From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 1 15:28:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g615QOI21771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 15:26:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g615QJH21767 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 15:26:19 +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 PAA29060 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 15:27:28 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 01 Jul 2002 15:08:35 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Memories of South Africa To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 15:12:14 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 01/07/2002 03:08:14 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] >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 Recently, a casual partner of mine told a beginner who had made a minor technical mistake: "The Laws of Bridge say that you shouldn't do that!" I quickly responded to my partner: "The Laws of Bridge also say that you shouldn't lecture your opponents." Thanks to this response, embarrassment of the beginner was ameliorated. (And pard was faultlessly polite for the rest of the session.) 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 Jul 1 18:10:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6188dk21862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 18:08:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from new-media.gr ([212.205.99.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g6188LH21858 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 18:08:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from pournaras ([62.1.236.101]) by new-media.gr ( IA Mail Server Version: 4.1.7. Build: 1032 ) ; Mon, 01 Jul 2002 10:43:50 +0300 Message-ID: <003101c220d3$a05860d0$6200a8c0@pournaras> From: "Takis Pournaras" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000f01c21e83$18ba3240$0100007f@Freeserve.co.uk> <004601c21e88$53b43620$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <001101c21e92$4bf151c0$6200a8c0@pournaras> Subject: Re: [BLML] Incorrect number of cards / Missing card Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 10:47:51 +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 [Takis Pournaras] > 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 (?) [David Stevenson] > 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. Rest assured, I've learned that lesson well ;) What I meant is that the card can't be one of dummy's played cards. 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 Mon Jul 1 20:53:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g61ArDC21935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 20:53:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g61Ar8H21931 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 20:53:08 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g61AdPx07587 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 11:39:25 +0100 Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Mon, 01 Jul 2002 10:39:25 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g61AdPZ22608 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 11:39:25 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 01 Jul 2002 10:39:25 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 LAA01949 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 11:39:25 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA03062 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 11:39:24 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 11:39:24 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200207011039.LAA03062@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [I tried to post to IBLF but my browser wouldn't cooperate.] A hand with ace of trumps and one other card claims the last two tricks. As far as I can see, it never gains and sometimes loses to play the other card at trick twelve; i.e. playing the ace of trumps is a "dominating" play. Nevertheless, we do not regard playing the other card as irrational. 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 Jul 1 21:48:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g61Bm5d21989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:48:05 +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 g61Bm0H21985 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:48:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g61BYG720668 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:34:16 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:34 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card 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: <200207011039.LAA03062@tempest.npl.co.uk> Robin wrote: > A hand with ace of trumps and one other card claims the last two tricks. > > As far as I can see, it never gains and sometimes loses to play the > other card at trick twelve; i.e. playing the ace of trumps is a > "dominating" play. > > Nevertheless, we do not regard playing the other card as irrational. Personally I would. Anyone but a novice will, I believe, play the Ace out of ingrained habit. A novice will play the Ace because "it's bigger". I believe that allowing this gives me a better chance of hitting the "equity" goal set by 70A for adjudicating a claim (ie I will give the same ruling as I expect would have been the score had the hand been played out in well over 95% of such cases). I would probably go a little further and say that if all players are agreed that it was an obvious "master trump" situation I will still regard the non-trump play as irrational. I would like to be able to award a split score of say "10% of other first + 90% of trump first". The 10% is *much* higher than my actual expectancy and thus contains a warning/mildly punitive element. I do not think a ruling like this (exactly right for rubber bridge) would be legal at duplicate. 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 Jul 1 21:56:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g61BuVF22002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:56:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g61BuQH21998 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:56:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([213.104.148.111]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020701114244.VMRO16050.