *not* do X if >condition Y is *not* true". It wouldn't be true in a context where >things are expected to be formulated as logical propositions, but >normal English isn't often that precise. (For example: Are you >allowed to look at an opponent's CC when it's not your turn to call or >play?) > >Since (IIRC) you've argued this way in the past, I think you can see >that in the same way, a statement like "You may do X until some event >E has transpired" often implies "You may *not* do X *after* E has >transpired." > >Thus, the phrase "until the conceding side makes a call >blah-blah-blah" should be interpreted as "until the conceding side >makes a call etc. BUT NOT AFTERWARD", and similarly "until the >correction period expires" means "until the correction period expires >BUT NOT AFTERWARD". Fine - except that if there is a law that covers the time after the Correction Period expires then this becomes moot. And that is what happens in this case. >If you can accept this, then there *are* cases covered first phrase >that aren't covered by the second. Thus, the rule in L71C actually >does conflict with the rule at the beginning of L71; it's not merely >redundant or superfluous. No, there is no such case. Try to find one, please. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 19:54:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5R9rZD18644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:53:35 +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-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 g5R9rLH18627 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:53:23 +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 17NVkf-000JA1-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:39:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 01:51:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations References: <00c501c21967$55c38cc0$a49568d5@default> <00ef01c21974$fae1d4c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <01a301c2197d$009709a0$a49568d5@default> <008e01c21d0f$deddfbc0$da9c68d5@default> <038c01c21d66$b7cc89a0$da9c68d5@default> In-Reply-To: <038c01c21d66$b7cc89a0$da9c68d5@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie writes > > >Nigel: >> In similar [L71c] cases, are there no >> circumstances where the TD would rule >> more favourably for an expert than a tyro? > >David Stevenson: > No doubt there are, but since there are > also cases the other way they are not > discriminatory in effect. > > If you set up a clinic for lung cancer > but only allow men to use it you seem to > be discriminating. > > If you set up two clinics, one for > testicular cancer, and the other for > breast cancer, and only allow men into > the first and women into the second you > have no doubt discriminated in the > technical sense. But people accept that > as being fair. We have Laws that are fair > because sometimes judgement supports the > expert, and sometimes the tyro. > >Nigel Guthrie: > L71C seems to supports the expert, as > do similar laws. I accept that TDs will > attempt to waive the full effect of some > laws on tyros. But are there any laws > that in themselves favour tyros? Or are > tyros waiting for their PFI clinic to be > built? L71C is a good example of a Law which supports the tyro. In some situations you have clever plays which disadvantage the player seeking a ruling. If he is a good player you will allow him such clever plays but not for a tyro. All the judgement Laws are two-sided. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 20:19:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RAJ4b18688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:19:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5RAIwH18684 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:18:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1003.bb.online.no [80.212.211.235]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA17373 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:05:19 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003501c21dc2$249e24c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200206262302.QAA20037@mailhub.irvine.com> <0M5zjwFDCmG9EwbK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:05:18 +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: "David Stevenson" ....... > >It does appear to me that the WBFLC's "interpretation" was actually a > >change of some sort. Somebody intended to make a rule that an > >"implausible concession" could be cancelled only up until the > >conceding side calls on the next board or the round ends. Whether > >they really wanted to provide a shorter time limit in that case, or > >whether they just didn't notice that there was already a time limit > >stated in the beginning of L71, I don't know; but it's clear that a > >certain narrow time limit was prescribed for cancelling implausible > >concessions, and the WBFLC revoked this. No other conclusion makes > >sense. > > No other conclusion? How about that it was an accidental carry- > forward from the previous Law book when the time limits were different? Ah, it took some time to get my eyes opened, and it never occurred to me that I ought to compare the 1987 and 1997 versions of Law 71! There was indeed a change, but the change was from the 1987 to the 1997 version, not in the 1997 version. Thanks David 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 Jun 27 20:25:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RAOsQ18701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:24:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5RAOnH18697 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:24:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1003.bb.online.no [80.212.211.235]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA23423 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:11:10 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003f01c21dc2$f5a530e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <00c501c21967$55c38cc0$a49568d5@default> <00ef01c21974$fae1d4c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <01a301c2197d$009709a0$a49568d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20020626171343.00b328d0@pop.starpower.net> <035c01c21d62$604db0e0$da9c68d5@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:11:09 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > > Will a TD ever dispute what is "rational" > > with Helgemo? > > No, he will just rule against him. > > You seem to have a very strange idea of how a TD approaches a ruling > where a good player is involved. >From what I have seen of Geir (Helgemo) I seriously doubt that he will ever claim (or concede) against opponents whom he does not expect to grasp the (obvious) situation immediately. Thus he is not a very good object for this question. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 22:02:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RC1hm18749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:01:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5RC1YH18735 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:01:35 +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 17NXkl-000LZI-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:48:00 +0100 Message-ID: <5hKvZ1CvrvG9Ewpa@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:45:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] BLML FAQ References: <044a01c21d7b$5957bba0$da9c68d5@default> In-Reply-To: <044a01c21d7b$5957bba0$da9c68d5@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie writes > As a relatively new cook who must > have clumsily rehashed stale dishes, > I would welcome such an FAQ list. > Sections I would like are: > (1) Interpretation of existing laws > each set of FAQs (prefixed by > the relevant law number). > (2) Suggestions for "corrections", > "improvements", "simplifications". > and "new" laws (by existing law > number, if appropriate). > (3) Meta discussions -- when, by whom, > and how law revisions are decided, > published, enforced, standardised > -- and what changes if any should > be made to this protocol. I do not really think these things are practical. OK, number (1) has been produced for the WBFLC, and is awaiting their approval - but it is 16 pages or so long - and that is only interpretations that have appeared in WBFLC minutes. (2) and (3) are really an archive of many many reams of writing. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 22:02:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RC1lf18751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:01:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g5RC1bH18739 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:01:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17NXkl-000LZF-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:48:00 +0100 Message-ID: <+xwu9rCGrvG9Ewp7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:45:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@pop.starpower.net> <005c01c21cdc$67d91ce0$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> <004a01c21cf0$414cdbc0$763f23d5@cornelis> <3QMz09FVCaG9Ewb$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006401c21d29$89c30800$643f23d5@cornelis> <002101c21db2$6338db90$6f3f23d5@cornelis> In-Reply-To: <002101c21db2$6338db90$6f3f23d5@cornelis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Cornelis writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> They are not the same calls. It is perfectly legitimate to play a >> different no-trump range by position, for example. > >What position? The position of a call is determined by the previous calls. >What position is 'first bid 1NT by you'? >What position is 'first bid 1NT by your partner'? >(first bid in the auction, i.e. call made by dealer) >According to me they are in the same position, i.e. the first. According to you any number of things might happen. :) But if a player plays 1NT by South is 12-14, and by North is 15-17, find me a Law forbidding 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 Thu Jun 27 22:02:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RC1k718750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:01:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5RC1bH18741 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:01:38 +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 17NXke-000LZM-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:47:55 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:51:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 4NT is...? 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 > >This problem appeared in the May 2002 issue of the >Australian Directors' Bulletin: > >Pairs - aggregate (total points) scoring. >Bd. 2 / E / NS I do think Richard might have explained that this is a question set to a panel. Personally, I would ask that in future please only post them when the results of the panel are available. So, sadly, for the first time ever on BLML, I shall kill the thread and not read the remaining articles. If people like to re-post them in three months I should be happy to be involved then. Please could no-one communicate with me about the hand in this thread in any way whatsoever. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 22:21:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RCL0x18836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:21:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5RCKtH18832 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:20:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-55.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.55] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17NY3W-000051-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:07:22 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020627080227.00b296b0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:08:18 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations In-Reply-To: <034b01c21d5d$27ee7c20$da9c68d5@default> References: <200206261805.OAA22730@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:59 PM 6/26/02, Nigel wrote: > As the opponent of a conceder, am I > legally obliged to tell the conceder > that rational play (however complex and > obscure) will make his contract so that > he can change his mind? > > Or may I legally keep quiet (at the > risk of being derided as a scumbag)? One really doesn't face such a choice, provided one understands the (huge) difference between "rational play" (play which is not irrational) and "correct play" (play which is neither careless, inferior nor irrational). The law does -- or at least it used to; lately the distinction has become quite a bit fuzzier. 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 Jun 27 22:29:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RCTKU18889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:29:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5RCTBH18885 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:29:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-55.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.55] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17NYBV-000181-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:15:37 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020627081025.00b2e610@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:16:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations In-Reply-To: References: <008e01c21d0f$deddfbc0$da9c68d5@default> <00c501c21967$55c38cc0$a49568d5@default> <00ef01c21974$fae1d4c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <01a301c2197d$009709a0$a49568d5@default> <008e01c21d0f$deddfbc0$da9c68d5@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:15 PM 6/26/02, David wrote: > >Nigel: > > > > In similar cases, are there no > > circumstances where the TD would rule > > more favourably for an expert than a tyro? > > No doubt there are, but since there are also cases the other way they >are not discriminatory in effect. > > If you set up a clinic for lung cancer but only allow men to use it >you seem to be discriminating. > > If you set up two clinics, one for testicular cancer, and the other >for breast cancer, and only allow men into the first and women into the >second you have no doubt discriminated in the technical sense. But >people accept that as being fair. We have Laws that are fair because >sometimes judgement supports the expert, and sometimes the tyro. That analogy works only if you truly believe that the chance of an expert playing a hand like a duffer is roughly the same as the chance of a woman developing testicular cancer. Unfortunately, we seem to be seeing a trend lately on the part of TDs/ACs to make decisions that appear to be based on exactly that presumption. 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 Jun 27 22:51:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RCpNl18907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:51:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5RCpEH18902 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:51:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-55.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.55] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17NYWr-0003wh-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:37:41 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020627083136.00aafda0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:38:37 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] steps in appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <004e01c21db5$384cd280$6f3f23d5@cornelis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_2711028==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --=====================_2711028==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 04:32 AM 6/27/02, Tom wrote: >I shall be very glad to agree on this, but only if you agree my method >isn't >lying either. It is under the current Law. That's why I recommend a Law >change, under which it wouldn't be a lie. So I would be very glad that the >point of my method being a lie, is stopped to being pointed out, because >it's wrong: it uses the premise that my method would be used under the >current Law. The truth is what's true; a lie is something that's not true. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the laws. The laws can forbid you from lying, permit you to lie, even require you to lie, but can't change a lie into the truth. "We have agreed X" is true if you have agreed X, and a lie if you have not agreed X, no matter what the law might allow or require you to say to your opponents at the table. I have played games in which lying was permitted; I have even played games in which lying was, in certain situations, required. Right now, neither of those is true in bridge -- bridge is a game of "full disclosure" -- and I hope it stays that way; it's one of the reasons I prefer bridge to those other games. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_2711028==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 04:32 AM 6/27/02, Tom wrote:

I shall be very glad to agree on this, but only if you agree my method isn't
lying either. It is under the current Law. That's why I recommend a Law
change, under which it wouldn't be a lie. So I would be very glad that the
point of my method being a lie, is stopped to being pointed out, because
it's wrong: it uses the premise that my method would be used under the
current Law.