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@default> for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:42:44 +0100 Message-ID: <004f01c220f5$6d75aca0$6f9468d5@default> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:49:47 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau: >> 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. David Stevenson: > Of course the WBFLC has changed the wording: I am surprised if people > still follow the dissenting view after the change. Richard Hills: 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. Nigel Guthrie, I don't like David's interpretation but it is what the law seems to say. To me the Eric/Richard interpretation seems simple and fair. But simpler and fairer would be to scrap the daft law and give back to the claimer only tricks that he could not lose by any legal line of play (e.g. the ace of trumps). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 2 06:14:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g61KDeB22353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 06:13:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g61KDYH22349 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 06:13:35 +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 17P7Kv-0006zk-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 01 Jul 2002 20:59:51 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 16:52:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card 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: <200207011039.LAA03062@tempest.npl.co.uk> >Robin wrote: > >> A hand with ace of trumps and one other card claims the last two tricks. >> >> As far as I can see, it never gains and sometimes loses to play the >> other card at trick twelve; i.e. playing the ace of trumps is a >> "dominating" play. >> >> Nevertheless, we do not regard playing the other card as irrational. > >Personally I would. Anyone but a novice will, I believe, play the Ace out >of ingrained habit. A novice will play the Ace because "it's bigger". >I believe that allowing this gives me a better chance of hitting the >"equity" goal set by 70A for adjudicating a claim (ie I will give the same >ruling as I expect would have been the score had the hand been played out >in well over 95% of such cases). > >I would probably go a little further and say that if all players are >agreed that it was an obvious "master trump" situation I will still regard >the non-trump play as irrational. My experience of bridge players is that they never draw trumps that are not there however many they have to spare. So with the ace of trumps and a card they think is winner they will *never* play the ace of trumps if they think there is no trump out. Example from South Africa of what players *do*: Your trump suit is AQJ983 opposite KT765. Oppos play two rounds of clubs - you have four clubs in the dummy and one in hand. What do you play? Yes, declarer ruffed with the 3! There is some instinct about not wasting trumps. >I would like to be able to award a split score of say "10% of other first >+ 90% of trump first". The 10% is *much* higher than my actual expectancy >and thus contains a warning/mildly punitive element. I do not think a >ruling like this (exactly right for rubber bridge) would be legal at >duplicate. A weighted score in a claim is not legal at either rubber or duplicate. But it is quite sensible, and perhaps will appear in the next law book. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 2 16:23:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g626LeN22673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 16:21:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g626LYH22669 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 16:21:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.43.97] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17PGoe-000Bwe-00; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 07:07:09 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01c2218f$277df000$612be150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <001301c220cb$060c1420$57cb87d9@4nrw70j> Subject: Re: [BLML] System Legal in Montreal? Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 08:04:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott (home)" Cc: "Grattan Endicott" Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 7:45 AM Subject: Fw: [BLML] System Legal in Montreal? > > "be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, > deceiving your own selves." [James ch.1 v. 22] > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Colley" > To: > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 10:47 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) > > > > 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 > +=+ Before commenting I would like to see a list of all openers and their meanings from 1C through 3S. ~ 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 Jul 2 19:14:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g629Dv822744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:13:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g629DpH22740 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:13:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-80884.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.187.244]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g62905806443 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 11:00:05 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D216BFE.7010108@skynet.be> Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 11:01:50 +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: <000801c21606$fe9815f0$9f06ba12@Herot> <006d01c21616$9348ab60$3b9d68d5@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David, as always, you make it very hard to disagree with you. But your example is flawed. David Stevenson wrote: > > 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. > indeed. > 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. > But the Director will rule that you have, if partner does have majors. So how can this be a breach of L75A? > 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. > And more often than not, you know your partner better than the opponents do. So you know which category he falls in. > 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]. > And in this case, I might even accept this. Because you tell me that you really don't know this partner. But more often than not, that is not true, and then this answer of yours is simply unacceptable. > 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. > No you haven't. You have told them you are going to guess, and you have not told them which way you are going to guess. By your argument you would also go shot-free is you tell them, truthfully, "I have forgotten". > 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? > > Because more often than not, the truth is simply not enough. Substitute Ed for some Liverpudlian, and play against me and Ed. Do you really expect me to believe that although you have really never played with that fellow, you have absolutely no basis whatsoever to be guessing on ? -- 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 Jul 2 19:28:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g629SHf22775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:28:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g629SDH22771 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:28:13 +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 TAA20567 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:29:21 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 19:10:25 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 09:29:31 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 02/07/2002 07:10:05 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: [snip] >But simpler and fairer would be to scrap the daft law >and give back to the claimer only tricks that he >could not lose by any legal line of play (e.g. the >ace of trumps). This idea (previously advocated by David Burn) is definitely "simpler". But "fairer"? It is true that such a changed Law would be easier to apply uniformly, so it would therefore be "fairer" in the sense of "unbiased". However, it would increase "unfairness" by giving a claimer's opponents more unearned tricks. The "simpler and fairer" Law change would also have the undesirable effect of deterring claims, rendering events longer and more tedious than they have to be. 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 Jul 2 19:45:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g629j0q22825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:45:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g629isH22821 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:44:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (hbge-216-222-232-126.dsl.hbge.epix.net [216.222.232.126]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g629VA3f015896 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 05:31:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Request for a ruling Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 05:31:55 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: <7ks2iug4lmcee05a1p6f3tnqcovqmlrdo9@4ax.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I'd be interested in opinions on the following events. Just for once, there are two hands to relate, because it's at least possible that the first has some bearing on the second. If you don't think this is the case, please disregard the first hand. The hands are played under ACBL regulations, two successive boards in a pairs movement. N-S are a new pairing, it's the first time they've ever met, let alone played together. Their hastily-filled in CC shows Standard American with three weak 2 bids, 15-17 1NT, transfers over 1NT, system off over a 1NT overcall, Blackwood and very little else. On the first hand, *if* you think it's relevant, the auction is as follows N E S W - - pass pass 1NT pass 2D(1) pass 2H pass pass dbl rdbl pass pass pass (1) announced as a transfer 2H** goes for -1000 when south turns out to have 5 HCP and 3-3-4-3 shape (yes, 4 diamonds) for his transfer to hearts. There is no director call on this hand, I've included the details because you may (or may not!) think it has a bearing on the events on the following hand. On the very next hand, the bidding goes as follows (E/W are also playing Standard American) N E S W - - - pass pass 1D 1NT pass 2H(1) Pass(2) 2S pass pass pass (1) No announcement or alert (2) W asks S "Is that a transfer?" S replies "Gee, I guess so". W then passes. The director is called at the end of the bidding by North, who objects to the form of West's question, and suggests that the fact that south incorrectly took the bid as a transfer is at least partly due to what North describes as "West's leading question". West's contention is that he is allowed to know what the bid means "particularly after what happened last hand". South states that he would not have bid 2S had it not been for East's question. Your ruling, please? Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 2 20:28:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g62AS3R22941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 20:28:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g62ARwH22937 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 20:27:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1634.bb.online.no [80.212.214.98]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA06179 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 12:14:08 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001c01c221b1$34472140$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 12:14:08 +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: > > Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > [snip] > > >But simpler and fairer would be to scrap the daft law > >and give back to the claimer only tricks that he > >could not lose by any legal line of play (e.g. the > >ace of trumps). > > This idea (previously advocated by David Burn) is > definitely "simpler". > > But "fairer"? It is true that such a changed Law would be > easier to apply uniformly, so it would therefore be "fairer" in > the sense of "unbiased". However, it would increase "unfairness" > by giving a claimer's opponents more unearned tricks. > > The "simpler and fairer" Law change would also have the > undesirable effect of deterring claims, rendering