The truth is what's true; a lie is something that's not true.  That has nothing whatsoever to do with the laws.  The laws can forbid you from lying, permit you to lie, even require you to lie, but can't change a lie into the truth.  "We have agreed X" is true if you have agreed X, and a lie if you have not agreed X, no matter what the law might allow or require you to say to your opponents at the table.

I have played games in which lying was permitted; I have even played games in which lying was, in certain situations, required.  Right now, neither of those is true in bridge -- bridge is a game of "full disclosure" -- and I hope it stays that way; it's one of the reasons I prefer bridge to those other games.


Eric Landau                     ehaa@starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607     Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_2711028==_.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 Jun 27 23:01:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RD1UI18935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 23:01:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.presens.nl.no (smtp.presens.nl.no [217.8.145.154]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5RD1OH18931 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 23:01:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from willy (c145166.catch.sdsl.no [217.8.145.166]) by smtp.presens.nl.no (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA17171 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:45:02 +0200 Message-ID: <000e01c21dd8$93ffee00$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> From: "Willy Teigen" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@pop.starpower.net> <005c01c21cdc$67d91ce0$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> <004a01c21cf0$414cdbc0$763f23d5@cornelis> <3QMz09FVCaG9Ewb$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006401c21d29$89c30800$643f23d5@cornelis> <002101c21db2$6338db90$6f3f23d5@cornelis> <+xwu9rCGrvG9Ewp7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:45:54 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >From: "David Stevenson" > According to you any number of things might happen. :) > > But if a player plays 1NT by South is 12-14, and by North is 15-17, > find me a Law forbidding it. > Exactly! And then you can also play that after 1NT one player transfers at the 2-level while the other signs off in 2D 2H and 2S, so the stronger player will always be declarer... Mvh, Willy Teigen PRESENS AS Tlf: +47 769 67315 Mob: +47 915 58578 E-mail: willy@presens.nl.no www: www.presens.nl.no -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 23:36:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RDZvs18956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 23:35:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5RDZqH18952 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 23:35:52 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g5RDMHo22707 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:22:17 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:22 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] steps in appeal analysis 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: <004e01c21db5$384cd280$6f3f23d5@cornelis> Tom Cornelis wrote: > I shall be very glad to agree on this, but only if you agree my method > isn't lying either. It is under the current Law. That's why I recommend > a Law change, under which it wouldn't be a lie. So I would be very glad > that the point of my method being a lie, is stopped to being pointed > out, because it's wrong: it uses the premise that my method would be > used under the current Law. As I understand it the change you are suggesting is that instead of asking (as we do now) "What does the call show according to your agreements (explicit/implicit and partnership experience)?" we will instead ask "What is your best guess as to what your partner holds?" and that if your best guess is wrong it will automatically be regarded as MI. It is impossible fully to answer the latter question independently of the contents of ones own hand. Try this. 1S 4N (Bwood) 5H 5N (2 aces, Kings?) 7N Opps ask one of you "which two aces has your partner shown?". I am very much against being required to answer this question accurately! And going back to the "surprise CHO negative double" I am also very much against being required to give an answer that is dependent on the Spade length of my own hand. Especially when, having given my answer, I later discover that my RHO has psyched a raise to 2S and I am about to be penalised for MI. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 01:06:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RF5Q118994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 01:05:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5RF5KH18990 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 01:05:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.149.68]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020627145145.UMBX295.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 15:51:45 +0100 Message-ID: <007501c21deb$2b62a3c0$b89468d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <200206261805.OAA22730@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20020627080227.00b296b0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 15:57:42 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel: > As the opponent of a conceder, am I > legally obliged to tell the conceder > that rational play (however complex and > obscure) will make his contract so that > he can change his mind. > Or may I legally keep quiet (at the > risk of being derided as a scumbag)? Eric Landau: One really doesn't face such a choice, provided one understands the (huge) difference between "rational play" (play which is not irrational) and "correct play" (play which is neither careless, inferior nor irrational). The law does -- or at least it used to; lately the distinction has become quite a bit fuzzier. Nigel: Does that mean that if correct play would make the contract, I have to judge whether it is "rational" for this conceding opponent? if so, am I legally obliged to tell him? I am using "rational" with the meaning defined in the Laws. -- Orwell's 1984 edition? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 01:14:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RFEbU19011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 01:14:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe63.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.198]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5RFEXH19007 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 01:14:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:00:54 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [207.222.236.31] From: "Roger Pewick" To: References: <00c501c21967$55c38cc0$a49568d5@default> <00ef01c21974$fae1d4c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <01a301c2197d$009709a0$a49568d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20020626171343.00b328d0@pop.starpower.net> <035c01c21d62$604db0e0$da9c68d5@default> <003f01c21dc2$f5a530e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 09:21:55 -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: 27 Jun 2002 15:00:54.0845 (UTC) FILETIME=[6FB506D0:01C21DEB] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Sven Pran To: Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 5:11 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations > From: "David Stevenson" > > > > Will a TD ever dispute what is "rational" > > > with Helgemo? > > > > No, he will just rule against him. > > > > You seem to have a very strange idea of how a TD approaches a ruling > > where a good player is involved. > > From what I have seen of Geir (Helgemo) I seriously > doubt that he will ever claim (or concede) against > opponents whom he does not expect to grasp the > (obvious) situation immediately. Thus he is not a > very good object for this question. > > Sven >From what I have seen of GH he has claimed against opponents that did not grasp the 'obvious.' And it did not take long. 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 Jun 28 01:49:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RFmdP19030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 01:48:39 +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 g5RFmYH19026 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 01:48:34 +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 LAA14583 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:34:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA00737 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:34:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:34:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200206271534.LAA00737@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > As the opponent of a conceder, am I > legally obliged to tell the conceder > that rational play (however complex and > obscure) will make his contract so that > he can change his mind? I am having trouble understanding your difficulty. Do you realize that the relevant categories are "normal" and "irrational?" These words, especially the former, do not necessarily have their usual English meanings. If "rational play" (in its usual English meaning) is "complex and obscure," there will be an alternative play that is "normal" (in the bridge laws meaning). > Or may I legally keep quiet (at the > risk of being derided as a scumbag)? You may _legally_ keep quiet if there is any legal play that makes the concession valid. If, however, you keep quiet when no _normal_ play (in the bridge laws meaning of the word) makes the concession valid, I do not want to play with you, especially not as a partner. Of course there will occasionally be differences of opinion as to whether a particular play is "normal" or "irrational," but that is just an ordinary question of bridge judgment. TD's and AC's deal with similar questions all the time. I don't think it would be wrong to ask a conceding declarer, for example, "Which card are you about to play from dummy?" or to call the director and ask for a ruling. (If the director is Sven or Herman, you might well be given the trick in question.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 02:51:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RGowZ19060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 02:50:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5RGorH19056 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 02:50:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 17NcGc-0006NV-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:37:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:58:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations References: <008e01c21d0f$deddfbc0$da9c68d5@default> <00c501c21967$55c38cc0$a49568d5@default> <00ef01c21974$fae1d4c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <01a301c2197d$009709a0$a49568d5@default> <008e01c21d0f$deddfbc0$da9c68d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20020627081025.00b2e610@pop.starpower.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020627081025.00b2e610@pop.starpower.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >At 04:15 PM 6/26/02, David wrote: > >> >Nigel: >> > >> > In similar cases, are there no >> > circumstances where the TD would rule >> > more favourably for an expert than a tyro? >> >> No doubt there are, but since there are also cases the other way they >>are not discriminatory in effect. >> >> If you set up a clinic for lung cancer but only allow men to use it >>you seem to be discriminating. >> >> If you set up two clinics, one for testicular cancer, and the other >>for breast cancer, and only allow men into the first and women into the >>second you have no doubt discriminated in the technical sense. But >>people accept that as being fair. We have Laws that are fair because >>sometimes judgement supports the expert, and sometimes the tyro. > >That analogy works only if you truly believe that the chance of an >expert playing a hand like a duffer is roughly the same as the chance >of a woman developing testicular cancer. Unfortunately, we seem to be >seeing a trend lately on the part of TDs/ACs to make decisions that >appear to be based on exactly that presumption. This seems so completely the opposite to what I meant that I shall try again. In judgement situations, like hesitations, concessions, claims, and so on, there are some hands you gain from extra knowledge and being an expert, and some hands that you gain from ignorance and not knowing clever plays. People quote these possibilities as being discriminatory - maybe they are, but since they balance out, why should we care? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 03:52:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RHplk19124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:51:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5RHphH19120 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:51:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-55.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.55] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17NdDc-0001hz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:38:08 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020627132943.00b2a770@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:39:05 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations In-Reply-To: <007501c21deb$2b62a3c0$b89468d5@default> References: <200206261805.OAA22730@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20020627080227.00b296b0@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 10:57 AM 6/27/02, Nigel wrote: >Eric Landau: > One really doesn't face such a choice, > provided one understands the (huge) > difference between "rational play" > (play which is not irrational) > and "correct play" (play which is > neither careless, inferior nor > irrational). The law does -- or at > least it used to; lately the > distinction has become quite a bit > fuzzier. > >Nigel: > Does that mean that if correct play > would make the contract, I have to > judge whether it is "rational" for > this conceding opponent? No. But the TD (or AC) doea. > if so, > am I legally obliged to tell him? No. I think we're agreed on that. The current thread is about whether you might feel an ethical obligation to tell him, notwithstanding that you have no such legal obligation. > I am using "rational" with the > meaning defined in the Laws. We've been debating for years how the laws define "rational". The majority view requires the TD to "judge whether it is 'rational' for this conceding opponent". The dissenting view requires the TD to "judge whether it is 'rational'", period; who the "conceding opponent" is should not affect his determination. 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 Jun 28 04:00:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RI0D819141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 04:00:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5RI08H19137 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 04:00:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-55.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.55] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17NdLm-0003tK-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:46:34 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020627134105.00b36cf0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:47:31 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020627081025.00b2e610@pop.starpower.net> <008e01c21d0f$deddfbc0$da9c68d5@default> <00c501c21967$55c38cc0$a49568d5@default> <00ef01c21974$fae1d4c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <01a301c2197d$009709a0$a49568d5@default> <008e01c21d0f$deddfbc0$da9c68d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20020627081025.00b2e610@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 08:58 AM 6/27/02, David wrote: > In judgement situations, like hesitations, concessions, claims, and so >on, there are some hands you gain from extra knowledge and being an >expert, and some hands that you gain from ignorance and not knowing >clever plays. People quote these possibilities as being discriminatory >- maybe they are, but since they balance out, why should we care? We care because we'd like to see our laws reflect reality, and we believe that reality is that on any given day any expert can play like a duffer, and on any given day any duffer can play like an expert. We don't believe that the fact that someone claimed changes this reality, therefore it is foolish to write claims laws that appear to be based on the presumption that it isn't true. If all of the laws were written that way we wouldn't need to have contests; we could just seed the field and give out the prizes. We also care because we're not so sure that "they balance out", and, what's more, we're quite certain that even if they do, the majority of our players do not believe that they do. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 04:59:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RIwR919169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 04:58:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5RIwMH19165 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 04:58:22 +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 17NeG7-000GYB-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:44:47 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:43:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations References: <200206261805.OAA22730@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20020627080227.00b296b0@pop.starpower.net> <007501c21deb$2b62a3c0$b89468d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20020627132943.00b2a770@pop.starpower.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020627132943.00b2a770@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 >We've been debating for years how the laws define "rational". > >The majority view requires the TD to "judge whether it is 'rational' >for this conceding opponent". The dissenting view requires the TD to >"judge whether it is 'rational'", period; who the "conceding opponent" >is should not affect his determination. Of course the WBFLC has changed the wording: I am surprised if people still follow the dissenting view after the change. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 04:59:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RIxid19181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 04:59:44 +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-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 g5RIxdH19177 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 04:59:40 +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 17NeHM-000Gg0-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:46:05 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:45:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Memories of South Africa MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Copy of an article on RGB. The first article of the series has no Law content so is not being copied here. The third article will follow when I get the relevant information. Memories of South Africa (2) by David Stevenson There was a tendency to aggressive behaviour amongst some of the players. If I did not score immediately, or left my score-card face-up for a moment, some of them delighted in snapping at me. The majority, however, were friendly. One opponent told me of a Law that requires a player not to turn his card face down until the person who had won the trick turned his. He was very offensive, and suggested I should learn the Laws. Naturally I told him pleasantly that I had never heard of such a Law, and would turn my card down when the trick was completed, but of course would turn it up if required by any other player who had not quitted his card. When he realised his gamesmanship was having no effect he called he Director, who told him he knew of no such Law. He said to the Director, Andre Truter, "I will accept your ruling, of course, but I think you should check with your superior." Andre, unfazed at being called a liar by innuendo, very sensibly returned with the Law book, and read him (and showed him) the relevant Law. The player was reduced to saying that the Law must have been changed, and it was different at World level (ha!! - of course neither of these statements are correct) and he would write to the WBF. Sadly, I believe he will try his nasty little tactics against players less able to take care of themselves. I was told that he had a reputation for gamesmanship yet was a good player, and people were pleased I had stood up to him. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 06:06:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RK5Xp19225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 06:05:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net ([213.35.62.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5RK5SH19221 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 06:05:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.121] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id ptomvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 21:51:46 +0200 Message-ID: <002101c21e14$171dbfc0$793f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@pop.starpower.net> <005c01c21cdc$67d91ce0$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> <004a01c21cf0$414cdbc0$763f23d5@cornelis> <3QMz09FVCaG9Ewb$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006401c21d29$89c30800$643f23d5@cornelis> <002101c21db2$6338db90$6f3f23d5@cornelis> <+xwu9rCGrvG9Ewp7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 21:51:54 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 1:45 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical > Tom Cornelis writes > >From: "David Stevenson" > > >> They are not the same calls. It is perfectly legitimate to play a > >> different no-trump range by position, for example. > > > >What position? The position of a call is determined by the previous calls. > >What position is 'first bid 1NT by you'? > >What position is 'first bid 1NT by your partner'? > >(first bid in the auction, i.e. call made by dealer) > >According to me they are in the same position, i.e. the first. > > According to you any number of things might happen. :) > > But if a player plays 1NT by South is 12-14, and by North is 15-17, > find me a Law forbidding it. I didn't think of that. You're perfectly right. Thanks for giving me this insight. :-) Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 06:27:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RKRiK19246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 06:27:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net (ns.net4all.be [213.35.60.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5RKRdH19242 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 06:27:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.121] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id rcpmvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:13:56 +0200 Message-ID: <003601c21e17$2f9d6340$793f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020627083136.00aafda0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] steps in appeal analysis Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:14:04 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Eric Landau > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 2:38 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] steps in appeal analysis > > > > At 04:32 AM 6/27/02, Tom wrote: > > > > > > I shall be very glad to agree on this, but only if you agree my method isn't > > lying either. It is under the current Law. That's why I recommend a Law > > change, under which it wouldn't be a lie. So I would be very glad that the > > point of my method being a lie, is stopped to being pointed out, because > > it's wrong: it uses the premise that my method would be used under the > > current Law. > > The truth is what's true; a lie is something that's not true. That has nothing whatsoever > to do with the laws. The laws can forbid you from lying, permit you to lie, even > require you to lie, but can't change a lie into the truth. "We have agreed X" is true if > you have agreed X, and a lie if you have not agreed X, no matter what the law might > allow or require you to say to your opponents at the table. But I don't think you should tell people what you have agreed if you haven't agreed something. I think the Law should require to disclose the agreements that you have. If you have no agreement you have the choice of judging the meaning of the call, at your own risk of MI, or explain the call as natural, without risk of MI. If the Law defines a 'natural' explanation to be true, there's no lie, as there is no lie as the Law defines an explanation based on your agreements to be true. If the explanation is false, there's MI, otherwise not. The trouble with truth and lies, is that they both can be true or false. For example, if you explain a call as undiscussed, the explanation is true if you are required to explain as such, and false if you are not. Indeed, 'we have agreed X' is false, but 'the call means X' is true or false. So you can't call it a lie. I can't call it the truth. It's a premise, meaning the truth has to be found out. Do you see now why you can't call my method lying? [snip] Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 06:41:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RKeru19259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 06:40:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net ([213.35.62.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5RKemH19255 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 06:40:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.121] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id thpmvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:27:02 +0200 Message-ID: <004101c21e19$04434b90$793f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] steps in appeal analysis Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:27:10 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 3:22 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] steps in appeal analysis > In-Reply-To: <004e01c21db5$384cd280$6f3f23d5@cornelis> > Tom Cornelis wrote: > > > I shall be very glad to agree on this, but only if you agree my method > > isn't lying either. It is under the current Law. That's why I recommend > > a Law change, under which it wouldn't be a lie. So I would be very glad > > that the point of my method being a lie, is stopped to being pointed > > out, because it's wrong: it uses the premise that my method would be > > used under the current Law. > > As I understand it the change you are suggesting is that instead of asking > (as we do now) "What does the call show according to your agreements > (explicit/implicit and partnership experience)?" we will instead ask > "What is your best guess as to what your partner holds?" and that if your > best guess is wrong it will automatically be regarded as MI. The thing is, I wouldn't require you to guess as the DWS. I would grant you to guess at your own risk or explain the call as natural without risk. > It is impossible fully to answer the latter question independently of the > contents of ones own hand. Try this. > > 1S 4N (Bwood) > 5H 5N (2 aces, Kings?) > 7N > > Opps ask one of you "which two aces has your partner shown?". I am very > much against being required to answer this question accurately! I don't get what this has to do with anything. You are required to call the TD to inform them they asked an illegal question. They can only ask about the meaning of a call. > And going back to the "surprise CHO negative double" I am also very much > against being required to give an answer that is dependent on the Spade > length of my own hand. Especially when, having given my answer, I later > discover that my RHO has psyched a raise to 2S and I am about to be > penalised for MI. As am I. That's exactly why you can't conveniently explain the call as undiscussed. If you have made an implicit agreement, but partner may not know it, and you are very suspicious your partner doesn't know, you are still required to give the right explanation. If it turns out there was a psyche, there will be no harm done. Otherwise you'll have to accept that MI is coming. (supposing you can't prove your explanation to be right) Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 06:44:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RKhv619275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 06:43:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5RKhqH19271 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 06:43:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-55.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.55] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17NfuD-00017Z-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:30:18 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020627155655.00b2e630@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:31:15 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020627132943.00b2a770@pop.starpower.net> <200206261805.OAA22730@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20020627080227.00b296b0@pop.starpower.net> <007501c21deb$2b62a3c0$b89468d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20020627132943.00b2a770@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:43 PM 6/27/02, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > > >We've been debating for years how the laws define "rational". > > > >The majority view requires the TD to "judge whether it is 'rational' > >for this conceding opponent". The dissenting view requires the TD to > >"judge whether it is 'rational'", period; who the "conceding opponent" > >is should not affect his determination. > > Of course the WBFLC has changed the wording: I am surprised if people >still follow the dissenting view after the change. I'm confident that nobody on BLML "follows" the dissenting view when making rulings; as TDs, we do what we're paid to do, which means following the laws, and their current WBF and SO interpretations (albeit with priority given to the latter when they conflict, which may not be "right", but it's the SOs that sign the checks). But that doesn't mean we've changed our views about how we'd prefer to see the laws interpreted, and, for some of us at least, our customers would overwhelmingly prefer laws that allow TDs and ACs to make rulings without knowing (or at least without taking into account) the identities of the players involved. As any American politician can tell you, trouble comes not necessarily from having a conflict of interest, but rather from giving the appearance of a conflict of interest. When we are forced to give a more favorable ruling to a friend than someone else (reality for TDs is that our friends tend to be regulars/experts, while the "someone elses" don't), *we* know that we are following the laws -- our friend really *is* a better player than the other guy -- but trouble follows nevertheless. Meanwhile, I have yet to speak to *anyone* in ACBL-land -- including TDs and players who routinely sit on ACs -- who isn't on BLML who has any clue that the WBF has issued a definitive interpretation on this matter, and the ACBL has remained officially silent on it, so, yes, most of those on this side of the pond who hold the dissenting view continue to follow it when giving rulings. 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 Jun 28 08:41:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RMenN19315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:40:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5RMeiH19311 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:40:44 +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 IAA01442 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:41:56 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:23:12 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:26:46 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 28/06/2002 08:22:52 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>From: "David Stevenson" >> >>But if a player plays 1NT by South is 12-14, and by North is 15-17, >>find me a Law forbidding it. >Exactly! And then you can also play that after 1NT one player transfers >at the 2-level while the other signs off in 2D 2H and 2S, so the stronger >player will always be declarer... > > >Mvh, >Willy Teigen A mixed partnership represented Australia in the 1979 Bermuda Bowl. The male half directed his partner's defence by giving attitude signals. The female half informed her partner's defence by giving count signals, therefore allowing the male to use his judgement as to what was the right defence. This male chauvinist piggery saw Australia win the bronze medal. :-) 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 Jun 28 08:57:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RMvCR19336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:57:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5RMv7H19332 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:57:08 +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 IAA03364 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:58:19 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:39:35 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:43:07 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 28/06/2002 08:39:15 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>Eric Landau writes >> >>We've been debating for years how the laws define "rational". >> >>The majority view requires the TD to "judge whether it is 'rational' >>for this conceding opponent". The dissenting view requires the TD to >>"judge whether it is 'rational'", period; who the "conceding opponent" >>is should not affect his determination. > Of course the WBFLC has changed the wording: I am surprised if people >still follow the dissenting view after the change. > >-- >David Stevenson I am surprised people still vote for the dissenting Tory Party in Britain. However, the Tory Party might win the next election. Similarly, the dissenting view of "rational" supported by Eric Landau and myself may be elected by the WBFLC in the 2005 Laws. Especially since a member of the WBFLC has indicated that he has an open mind on such a Law change. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 09:25:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5RNOhV19358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:24:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5RNObH19354 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:24:38 +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 g5RNDOx09659 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 00:13:25 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 00:06:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020610113352.00adcb00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020610151255.00ae74b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020611080753.00ae7ea0@pop.starpower.net> <3D060D82.8050204@skynet.be> <001901c21160$6a79e060$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <005601c21190$d6cdce90$723f23d5@cornelis> <3D07238C.5000100@skynet.be> <001001c2123a$fbaedf60$743f23d5@cornelis> <3D085DE4.40607@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613093355.00aadc70@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020613132849.00aa51e0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020614092816.00aa6b60@pop.starpower.net> <00d701c213b6$04dc3070$713f23d5@cornelis> <005501c2160b$5f09bc00$6f3f23d5@cornelis> <1aAc3vAJB0F9EwDD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006a01c21c2d$2d9cec00$683f23d5@cornelis> <008c01c21cf3$37f92260$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Sven Pran writes >>From: "David Stevenson" > >>> **Not used to playing penalty doubles?** What on earth do you think I >>> was doing for the twenty years before negative doubles became popular? >> >>PASS ? >>(Sorry David, I couldn't resist the temptation!) > > Look, Sven, I don't mind you taking the mickey, but please don't ever >suggest that I have believed in passing hands. That's not what I pay my >entrance fee for! > Listen sunshine, precisely *who* discarded an 8-card club suit when the opponents were playing in 2D. Further, I recall we were on about 61% with about 4 boards to play. 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 Jun 28 11:07:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5S16WA19426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:06:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5S16QH19422 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:06:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from kdr1200 (n-airlock168.esatclear.ie [194.165.167.168]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA11699 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 01:52:45 +0100 From: "Karel" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Ruling please Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 01:44:50 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I'll tell this as it happened and then add two scenarios Pairs dealer N Nil all North S xx H KJxxx D x C J9xxx West East S A9x S JTxxx H xxx H AQxx D Q8xxx D K C Qx C Kxx South S KQx H x D AJT9xx C A8x Bidding N E S W 2D(1) DBL(2) P(3) P 3C(4) P P P(5) N/S are an established partnership playing an aggressive unusual system. E/W are scratch partnership. (1) 2D = 2-10 points 5+ hearts (tends to be upper range if vul) or 23/24 balanced or an "Acol 2" in any suit. Alerted as such. (2) Takeout double. Alerted. (3) Shows 5+ diamonds and happy to play in diamonds up to opener. Alerted. (4) Nat 4+ clubs. No alert from south. (5) West asked south what the 3 clubs was. EAST at this stage said its an acol 2 in clubs as it was aleretd as either weak in hearts or an acol 2. South said that this was not necessarily the case. Opener could have had a weak hand with hearts and clubs. South also said that with a strong hand North may have Redoubled. This was the 1st time this sequence came up and South said they had not discussed it but felt it was probable on the bidding that North had a weak hand with hearts and clubs. Result 3C-1 This turned out to be close to a bottom as 2S making or +1 was the norm. E/W felt they had been misinformed and that South should have alerted the 3C bid as weak and not an ACOL 2. South felt the 3C was not alertable as it was natural and felt the onus was on the opponents to ask about a bid. Any assumptions they made without asking was not N/S's fault. Also N/S had no agreements on this precise sequence. It was the 1st time it had come up. Your ruling ?? Scenario 1 ----- N/S HAD discussed this sequence. South knew that North's 3C bid was weak but did not alert as he felt 3C's Nat was not alertable. Would this effect the ruling ?? Scenario 2 ----- N/S had not discussed this exact sequence but as an established partnership with general guiding prinicples in similar sequences, South would be pretty confident that the 3C bid was weak. He'd expect RDBL to be a strong hand. Of course the 14pt count in his own hand lent this conclusion some weight. Would this effect the ruling ?? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 11:55:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5S1tJq19461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:55:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5S1tFH19457 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:55:15 +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 LAA01385 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:56:25 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:37:42 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] 1NT overcall is...? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:41:14 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 28/06/2002 11:37:22 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: >>This problem appeared in the May 2002 issue of the >>Australian Directors' Bulletin: >> >>Pairs - aggregate (total points) scoring. >>Bd. 2 / E / NS [snip] David Stevenson replied: > I do think Richard might have explained that this is a >question set to a panel. Personally, I would ask that in >future please only post them when the results of the panel >are available. [snip] My apologies for violating protocol. Attached is a different problem, where the panel results are now available. Best wishes Richard South-West Pacific Teams - Table one. Bd. 5 / N / NS 63 Q7 Q108654 J109 QJ7 AK2 J10865 K9 973 --- Q8 AK765432 109854 A432 AKJ2 --- West North East South --- 1H(1) 1NT(2) Pass 2D(3) Pass 6C All pass 1. 0-7 HCP any shape 2. Game Force, but described by West as 15-18 balanced. 3. 6+ HCP with hearts opposite a GF, but 6-9 with hearts opposite a strong NT. Result: E/W +920 How would you rule? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 12:32:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5S2VUn19498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:31:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5S2VOH19494 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:31:25 +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 g5S2KCx10274 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:20:13 +0100 Message-ID: <5h5pknFnX8G9EwYm@asimere.com> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:11:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling please 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 , Karel writes >I'll tell this as it happened and then add two scenarios > >Pairs dealer N Nil all > > North > S xx > H KJxxx > D x > C J9xxx >West East >S A9x S JTxxx >H xxx H AQxx >D Q8xxx D K >C Qx C Kxx > South > S KQx > H x > D AJT9xx > C A8x > >Bidding > >N E S W >2D(1) DBL(2) P(3) P >3C(4) P P P(5) > >N/S are an established partnership playing an aggressive unusual system. >E/W are scratch partnership. > >(1) 2D = 2-10 points 5+ hearts (tends to be upper range if vul) or 23/24 >balanced or an "Acol 2" in any suit. Alerted as such. > >(2) Takeout double. Alerted. > >(3) Shows 5+ diamonds and happy to play in diamonds up to opener. Alerted. > >(4) Nat 4+ clubs. No alert from south. > >(5) West asked south what the 3 clubs was. EAST at this stage said its an >acol 2 in clubs as it was aleretd as either weak in hearts or an acol 2. >South said that this was not necessarily the case. Opener could have had a >weak hand with hearts and clubs. South also said that with a strong hand >North may have Redoubled. This was the 1st time this sequence came up and >South said they had not discussed it but felt it was probable on the bidding >that North had a weak hand with hearts and clubs. > > >Result 3C-1 > >This turned out to be close to a bottom as 2S making or +1 was the norm. >E/W felt they had been misinformed and that South should have alerted the 3C >bid as weak and not an ACOL 2. South felt the 3C was not alertable as it >was natural and felt the onus was on the opponents to ask about a bid. Any >assumptions they made without asking was not N/S's fault. Also N/S had no >agreements on this precise sequence. It was the 1st time it had come up. > >Your ruling ?? > Result stands, regardless of any UI created by East. It's general bridge knowledge that xx shows a good hand. I'd give a PPW to east as well. It's obvious even to a demented baboon that North is 5-5 in the round suits. Why should South alert a *natural* bid? Apart from anything else just what was West going to bid after South's Pass? Bid a 3 card spade suit and go for 500 on a 4-3 fit and repeated H leads? East deserves everything he got after his fatuous double. > >Scenario 1 ----- N/S HAD discussed this sequence. South knew that North's >3C bid was weak but did not alert as he felt 3C's Nat was not alertable. >Would this effect the ruling ?? > > >Scenario 2 ----- N/S had not discussed this exact sequence but as an >established partnership with general guiding prinicples in similar >sequences, South would be pretty confident that the 3C bid was weak. He'd >expect RDBL to be a strong hand. Of course the 14pt count in his own hand >lent this conclusion some weight. Would this effect the ruling ?? > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Jun 28 12:37:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5S2bW019510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:37:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5S2bRH19506 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:37:27 +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 g5S2QFx10280 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:26:15 +0100 Message-ID: <2xCqQxFKd8G9EwZm@asimere.com> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:17:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] 1NT overcall is...? 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 > >South-West Pacific Teams - Table one. >Bd. 5 / N / NS > > 63 > Q7 > Q108654 > J109 >QJ7 AK2 >J10865 K9 >973 --- >Q8 AK765432 > 109854 > A432 > AKJ2 > --- > >West North East South >--- 1H(1) 1NT(2) Pass >2D(3) Pass 6C All pass > >1. 0-7 HCP any shape > >2. Game Force, but described by West as 15-18 >balanced. > >3. 6+ HCP with hearts opposite a GF, but 6-9 with >hearts opposite a strong NT. > >Result: E/W +920 > >How would you rule? Hmm. I can make six clubs with any of the other three hands as dummy. looks like 100% action to me :) seriously, result stands. The HQ on its own makes it a tolerable slam and I don't see how East can be scientific with his hand. 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 Jun 28 16:15:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5S6EcZ19679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 16:14:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5S6EFH19675 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 16:14:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA03955 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 16:15:26 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 15:56:41 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] 1NT overcall is...? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 16:00:16 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 28/06/2002 03:56:20 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] In discussing the snipped hand, panellist Rich Colker observed: >If 12C3 is available, then the non-offenders >(N/S) would be assigned a weighted average of >the various possibilities. > >However, I do not believe in 12C3 score >adjustments for offenders. (I believe they >should be assigned a score under 12C2: the >most unfavourable that is at all probable.) Question 1: Does Rich Colker's belief have any Lawful basis? Question 2: In Zones where L12C3 is enabled, should all L12C2 adjustments be *automatically* modified by the application of a further adjustment under L12C3? (To avoid semantic quibbling, ignore those rare cases where L12C2 and L12C3 produce an identical result.) 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 Jun 28 19:15:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5S9DN019843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 19:13:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail12.svr.pol.co.uk (mail12.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.215]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5S9DHH19838 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 19:13:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-695.beedrill.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.135.34.183] helo=Merrette) by mail12.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17NrbP-0005GV-00 for Bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:59:40 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01c21e83$18ba3240$0100007f@Freeserve.co.uk> From: "Ted Merrette" To: Subject: [BLML] Incorrect number of cards / Missing card Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 10:05:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000B_01C21E8B.48ED64C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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_01C21E8B.48ED64C0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_000C_01C21E8B.48ED64C0" ------=_NextPart_001_000C_01C21E8B.48ED64C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi As a novice director I'd like some advice about the following incident = which caused some confusion. At a recent club competition being directed = by another novice director a board was being played and after a few = tricks had been played a defender noticed that the dummy was short of a = card. The director was called and the missing card the eight of diamonds = was found at the previous table. Having established that the absence of = this card had not affected the play and there had been no revoke the = director restored the card and allowed play to continue so far so good. = However one of the defenders was not at all happy and protested. My questions are these=20 Law 13 relates to an "incorrect" number of cards and although this might = not apply here there was in fact an incorrect number of cards i.e. 51 = and dummy only had 12. Law 14 relates to a missing card and this does seem to apply However there seems to be a slight contradiction 13 B. 2 tells us that = if any player, after a player has seen another players cards, objects to = playing the board, the director shall award an artificial adjusted score = and may penalise an offender. Why should the same not be true under Law = 14? In this case one of the players did object (I know not why) and North = (Dummy) should, of course, have counted his cards. Everybody had seen = dummy's cards and the cards played to previous tricks.=20 There may be a whole can of worms here because of course ( although I = have no reason to believe this to be so) the defenders may have realised = they were going to get a poor result on the board. I was taught that Directors are not there to punish the wicked ( or the = careless or the stupid) but to try to ensure equity. How would you have = handled this? Ted p.s. This is my first posting to BLML. I will try to be briefer next time. ------=_NextPart_001_000C_01C21E8B.48ED64C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi
 
As a novice director I'd like some advice about the following = incident=20 which caused some confusion. At a recent club competition being directed = by=20 another novice director a board was being played and after a few tricks = had been=20 played a defender noticed that the dummy was short of a card. The = director was=20 called and the missing card the eight of diamonds was found at the = previous=20 table. Having established that the absence of this card had not affected = the=20 play and there had been no revoke the director restored the card and = allowed=20 play to continue so far so good. However one of the defenders was not at = all=20 happy and protested.
 
My questions are these
 
Law 13 relates to an "incorrect" number of cards = and=20 although this might not apply here  there was in fact an incorrect = number=20 of cards i.e. 51 and dummy only had 12.
 
Law 14 relates to a missing card and this does = seem to=20 apply
 
However there seems to be a slight contradiction 13 B. = 2=20 tells us that if any player, after a player has seen another players = cards,=20 objects to playing the board, the director shall award an artificial = adjusted=20 score and may penalise an offender. Why should the same not be true = under=20 Law 14?
 
In this case one of the players did object (I know not why) and = North=20 (Dummy) should, of course, have counted his cards. Everybody had seen = dummy's=20 cards and the cards played to previous tricks.
 
There may be a whole can of worms here  because of course ( = although I=20 have no reason to believe this to be so) the defenders may have realised =  they were going to get a poor result on the board.
 
I was taught that Directors are not there to punish the wicked ( or = the=20 careless or the stupid) but to try to ensure equity. How would you = have=20 handled this?
 
Ted
p.s.
This is my first posting to BLML. I will try to be briefer next = time.
 
 
------=_NextPart_001_000C_01C21E8B.48ED64C0-- ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C21E8B.48ED64C0 Content-Type: image/gif; name="blueback.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <000a01c21e82$e7215ba0$0100007f@Freeserve.co.uk> R0lGODlhrQQhALMAADc3Nz4+PktLS2RkZAAA/4eHh62trc/Pz+np6ff39/39/f////////////// /////yH+FkdJRiBTbWFydFNhdmVyIFZlcjEuMWEALAAAAACtBCEAAAT+kMhJq70VBDGKOUiiLGRp nmiqrmzrvnAsz3Rt33iu73zv/8CgcEgsGo/IpHLJbDqf0CgPQ61aNBwPSCTter/gsHhMLpvP6LR6 zW673yarvIrtfEIjuH7P7/v/gIGCg4SFhoc+c4pXG3ZbeYiRkpOUlZaXmJmam5eLnhJ1WnicpKWm p6ipqqusrWKfnqF3XK61tre4ubq7vL1SsIuyj77ExcbHyMnKy3/AisKjzNLT1NXW19jMznPQtNnf 4OHi4+TlaNty3ZDm7O3u7/Dx7ehW6vL3+Pn6+/yl9HSNRHnrR7CgwYMIEz75R8WewocQI0qcKJEh BocUM2rcyLFjNYuzFzB6HEmypMmTmUAyyjJrHcqXMGPKnDlGZYaALWnq3Mmzp88cNimI/Em0qNGj KINOGIq0qdOnUPkpBYVzWNSrWLNqzTaVANOtYMOKHbuq61eyaNOqXSvIbNVobOPKnUu3jFuWVuvq 3cu3r5C7juD6HUy4sGEUgAW6PMy4sWO1iXM+nky58tXIeS1r3sx5JmbBnUOLHk3x80DSqFOr1md6 8erXsGN/ay27tu3by2jj3s27dy0AOw== ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C21E8B.48ED64C0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 19:59:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5S9vjU19883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 19:57:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5S9vdH19879 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 19:57:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1283.bb.online.no [80.212.213.3]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA11830 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:43:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004601c21e88$53b43620$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <000f01c21e83$18ba3240$0100007f@Freeserve.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Incorrect number of cards / Missing card Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:43:58 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Both the Laws and the reasons behind the laws are very simple here: First of all the footnote in Law 13 specifically says that when three hands are correct and the fourth hand is deficient then law 14, and not law 13 applies. The logic in Law 14 is this: You are supposed to have counted your cards before even looking at them (L7B1), so whenever Law 14 comes into action it is because the affected player has violated law 7B1. And the ruling is simply: For all relevant purposes he shall be considered to have held the correct hand (including the missing card or cards) all the time. He may have revoked by failing to play that card at a proper time. And note: It does not matter where the missing card(s) is(are) found or if it(they) are not found at all. The moment it is possible to determine which card(s) is(are) missing, the ruling will be according to Law 14. Although it doesn't say so you should consider Law 13B2 to refer to "Another players not already played cards". As far as I understand it has never been the purpose of L13B2 to include those cards from another players hand that has been seen because they have been played in a legal way (when the irregularity is discovered after the play period has begun). As such there is no need for or sense in a similar rule in Law 14. By the way: An interesting question arises when (as in your case) dummy is the deficient hand and the application of law 14 leads to an established revoke by dummy. Law 64B3 tells us that there is no penalty for a revoke by failing to play a faced card. This is usually read as there is never any penalty for a revoke by dummy, but the question is whether the missing card shall be considered one of dummy's FACED cards or not. Frankly I don't know - hopefullyt somebody can clarify this? regards Sven From: "Ted Merrette" As a novice director I'd like some advice about the following incident which caused some confusion. At a recent club competition being directed by another novice director a board was being played and after a few tricks had been played a defender noticed that the dummy was short of a card. The director was called and the missing card the eight of diamonds was found at the previous table. Having established that the absence of this card had not affected the play and there had been no revoke the director restored the card and allowed play to continue so far so good. However one of the defenders was not at all happy and protested. My questions are these Law 13 relates to an "incorrect" number of cards and although this might not apply here there was in fact an incorrect number of cards i.e. 51 and dummy only had 12. Law 14 relates to a missing card and this does seem to apply However there seems to be a slight contradiction 13 B. 2 tells us that if any player, after a player has seen another players cards, objects to playing the board, the director shall award an artificial adjusted score and may penalise an offender. Why should the same not be true under Law 14? In this case one of the players did object (I know not why) and North (Dummy) should, of course, have counted his cards. Everybody had seen dummy's cards and the cards played to previous tricks. There may be a whole can of worms here because of course ( although I have no reason to believe this to be so) the defenders may have realised they were going to get a poor result on the board. I was taught that Directors are not there to punish the wicked ( or the careless or the stupid) but to try to ensure equity. How would you have handled this? Ted p.s. This is my first posting to BLML. I will try to be briefer next 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 Jun 28 20:07:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5SA6Ad19902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 20:06:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5SA64H19898 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 20:06:05 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g5S9qSE11580 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 10:52:28 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 10:52 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] steps in appeal analysis 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: <004101c21e19$04434b90$793f23d5@cornelis> Tom Cornelis wrote: > > As I understand it the change you are suggesting is that instead of > > asking > > (as we do now) "What does the call show according to your agreements > > (explicit/implicit and partnership experience)?" we will instead ask > > "What is your best guess as to what your partner holds?" and that if > > your best guess is wrong it will automatically be regarded as MI. > > The thing is, I wouldn't require you to guess as the DWS. I would grant > you to guess at your own risk or explain the call as natural without > risk. What do you mean "without risk"? If giving an explanation of "natural" will never lead to MI adjustment then it is the same as "undiscussed" - this goes against everything else you say. On a typical pick-up auction like 1S,(p),2S,(p),3D the 3D is obviously a game try. Whether it will be a long/help suit try I have no idea (it might even be a short suit slam try). What about 1S=3S=4c. 4c is obviously a cue bid (and since we have agreed trump could be based on shortage) so it isn't natural. Does it show 1st/2nd round control? I don't know. If I look at my hand I might be able to "guess" better which one it is in the above situations but I hate that in principle. > > It is impossible fully to answer the latter question independently of > > the contents of ones own hand. Try this. > > > > 1S 4N (Bwood) > > 5H 5N (2 aces, Kings?) > > 7N > > > > Opps ask one of you "which two aces has your partner shown?". I am > > very much against being required to answer this question accurately! > > I don't get what this has to do with anything. You are required to call > the TD to inform them they asked an illegal question. They can only ask > about the meaning of a call. At the moment they can only ask the meaning of the call. You suggested a law change whereby they could ask you to guess what partner actually holds. > > And going back to the "surprise CHO negative double" I am also very > > much against being required to give an answer that is dependent on the > > Spade length of my own hand. Especially when, having given my answer, > > I later > > discover that my RHO has psyched a raise to 2S and I am about to be > > penalised for MI. > > As am I. That's exactly why you can't conveniently explain the call as > undiscussed. If you have made an implicit agreement, but partner may not > know it, and you are very suspicious your partner doesn't know, you are > still required to give the right explanation. In the case I originally suggested it was an explicit agreement (Basic Acol). It turns out that many in the UK apparently don't know "Basic Acol" (or the alternative Standard English). Most players of "SAYC" seem not to know that either. Whatever "Standard" is adopted I can be pretty sure that describing something as "natural according to standard X" will provide the same complete lack of information/consensus as "undiscussed". > If it turns out there was a psyche, there will be no harm done. > Otherwise you'll have to accept that MI is coming. (supposing you can't > prove your explanation to be right) Proof should never be required. TDs are quite capable of making a judgment based on *evidence*, in the situation where the explantion is "no agreement" (or "natural", under your suggested change) there could be no way to prove it. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 20:42:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5SAfiv19932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 20:41:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from obelix.spase.nl (c69101.upc-c.chello.nl [212.187.69.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5SAfdH19928 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 20:41:39 +1000 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:20:37 +0200 Message-ID: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A5CD@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: Bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Incorrect number of cards / Missing card Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:20:37 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran [mailto:svenpran@online.no] wrote: > By the way: An interesting question arises when (as in your case) > dummy is the deficient hand and the application of law 14 leads to > an established revoke by dummy. Law 64B3 tells us that there is > no penalty for a revoke by failing to play a faced card. This > is usually > read as there is never any penalty for a revoke by dummy, but the > question is whether the missing card shall be considered one of > dummy's FACED cards or not. Law 64B3 says there is no penalty if the revoke was made in failing to play any card faced on the table -- OR -- belonging to a hand faced on the table, including a card from dummy's hand. Of course there is no denying that the missing card belongs to a hand faced on the table, which solves your riddle. Note that dummy's possible revoke, although not penalised, is still subject to L64C. Regards, -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 21:11:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5SBBHp19958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 21:11:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from new-media.gr ([212.205.99.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g5SBBBH19954 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 21:11:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from pournaras ([62.1.239.104]) by new-media.gr ( IA Mail Server Version: 4.1.7. Build: 1032 ) ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 13:51:19 +0300 Message-ID: <001101c21e92$4bf151c0$6200a8c0@pournaras> From: "Takis Pournaras" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000f01c21e83$18ba3240$0100007f@Freeserve.co.uk> <004601c21e88$53b43620$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Incorrect number of cards / Missing card Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 13:55:13 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Sven Pran] > By the way: An interesting question arises when (as in your case) > dummy is the deficient hand and the application of law 14 leads to > an established revoke by dummy. Law 64B3 tells us that there is > no penalty for a revoke by failing to play a faced card. This is usually > read as there is never any penalty for a revoke by dummy, but the > question is whether the missing card shall be considered one of > dummy's FACED cards or not. > > Frankly I don't know - hopefullyt somebody can clarify this? IMO, since L14 speaks of a possible revoke, the missing card should be considered one of dummy's visible cards. Otherwise, there's no revoke (?) Takis Pournaras -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 21:23:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5SBMsn19970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 21:22:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail32.hq.webvisie.net ([213.35.62.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5SBMnH19966 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 21:22:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.107] by mail32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id ebzmvaaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 13:09:03 +0200 Message-ID: <004701c21e94$3bfd14f0$6b3f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] steps in appeal analysis Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 13:09:12 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] steps in appeal analysis > In-Reply-To: <004101c21e19$04434b90$793f23d5@cornelis> > Tom Cornelis wrote: > > > > As I understand it the change you are suggesting is that instead of > > > asking > > > (as we do now) "What does the call show according to your agreements > > > (explicit/implicit and partnership experience)?" we will instead ask > > > "What is your best guess as to what your partner holds?" and that if > > > your best guess is wrong it will automatically be regarded as MI. > > > > The thing is, I wouldn't require you to guess as the DWS. I would grant > > you to guess at your own risk or explain the call as natural without > > risk. > > What do you mean "without risk"? If giving an explanation of "natural" > will never lead to MI adjustment then it is the same as "undiscussed" - > this goes against everything else you say. On a typical pick-up auction > like 1S,(p),2S,(p),3D the 3D is obviously a game try. Whether it will be > a long/help suit try I have no idea (it might even be a short suit slam > try). There's a psychological difference. The opponents who recieve an explanation 'undiscussed' have no clue whatsoever about the meaning of the call (as might you have), but when given an explanation 'natural' the have (as have you). It will allow people to make more confident calls, because they now have somthing to base on. > What about 1S=3S=4c. 4c is obviously a cue bid (and since we have agreed > trump could be based on shortage) so it isn't natural. Does it show > 1st/2nd round control? I don't know. That's why I suggest standards should be made by SO. Mind that I'm not talking about a standard system, but about standard explanations. > If I look at my hand I might be able to "guess" better which one it is > in the above situations but I hate that in principle. I hate it to. > > > It is impossible fully to answer the latter question independently of > > > the contents of ones own hand. Try this. > > > > > > 1S 4N (Bwood) > > > 5H 5N (2 aces, Kings?) > > > 7N > > > > > > Opps ask one of you "which two aces has your partner shown?". I am > > > very much against being required to answer this question accurately! > > > > I don't get what this has to do with anything. You are required to call > > the TD to inform them they asked an illegal question. They can only ask > > about the meaning of a call. > > At the moment they can only ask the meaning of the call. You suggested a > law change whereby they could ask you to guess what partner actually > holds. No, I didn't. I suggested a Law change whereby you could inform your opponents with your guess. Your opponents couldn't require you to guess. > > > And going back to the "surprise CHO negative double" I am also very > > > much against being required to give an answer that is dependent on the > > > Spade length of my own hand. Especially when, having given my answer, > > > I later > > > discover that my RHO has psyched a raise to 2S and I am about to be > > > penalised for MI. > > > > As am I. That's exactly why you can't conveniently explain the call as > > undiscussed. If you have made an implicit agreement, but partner may not > > know it, and you are very suspicious your partner doesn't know, you are > > still required to give the right explanation. > > In the case I originally suggested it was an explicit agreement (Basic > Acol). It turns out that many in the UK apparently don't know "Basic > Acol" (or the alternative Standard English). Most players of "SAYC" seem > not to know that either. Whatever "Standard" is adopted I can be pretty > sure that describing something as "natural according to standard X" will > provide the same complete lack of information/consensus as "undiscussed". Not if the standards would be required to be posted (in any playing area). As I said before, the standard wouldn't have to be a system, but SO could adopt a system as standard. > > If it turns out there was a psyche, there will be no harm done. > > Otherwise you'll have to accept that MI is coming. (supposing you can't > > prove your explanation to be right) > > Proof should never be required. TDs are quite capable of making a > judgment based on *evidence*, in the situation where the explantion is "no > agreement" (or "natural", under your suggested change) there could be no > way to prove it. Quite right, that's what I meant, sorry. Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 22:14:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5SCDjm20018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 22:13:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5SCDdH20014 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 22:13:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0085.bb.online.no [80.212.208.85]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA07413 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 13:59:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000d01c21e9b$53515b00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A5CD@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> Subject: Re: [BLML] Incorrect number of cards / Missing card Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 13:59:57 +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: "Martin Sinot" > > By the way: An interesting question arises when (as in your case) > > dummy is the deficient hand and the application of law 14 leads to > > an established revoke by dummy. Law 64B3 tells us that there is > > no penalty for a revoke by failing to play a faced card. This > > is usually > > read as there is never any penalty for a revoke by dummy, but the > > question is whether the missing card shall be considered one of > > dummy's FACED cards or not. > > Law 64B3 says there is no penalty if the revoke was made in failing > to play any card faced on the table -- OR -- belonging to a hand > faced on the table, including a card from dummy's hand. Of course > there is no denying that the missing card belongs to a hand faced > on the table, which solves your riddle. Right you are, and I should have seen that myself. Apparently I made the common error of not reading the whole applicable law text (L64B3)! > > Note that dummy's possible revoke, although not penalised, is still > subject to L64C. Sure, I was aware of that but didn't emphasize it as I felt my post had grown large enough already. Regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 22:41:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5SCfXh20109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 22:41:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5SCfNH20105 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 22:41:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 17Nuqo-0007cY-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 13:27:47 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:20:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling please 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 Karel writes >I'll tell this as it happened and then add two scenarios > >Pairs dealer N Nil all > > North > S xx > H KJxxx > D x > C J9xxx >West East >S A9x S JTxxx >H xxx H AQxx >D Q8xxx D K >C Qx C Kxx > South > S KQx > H x > D AJT9xx > C A8x > >Bidding > >N E S W >2D(1) DBL(2) P(3) P >3C(4) P P P(5) > >N/S are an established partnership playing an aggressive unusual system. >E/W are scratch partnership. > >(1) 2D = 2-10 points 5+ hearts (tends to be upper range if vul) or 23/24 >balanced or an "Acol 2" in any suit. Alerted as such. > >(2) Takeout double. Alerted. > >(3) Shows 5+ diamonds and happy to play in diamonds up to opener. Alerted. > >(4) Nat 4+ clubs. No alert from south. > >(5) West asked south what the 3 clubs was. EAST at this stage said its an >acol 2 in clubs as it was aleretd as either weak in hearts or an acol 2. >South said that this was not necessarily the case. Opener could have had a >weak hand with hearts and clubs. South also said that with a strong hand >North may have Redoubled. This was the 1st time this sequence came up and >South said they had not discussed it but felt it was probable on the bidding >that North had a weak hand with hearts and clubs. > > >Result 3C-1 > >This turned out to be close to a bottom as 2S making or +1 was the norm. >E/W felt they had been misinformed and that South should have alerted the 3C >bid as weak and not an ACOL 2. South felt the 3C was not alertable as it >was natural and felt the onus was on the opponents to ask about a bid. Any >assumptions they made without asking was not N/S's fault. Also N/S had no >agreements on this precise sequence. It was the 1st time it had come up. > >Your ruling ?? I do not know the Irish alerting rules - this came from Ireland, I presume? If you are required to alert an unusual bid that your opponents might not expect then the 3C bid is alertable on the face of it. >Scenario 1 ----- N/S HAD discussed this sequence. South knew that North's >3C bid was weak but did not alert as he felt 3C's Nat was not alertable. >Would this effect the ruling ?? Given the rules as above then the 3C should have been alerted. However, it is not easy to see damage - sure E/W can point out that spades may do well but how are they going to get there? I think N/S get a lecture on alerting and the result stands. >Scenario 2 ----- N/S had not discussed this exact sequence but as an >established partnership with general guiding prinicples in similar >sequences, South would be pretty confident that the 3C bid was weak. He'd >expect RDBL to be a strong hand. Of course the 14pt count in his own hand >lent this conclusion some weight. Would this effect the ruling ?? The ruling seems identical: it should be alerted so that he could explain the likelihood based on other sequences, but no damage, no adjustment. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 22:42:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5SCgJc20121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 22:42:19 +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 g5SCgBH20117 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 22:42:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-55.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.55] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17Nurc-0001lh-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:28:36 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020628081510.00ac74a0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:29:35 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] steps in appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <003601c21e17$2f9d6340$793f23d5@cornelis> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020627083136.00aafda0@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 Some people just don't get it. At 04:14 PM 6/27/02, Tom wrote: >If the Law defines a 'natural' explanation to be true, there's no lie, as >there is no lie as the Law defines an explanation based on your agreements >to be true. Ridiculous. We can pass a law that says that when Richard Nixon said "I am not a crook" it was not a lie, but it will nevertheless remain a lie, and Richard Nixon will nevertheless remain a crook. >The trouble with truth and lies, is that they both can be true or false. No they can't. The truth is true. Lies are not true. >For example, if you explain a call as undiscussed, the explanation is true >if you are required to explain as such, and false if you are not. If you say that a call is undiscussed, that is true if the call is undiscussed, and false if it is not undiscussed. Is this really open to debate? >Indeed, 'we have agreed X' is false, but 'the call means X' is true or >false. So you can't call it a lie. I can't call it the truth. It's a >premise, meaning the truth has to be found out. Even assuming that you and your opponents see the context the same way, "the call means X" can mean either: (a) "I assert that it is true that the call means X", or (b) I don't know what the call means, but I hypothesize that it means X". In context (a), "the call means X" is not true. In context (b), adding "but I hypothesize that..." gives no information to the opponents; they derive advantage, in Tom's world, solely from gaining the ability to call for an adjusted score if the hypothesis is wrong. >Do you see now why you can't call my method lying? No. If you tell the opponents something which you do not know to be true, you are lying. If you do so because the Law requires you to do so, you are still lying. We could pass a law that says that if you shoot someone dead it is not a crime, but the person you shoot will still be dead. 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 Jun 28 22:55:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5SCtEB20144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 22:55:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5SCt6H20140 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 22:55:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-55.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.55] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17Nv47-0004Gb-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:41:31 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020628083203.00b36940@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:42:30 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] steps in appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <004101c21e19$04434b90$793f23d5@cornelis> 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 04:27 PM 6/27/02, Tom wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tim West-meads" > > > As I understand it the change you are suggesting is that instead of > asking > > (as we do now) "What does the call show according to your agreements > > (explicit/implicit and partnership experience)?" we will instead ask > > "What is your best guess as to what your partner holds?" and that > if your > > best guess is wrong it will automatically be regarded as MI. > >The thing is, I wouldn't require you to guess as the DWS. I would >grant you >to guess at your own risk or explain the call as natural without risk. Let's see if I've got this straight. Partner makes an odd jump. We have no specific agreement about it, and it hasn't come up before. Based on the implications of the specific agreements we do have, plus the contents of my own hand, I judge it 70% likely to be a splinter bid and 30% likely to be natural (although with a different hand I might judge it to be 70-30 the other way!). I plan to respond as though it were a splinter and take my chances. So if asked, I can say it's a splinter "at [my] own risk", and I will be penalized (i.e. subject to a possible score adjustment) if it turns out to be natural, or I can say it's natural "without risk", and will not be penalized when it turns out to have been a splinter. Excuse me? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 23:38:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5SDblw20194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 23:37:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g5SDbPH20176 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 23:37:26 +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 17Nvj0-000Iwg-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:23:49 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:01:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Incorrect number of cards / Missing card References: <000f01c21e83$18ba3240$0100007f@Freeserve.co.uk> <004601c21e88$53b43620$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <001101c21e92$4bf151c0$6200a8c0@pournaras> In-Reply-To: <001101c21e92$4bf151c0$6200a8c0@pournaras> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Takis Pournaras writes >[Sven Pran] >> By the way: An interesting question arises when (as in your case) >> dummy is the deficient hand and the application of law 14 leads to >> an established revoke by dummy. Law 64B3 tells us that there is >> no penalty for a revoke by failing to play a faced card. This is usually >> read as there is never any penalty for a revoke by dummy, but the >> question is whether the missing card shall be considered one of >> dummy's FACED cards or not. >> >> Frankly I don't know - hopefullyt somebody can clarify this? Read the actual wording in L64B3: the card belonged to dummy's hand so there is no automatic penalty. >IMO, since L14 speaks of a possible revoke, the missing card should be >considered one of dummy's visible cards. Otherwise, there's no revoke (?) You are confusing revokes and revokes without penalty. If dummy fails to follow suit then it [he?] has definitely revoked - no question - but there is no automatic penalty. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 23:38:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5SDblP20195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 23:37:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g5SDbQH20178 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 23:37:26 +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 17Nvj0-000Iwc-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:23:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 13:42:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling please References: <5h5pknFnX8G9EwYm@asimere.com> In-Reply-To: <5h5pknFnX8G9EwYm@asimere.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article , Karel > writes >>I'll tell this as it happened and then add two scenarios >> >>Pairs dealer N Nil all >> >> North >> S xx >> H KJxxx >> D x >> C J9xxx >>West East >>S A9x S JTxxx >>H xxx H AQxx >>D Q8xxx D K >>C Qx C Kxx >> South >> S KQx >> H x >> D AJT9xx >> C A8x >> >>Bidding >> >>N E S W >>2D(1) DBL(2) P(3) P >>3C(4) P P P(5) >> >>N/S are an established partnership playing an aggressive unusual system. >>E/W are scratch partnership. >> >>(1) 2D = 2-10 points 5+ hearts (tends to be upper range if vul) or 23/24 >>balanced or an "Acol 2" in any suit. Alerted as such. >> >>(2) Takeout double. Alerted. >> >>(3) Shows 5+ diamonds and happy to play in diamonds up to opener. Alerted. >> >>(4) Nat 4+ clubs. No alert from south. >> >>(5) West asked south what the 3 clubs was. EAST at this stage said its an >>acol 2 in clubs as it was aleretd as either weak in hearts or an acol 2. >>South said that this was not necessarily the case. Opener could have had a >>weak hand with hearts and clubs. South also said that with a strong hand >>North may have Redoubled. This was the 1st time this sequence came up and >>South said they had not discussed it but felt it was probable on the bidding >>that North had a weak hand with hearts and clubs. >> >> >>Result 3C-1 >> >>This turned out to be close to a bottom as 2S making or +1 was the norm. >>E/W felt they had been misinformed and that South should have alerted the 3C >>bid as weak and not an ACOL 2. South felt the 3C was not alertable as it >>was natural and felt the onus was on the opponents to ask about a bid. Any >>assumptions they made without asking was not N/S's fault. Also N/S had no >>agreements on this precise sequence. It was the 1st time it had come up. >> >>Your ruling ?? >> >Result stands, regardless of any UI created by East. It's general >bridge knowledge that xx shows a good hand. I'd give a PPW to east as >well. It's obvious even to a demented baboon that North is 5-5 in the >round suits. Why should South alert a *natural* bid? Apart from >anything else just what was West going to bid after South's Pass? Bid a >3 card spade suit and go for 500 on a 4-3 fit and repeated H leads? Eh? What planet did you learn your bridge on, John? :) Of course xx shows a big hand, 23/24 balanced. That's true, but irrelevant. I am amazed that *anyone* plays 2D X P P 3C as anything but eight playing tricks in clubs - are you sure you don't? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 23:38:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5SDbmc20196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 23:37:48 +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-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 g5SDbRH20180 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 23:37:27 +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 17Nvj0-000Iwd-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:23:51 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 13:45:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 1NT overcall is...? References: <2xCqQxFKd8G9EwZm@asimere.com> In-Reply-To: <2xCqQxFKd8G9EwZm@asimere.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article , >richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes >> >>South-West Pacific Teams - Table one. >>Bd. 5 / N / NS >> >> 63 >> Q7 >> Q108654 >> J109 >>QJ7 AK2 >>J10865 K9 >>973 --- >>Q8 AK765432 >> 109854 >> A432 >> AKJ2 >> --- >> >>West North East South >>--- 1H(1) 1NT(2) Pass >>2D(3) Pass 6C All pass >> >>1. 0-7 HCP any shape >> >>2. Game Force, but described by West as 15-18 >>balanced. >> >>3. 6+ HCP with hearts opposite a GF, but 6-9 with >>hearts opposite a strong NT. >> >>Result: E/W +920 >> >>How would you rule? > >Hmm. I can make six clubs with any of the other three hands as dummy. > >looks like 100% action to me :) > >seriously, result stands. The HQ on its own makes it a tolerable slam >and I don't see how East can be scientific with his hand. What is wrong with the grand slam? You are in a position where AI tells you that 3C is 100% forcing and the only reason not to bid it is the UI that pd has gone wrong. 6C is in breach of L73C. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 23:38:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5SDbZD20192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 23:37:35 +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-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 g5SDbKH20168 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 23:37:21 +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 17Nvix-000Iwi-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:23:44 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:05:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Incorrect number of cards / Missing card References: <000f01c21e83$18ba3240$0100007f@Freeserve.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <000f01c21e83$18ba3240$0100007f@Freeserve.co.uk> 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 g5SDbMH20169 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ted Merrette writes > I was taught that Directors are not there to punish the wicked ( or > the careless or the stupid) but to try to ensure equity. It is a pity that so many people mis-quote the Scope of the Laws in saying this, and you have been mis-taught, Directors are primarily there to restore equity but they also have many other duties, including ensuring an orderly progress to the game. Giving penalties is normal as otherwise some players will never bother to get things right. > How would > you have handled this? As shown elsewhere in this thread, just read the relevant Law [14] and act on it, without worrying about whether it is too harsh or not. > p.s. > This is my first posting to BLML. I will try to be briefer next > time. Nice to see you - do you have any cats? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 23:38:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5SDbjR20193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 23:37:45 +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-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 g5SDbOH20174 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 23:37:25 +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 17Nvj0-000Iwe-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:23:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 13:56:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 1NT overcall is...? 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 > >[snip] > >In discussing the snipped hand, panellist >Rich Colker observed: > >>If 12C3 is available, then the non-offenders >>(N/S) would be assigned a weighted average of >>the various possibilities. >> >>However, I do not believe in 12C3 score >>adjustments for offenders. (I believe they >>should be assigned a score under 12C2: the >>most unfavourable that is at all probable.) > >Question 1: Does Rich Colker's belief have > any Lawful basis? It has been said that various RAs can experiment in their own ways of applying L12C3. Colker's views, which are based on the American notion that good players are cheats because otherwise they won't get paid [yes, I am exaggerating, but there is definitely something of that view in it], are what he is trying to sell to the ACBL, and are legal, certainly. Basically, the three methods generally used are True Weighting, required by the WBF in their events, and used by EBL ACs, where as exact a weighting is given to both sides as possible, and PPs are given to discourage offenders [in practice the PPs are never given]; Sympathetic weighting, recommended by the EBU, the EBL TD Committee, and in practice used in most jurisdictions I have heard of where each side gets the same weighting, but there is a small bias to give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offenders; Skewed weighting, where the NOs get Sympathetic weighting, and the Os get a L12C2 adjustment: this is recommended by Colker, and Polish members of BLML! This has been discussed here at length - yes, Steve, an item for the FAQ - and the weightings were referred to in a friendly way [by an American {Eric?}] as 'Truth, Justice and the American way'! >uestion 2: In Zones where L12C3 is enabled, > should all L12C2 adjustments be > *automatically* modified by the > application of a further > adjustment under L12C3? > > (To avoid semantic quibbling, > ignore those rare cases where > L12C2 and L12C3 produce an > identical result.) No-one does certainly, but I think we shall slowly move in that direction. In EBU events, more L12C3 rulings seems to be given when I am present than otherwise!!! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 23:41:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5SDfDU20237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 23:41:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5SDf3H20233 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 23:41:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-55.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.55] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17NvmZ-0005r4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:27:27 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020628091719.00a94950@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:27:44 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling please 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 08:44 PM 6/27/02, Karel wrote: > North > S xx > H KJxxx > D x > C J9xxx >West East >S A9x S JTxxx >H xxx H AQxx >D Q8xxx D K >C Qx C Kxx > South > S KQx > H x > D AJT9xx > C A8x > >Bidding > >N E S W >2D(1) DBL(2) P(3) P >3C(4) P P P(5) > >N/S are an established partnership playing an aggressive unusual system. >E/W are scratch partnership. > >(1) 2D = 2-10 points 5+ hearts (tends to be upper range if vul) or 23/24 >balanced or an "Acol 2" in any suit. Alerted as such. > >(2) Takeout double. Alerted. > >(3) Shows 5+ diamonds and happy to play in diamonds up to >opener. Alerted. > >(4) Nat 4+ clubs. No alert from south. > >(5) West asked south what the 3 clubs was. EAST at this stage said >its an >acol 2 in clubs as it was aleretd as either weak in hearts or an acol 2. >South said that this was not necessarily the case. Opener could have >had a >weak hand with hearts and clubs. South also said that with a strong hand >North may have Redoubled. This was the 1st time this sequence came up and >South said they had not discussed it but felt it was probable on the >bidding >that North had a weak hand with hearts and clubs. > >Result 3C-1 > >This turned out to be close to a bottom as 2S making or +1 was the norm. >E/W felt they had been misinformed and that South should have alerted >the 3C >bid as weak and not an ACOL 2. South felt the 3C was not alertable as it >was natural and felt the onus was on the opponents to ask about a >bid. Any >assumptions they made without asking was not N/S's fault. Also N/S had no >agreements on this precise sequence. It was the 1st time it had come up. > >Your ruling ?? Score stands. I see no infraction by N-S. >Scenario 1 ----- N/S HAD discussed this sequence. South knew that North's >3C bid was weak but did not alert as he felt 3C's Nat was not alertable. >Would this effect the ruling ?? Yes. I would have no problem with S's failure to alert, but his subsequent explanation would have been MI. >Scenario 2 ----- N/S had not discussed this exact sequence but as an >established partnership with general guiding prinicples in similar >sequences, South would be pretty confident that the 3C bid was weak. He'd >expect RDBL to be a strong hand. Of course the 14pt count in his own hand >lent this conclusion some weight. Would this effect the ruling ?? No. The facts of this scenario, excluding the "14pt count in his own hand", sound just like S's explanation. WTP? 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 Jun 29 00:10:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5SE9jb20261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 00:09:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5SE9aH20257 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 00:09:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-35-28-60.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.28.60] helo=gordonrainsford.co.uk) by rhenium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17NwEA-0007il-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:56:00 +0100 Message-ID: <3D1C6ACC.8050404@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:55:24 +0100 From: Gordon Rainsford User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020512 Netscape/7.0b1 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling please References: <5h5pknFnX8G9EwYm@asimere.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article , Karel > writes > >>I'll tell this as it happened and then add two scenarios >> >>Pairs dealer N Nil all >> >> North >> S xx >> H KJxxx >> D x >> C J9xxx >>West East >>S A9x S JTxxx >>H xxx H AQxx >>D Q8xxx D K >>C Qx C Kxx >> South >> S KQx >> H x >> D AJT9xx >> C A8x >> >>Bidding >> >>N E S W >>2D(1) DBL(2) P(3) P >>3C(4) P P P(5) >> >>N/S are an established partnership playing an aggressive unusual system. >>E/W are scratch partnership. >> >>(1) 2D = 2-10 points 5+ hearts (tends to be upper range if vul) or 23/24 >>balanced or an "Acol 2" in any suit. Alerted as such. >> >>(2) Takeout double. Alerted. >> >>(3) Shows 5+ diamonds and happy to play in diamonds up to opener. Alerted. >> >>(4) Nat 4+ clubs. No alert from south. >> >>(5) West asked south what the 3 clubs was. EAST at this stage said its an >>acol 2 in clubs as it was aleretd as either weak in hearts or an acol 2. >>South said that this was not necessarily the case. Opener could have had a >>weak hand with hearts and clubs. South also said that with a strong hand >>North may have Redoubled. This was the 1st time this sequence came up and >>South said they had not discussed it but felt it was probable on the bidding >>that North had a weak hand with hearts and clubs. >> >> >>Result 3C-1 >> >>This turned out to be close to a bottom as 2S making or +1 was the norm. >>E/W felt they had been misinformed and that South should have alerted the 3C >>bid as weak and not an ACOL 2. South felt the 3C was not alertable as it >>was natural and felt the onus was on the opponents to ask about a bid. Any >>assumptions they made without asking was not N/S's fault. Also N/S had no >>agreements on this precise sequence. It was the 1st time it had come up. >> >>Your ruling ?? >> > > Result stands, regardless of any UI created by East. It's general > bridge knowledge that xx shows a good hand. It would be perfectly sensible to agree that XX shows a good BALANCED hand, while good unbalanced hands bid their suit. > I'd give a PPW to east as > well. It's obvious even to a demented baboon that North is 5-5 in the > round suits. Why should South alert a *natural* bid? The logic of this position is that one shouldn't alert fit jumps, John, which I certainly don't agree with and I'd be surprised if you did. The reason I think the 3C bid should be alerted is because it is NOT a natural bid, but a two-suited bid showing clubs AND HEARTS, which had not previously been shown in the auction. > Apart from > anything else just what was West going to bid after South's Pass? Bid a > 3 card spade suit and go for 500 on a 4-3 fit and repeated H leads? > > East deserves everything he got after his fatuous double. > I don't disagree with that! Gordon Rainsford London Uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 29 02:39:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5SGc5A20351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 02:38:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5SGc0H20347 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 02:38:00 +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 JAA00220; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:24:20 -0700 Message-Id: <200206281624.JAA00220@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling please In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Jun 2002 01:44:50 BST." Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:25:20 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Karel Strasters wrote: > I'll tell this as it happened and then add two scenarios > > Pairs dealer N Nil all > > North > S xx > H KJxxx > D x > C J9xxx > West East > S A9x S JTxxx > H xxx H AQxx > D Q8xxx D K > C Qx C Kxx > South > S KQx > H x > D AJT9xx > C A8x > > Bidding > > N E S W > 2D(1) DBL(2) P(3) P > 3C(4) P P P(5) > > N/S are an established partnership playing an aggressive unusual system. > E/W are scratch partnership. > > (1) 2D = 2-10 points 5+ hearts (tends to be upper range if vul) or 23/24 > balanced or an "Acol 2" in any suit. Alerted as such. > > (2) Takeout double. Alerted. > > (3) Shows 5+ diamonds and happy to play in diamonds up to opener. Alerted. > > (4) Nat 4+ clubs. No alert from south. I was almost going to respond that 3C is natural, so it shouldn't be alertable (the 2D convention is so unusual over here [California] that you couldn't argue that 3C would be different from what the opponents "expect" it to be, since they wouldn't have any idea what to expect). However, I've changed my mind. The 2D bid did not show hearts; a hand with hearts was just one of the possibilities. The 3C bid showed hearts in addition to clubs. So I don't really think 3C is natural, and thus it should be alerted. I'd rule MI regardless of how much N/S had discussed the bid or any related "general guiding principles". (However, I haven't looked into whether the MI caused any damage.) Naturally, this may vary in other parts of the world, depending on the alerting regulations and how well-known the convention is. -- 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 Jun 29 05:55:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5SJsfe20450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 05:54:41 +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 g5SJsaH20446 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 05:54:36 +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/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g5SJeuL05131; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 15:40:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 15:38:52 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] steps in appeal analysis To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk 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 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/27/02, Tim West-meads wrote: >Opps ask one of you "which two aces has your partner shown?". I am >very much against being required to answer this question accurately! And yet I have been told that if opponents ask a question, I better damn well answer 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 Sat Jun 29 07:53:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5SLpOi20500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 07:51:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.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 g5SLpIH20496 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 07:51:18 +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 g5SLbfp15260; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:37:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:12:44 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] steps in appeal analysis To: Eric Landau cc: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020628081510.00ac74a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/28/02, Eric Landau wrote: >We could pass a law that says that if you shoot someone dead it is not >a crime, but the person you shoot will still be dead. No need. The legal principle already exists - it's called "self-defense". :-) 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 Sat Jun 29 10:48:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5T0lvJ20574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 10:47:57 +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 g5T0loH20570 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 10:47:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g5T0aVx12977 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 01:36:32 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 01:20:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling please References: <5h5pknFnX8G9EwYm@asimere.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst writes >>In article , Karel >> writes >>>I'll tell this as it happened and then add two scenarios >>> >>>Pairs dealer N Nil all >>> >>> North >>> S xx >>> H KJxxx >>> D x >>> C J9xxx >>>West East >>>S A9x S JTxxx >>>H xxx H AQxx >>>D Q8xxx D K >>>C Qx C Kxx >>> South >>> S KQx >>> H x >>> D AJT9xx >>> C A8x >>> >>>Bidding >>> >>>N E S W >>>2D(1) DBL(2) P(3) P >>>3C(4) P P P(5) >>> >>>N/S are an established partnership playing an aggressive unusual system. >>>E/W are scratch partnership. >>> >>>(1) 2D = 2-10 points 5+ hearts (tends to be upper range if vul) or 23/24 >>>balanced or an "Acol 2" in any suit. Alerted as such. >>> >>>(2) Takeout double. Alerted. >>> >>>(3) Shows 5+ diamonds and happy to play in diamonds up to opener. Alerted. >>> >>>(4) Nat 4+ clubs. No alert from south. >>> >>>(5) West asked south what the 3 clubs was. EAST at this stage said its an >>>acol 2 in clubs as it was aleretd as either weak in hearts or an acol 2. >>>South said that this was not necessarily the case. Opener could have had a >>>weak hand with hearts and clubs. South also said that with a strong hand >>>North may have Redoubled. This was the 1st time this sequence came up and >>>South said they had not discussed it but felt it was probable on the bidding >>>that North had a weak hand with hearts and clubs. >>> >>> >>>Result 3C-1 >>> >>>This turned out to be close to a bottom as 2S making or +1 was the norm. >>>E/W felt they had been misinformed and that South should have alerted the 3C >>>bid as weak and not an ACOL 2. South felt the 3C was not alertable as it >>>was natural and felt the onus was on the opponents to ask about a bid. Any >>>assumptions they made without asking was not N/S's fault. Also N/S had no >>>agreements on this precise sequence. It was the 1st time it had come up. >>> >>>Your ruling ?? >>> >>Result stands, regardless of any UI created by East. It's general >>bridge knowledge that xx shows a good hand. I'd give a PPW to east as >>well. It's obvious even to a demented baboon that North is 5-5 in the >>round suits. Why should South alert a *natural* bid? Apart from >>anything else just what was West going to bid after South's Pass? Bid a >>3 card spade suit and go for 500 on a 4-3 fit and repeated H leads? > > Eh? What planet did you learn your bridge on, John? :) > > Of course xx shows a big hand, 23/24 balanced. That's true, but >irrelevant. > > I am amazed that *anyone* plays 2D X P P 3C as anything but eight >playing tricks in clubs - are you sure you don't? > If redouble is big and balanced, what is 2N? I'd still redouble with 8 playing tricks. I'm going for the throat. The YC has always played redouble as any of the big hands. Why give up on the chances of a redoubled part score, or sticks and wheels? Taking a bid can only show weak and distributional. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 29 14:53:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5T4qXh20656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 14:52:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.netcabo.pt (smtp.netcabo.pt [212.113.174.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5T4qSH20652 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 14:52:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from torre ([213.22.160.190]) by smtp.netcabo.pt with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Sat, 29 Jun 2002 05:38:31 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lino_Tralh=E3o?= To: Subject: [BLML] appeals Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 05:38:41 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01c21f26$d86fd060$bea016d5@torre> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000B_01C21F2F.3A343860" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jun 2002 04:38:31.0142 (UTC) FILETIME=[D1F3A860:01C21F26] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C21F2F.3A343860 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Where can I find the appeals of Salsomaggiore? =20 Best regards =20 Lino Tralh=E3o ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C21F2F.3A343860 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Where can I find the = appeals of Salsomaggiore?

 

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = Best regards

 

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = Lino Tralh=E3o

------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C21F2F.3A343860-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 30 00:11:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5TE9fi20859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jun 2002 00:09:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g5TE9aH20855 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2002 00:09:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from multimail.skynet.be (bobzilla.skynet.be [195.238.3.208]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with SMTP id g5TDttH22629; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 15:55:55 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 15:55:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200206291355.g5TDttH22629@durendal.skynet.be> X-Webmail-posting-IP: 81.72.35.142 From: hermandw@skynet.be Subject: RE: [BLML] appeals To: linotralhao@netcabo.pt, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=-----boundmain47727271616 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a MIME message. If you are reading this part you should use a MIME reader. -------boundmain47727271616 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=-----boundalter150977 -------boundalter150977 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit currently only those that have been published. and you can find those in the bulletins - available on the site. Full appeals from Oostende and Salso will be available in a few weeks. Herman De Wael currently at the European Bridge Championships in Salsomaggiore Terme, Italy Where can I find the appeals of Salsomaggiore? Best regards Lino Tralhão -------boundalter150977 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline currently only those that have been published.
and you can find those in the bulletins - available on the site.
 
Full appeals from Oostende and Salso will be available in a few weeks.

Herman De Wael
currently at the European Bridge Championships in Salsomaggiore Terme, Italy





















Where can I find the appeals
of Salsomaggiore?



 



                        Best regards



 



                        Lino Tralhão










-------boundalter150977-- ---- -------boundmain47727271616-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 30 03:10:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g5TH8qH20966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jun 2002 03:08:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g5TH8kH20962 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2002 03:08:47 +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 g5TGt4L03597 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 12:55:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 23:46:11 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] steps in appeal analysis To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <004701c21e94$3bfd14f0$6b3f23d5@cornelis> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6/28/02, Tom Cornelis wrote: > It will allow people to make more confident calls, because they now >have somthing to base on. Confident and wrong is still wrong. 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/