events > longer and more tedious than they have to be. We can argue til Hell freezes what is "fair". There is sufficient evidence in history that even top experts occationally make "irrational" play. Until this date, whenever I have had to judge "irrational" (as opposed to "careless" or "inferior") play I have held the door open for such mistakes and only accepted as "irrational" plays that would be irrational regardless of the player involved. (Like failing to play an Ace from Ace Queen over the King). I definitely do not want to protect the "safety play" of a claim trusting that the Director and/or AC will rule against any possibility of an insane mistake which at least in theory could have been made by playing on. The higher the standard of the player is the more I expect him to see and point out every important aspect of the remaining cards when claiming rather than afterwards tell me "of course I knew that there was one outstanding trump" or "of course I knew that there was a double squeeze involved here" - "should I need to tell that already with the claim?". If it is so difficult to cover all sides of the claim verbally then why on earth not save the time and play the cards out? My experience is that whenever there is a doubtful claim it takes much more time to clarify it instead of just playing it out. My duty as a Director the way I understand it is to protect the opponents from possible damage due to any deviation from the "normal" playout of all thirteen tricks. This includes any attempt to claim as a "safeguard" against silly mistakes. And no more that we take away an "unfair" score caused by opponent's silly mistake should we take away any such score caused by a doubtful claim. I would prefer the Law69 footnote to read: ...."normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, regardless of the class of player involved. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 2 22:50:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g62Cnlt23107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 22:49:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g62CndH23103 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 22:49:40 +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 17PMst-0001B1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 08:35:56 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020702082918.00ab26d0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 08:37:05 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Request for a ruling In-Reply-To: <7ks2iug4lmcee05a1p6f3tnqcovqmlrdo9@4ax.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:31 AM 7/2/02, brian wrote: >On the very next hand, the bidding goes as follows (E/W are also >playing Standard American) > >N E S W >- - - pass >pass 1D 1NT pass >2H(1) Pass(2) 2S pass >pass pass > >(1) No announcement or alert >(2) W asks S "Is that a transfer?" S replies "Gee, I guess so". W >then passes. > >The director is called at the end of the bidding by North, who >objects to the form of West's question, and suggests that the >fact that south incorrectly took the bid as a transfer is at >least partly due to what North describes as "West's leading >question". West's contention is that he is allowed to know what >the bid means "particularly after what happened last hand". South >states that he would not have bid 2S had it not been for East's >question. > >Your ruling, please? To adjust the score here, I would have to be convinced that there was a significant chance that W (perhaps on the evidence from the first hand, but whatever) figured out that 2H was probably not a transfer and phrased his question as he did in a deliberate attempt to induce S into a bidding misunderstanding (triggering an adjustment under L73F2). I see no evidence of that in the given scenario. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 2 23:04:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g62D4IC23124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 23:04:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g62D4AH23120 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 23:04:10 +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 17PN6w-000374-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 08:50:26 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020702084234.00b369c0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 08:51:36 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations In-Reply-To: <001c01c221b1$34472140$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 06:14 AM 7/2/02, Sven wrote: >We can argue til Hell freezes what is "fair". > >There is sufficient evidence in history that even top experts >occationally make "irrational" play. Until this date, whenever >I have had to judge "irrational" (as opposed to "careless" or >"inferior") play I have held the door open for such mistakes >and only accepted as "irrational" plays that would be irrational >regardless of the player involved. (Like failing to play an Ace >from Ace Queen over the King). > >I definitely do not want to protect the "safety play" of a claim >trusting that the Director and/or AC will rule against any >possibility of an insane mistake which at least in theory could >have been made by playing on. > >The higher the standard of the player is the more I expect him >to see and point out every important aspect of the remaining >cards when claiming rather than afterwards tell me "of course >I knew that there was one outstanding trump" or "of course I >knew that there was a double squeeze involved here" - "should >I need to tell that already with the claim?". > >If it is so difficult to cover all sides of the claim verbally then >why on earth not save the time and play the cards out? My >experience is that whenever there is a doubtful claim it takes >much more time to clarify it instead of just playing it out. > >My duty as a Director the way I understand it is to protect >the opponents from possible damage due to any deviation >from the "normal" playout of all thirteen tricks. This includes >any attempt to claim as a "safeguard" against silly mistakes. > >And no more that we take away an "unfair" score caused by >opponent's silly mistake should we take away any such score >caused by a doubtful claim. > >I would prefer the Law69 footnote to read: ...."normal" >includes play that would be careless or inferior, but not >irrational, regardless of the class of player involved. I agree 100% with Sven's reasoning and conclusion. I don't care for his suggested rewording of the footnote, though, as it continues to suggest a co-dimensional opposition between "careless or inferior" and "irrational", which, IMO, created the ambiguity in the current wording. How about: "'Normal' includes play that might be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but is not irrational." If one wanted to take the opposite position and remove the ambiguity in the other direction, I'd suggest: "'Normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, for the class of player involved." But Sven's right; the vast majority of players would be happier with and better served by the former, however worded. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 3 01:20:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g62FJbB23174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 01:19:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g62FJVH23170 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 01:19:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g62F5ep00134; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 11:05:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:56:26 -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: <3D216BFE.7010108@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 7/2/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >>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. > >But the Director will rule that you have, if partner does have majors. >So how can this be a breach of L75A? Pfui. The law requires the Director to *assume* misexplanation in the absence of evidence to the contrary. There is evidence to the contrary - David's statement - and mine - that we have not discussed this sequence. But even if you toss that evidence out, the presumption of misexplanation is *not* the same thing as "I rule that you have this agreement". Claiming that we have an agreement we don't have is a breach of Law 75A because that law requires us to *truthfully* and fully disclose our agreements, no more, and no less. Since claiming we have an agreement we don't have is not truthful, it's not legal. Yes, I know the word "truthful" is not explicitly included in the law. It *is* implicit, though. >>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. > >And more often than not, you know your partner better than the >opponents do. So you know which category he falls in. There's a name for this kind of fallacy, but I forget what it is. "Strawman", perhaps. "More often than not" is irrelevant, because David postulated a specific partnership - and he does *not* know me that well. >>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]. > >And in this case, I might even accept this. Because you tell me that >you really don't know this partner. But more often than not, that is >not true, and then this answer of yours is simply unacceptable. Strawman again. >>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. > >No you haven't. You have told them you are going to guess, and you >have not told them which way you are going to guess. So? They aren't entitled to know which way he's going to guess. They are entitled to all knowledge gleaned from special partnership experience and from agreements, and David has given them that. >By your argument you would also go shot-free is you tell them, >truthfully, "I have forgotten". Nonsense. It is implicit in the concept of full disclosure that one is not permitted to forget the correct explanation of partner's call. >> Why should we not tell opponents the truth? > >Because more often than not, the truth is simply not enough. >Substitute Ed for some Liverpudlian, and play against me and Ed. Do >you really expect me to believe that although you have really never >played with that fellow, you have absolutely no basis whatsoever to be >guessing on ? There's that strawman again. If David were playing with a different partner, his "special knowledge and experience" might well be different - in which case his obligations under full disclosure would be different. I'm sure David knows that, and so should you be. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 3 04:18:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g62IHVW23288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 04:17:31 +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-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 g62IHQH23284 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 04:17:26 +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 17PS04-000M99-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 19:03:41 +0100 Message-ID: <9AmxQ3BEKbI9Ew6L@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 15:02:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations References: <001c01c221b1$34472140$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020702084234.00b369c0@pop.starpower.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020702084234.00b369c0@pop.starpower.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >I don't care for his suggested rewording of the footnote, though, as it >continues to suggest a co-dimensional opposition between "careless or >inferior" and "irrational", which, IMO, created the ambiguity in the >current wording. How about: > >"'Normal' includes play that might be careless or inferior for the >class of player involved, but is not irrational." > >If one wanted to take the opposite position and remove the ambiguity in >the other direction, I'd suggest: > >"'Normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior, but not >irrational, for the class of player involved." > >But Sven's right; the vast majority of players would be happier with >and better served by the former, however worded. I do not think so. The vast majority of players would be happier with two opposite possibilities, one followed, one not. They may not like that actual position, or wording, but only a minority would believe that positions covered by neither position, or both, has any sense whatever. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 3 05:16:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g62JGSe23320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 05:16:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g62JGNH23316 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 05:16:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.26.157] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17PSzg-000KE7-00; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 20:07:20 +0100 Message-ID: <000801c221fb$64bb4e60$9d1ae150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 07:40:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 4:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card > > > A weighted score in a claim is not legal at either rubber or > duplicate. But it is quite sensible, and perhaps will appear in the > next law book. > +=+ In consultation with Chief TD Riccardi the Appeals Committee in Salsomaggiore found a way round this obstacle, whilst maintaining the earlier decision that 12C3 cannot apply. I would not wish to speculate on what compromise position might be included in the next Laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 3 05:48:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g62Jlvj23348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 05:47:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g62JlpH23344 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 05:47:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-36-5-21.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.36.5.21] helo=electrobear) by rhenium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17PTPa-0006gz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 20:34:06 +0100 From: "Ed Colley" To: "'bridge-laws'" Subject: RE: [BLML] System Legal in Montreal? Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 20:30:31 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c221fe$ee017d40$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: <000c01c2218f$277df000$612be150@dodona> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From Grattan Endicott: > > From: "Ed Colley" > > > > > 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 > > > +=+ Before commenting I would like to see a list of all > openers and their meanings from 1C through 3S. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The full schedule is: 1C Strong (17+) or 11-13 (semi)balanced with precisely two spades 1D 10-16 with five plus spades (may have a longer minor) 1H 10-16 with five plus hearts (may have a longer minor) 1S 10-16 with three or four spades (either 11-13 balanced or 11-16 unbalanced, will not have 5H) 1NT 14-16 balanced / semi-balanced (5422, 5M, 6m, 4441 all possible, although not mandatory with the exception of 2425/2245/2254 which must open 1NT if in range) 2C 12-16, three-suited, short spades, at least 4C. Possible shapes are 0355, 1354, 1345, 0454, 0445, 1444, and 1435, but not 1453 (which opens 2D) 2D 11-16, six or more diamonds or five diamonds + four hearts (with 3/4S, 1S may be preferred) 2H 12-16, six or more clubs (with 3/4S, 1S may be preferred) 2S Weak two 2NT 12-16, 5+/5+ minors, not 5530 3x Normal pre-empts Thank-you for taking an interest! - 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 Wed Jul 3 07:45:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g62Liqp23400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 07:44:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g62LilH23396 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 07:44:47 +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 17PVEl-0002B6-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 17:31:03 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020702165625.00b359a0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 17:32:10 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations In-Reply-To: <9AmxQ3BEKbI9Ew6L@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020702084234.00b369c0@pop.starpower.net> <001c01c221b1$34472140$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020702084234.00b369c0@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 10:02 AM 7/2/02, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > > >I don't care for his suggested rewording of the footnote, though, as it > >continues to suggest a co-dimensional opposition between "careless or > >inferior" and "irrational", which, IMO, created the ambiguity in the > >current wording. How about: > > > >"'Normal' includes play that might be careless or inferior for the > >class of player involved, but is not irrational." > > > >If one wanted to take the opposite position and remove the ambiguity in > >the other direction, I'd suggest: > > > >"'Normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior, but not > >irrational, for the class of player involved." > > > >But Sven's right; the vast majority of players would be happier with > >and better served by the former, however worded. > > I do not think so. The vast majority of players would be happier with >two opposite possibilities, one followed, one not. They may not like >that actual position, or wording, but only a minority would believe that >positions covered by neither position, or both, has any sense whatever. I don't understand David's point. Whichever way we go, there will always be "two opposite possibilities, one followed, one not": "'normal'" and "irrational". And there will always be "'normal'" plays which are careless or inferior for some classes of players but not for others. The debate is solely over whether there should be a class of plays that are "careless or inferior" for some classes of players but that are "irrational" *rather than* careless or inferior for others. There will never be plays that are neither "'normal'" nor "irrational", nor plays that are both. It is the WBF interpretation that won't make sense to our players, as it means that the distinction between "'normal'" plays and "irrational" ones can't be defined per se (and therefore cannot be explained to them); we will need a different definition for every possible class of player. That, in turn, means that we will not be able to determine whether a particular play is "'normal'" or "irrational" for a particular player unless and until we make a prior determination of the "class of player" to which that particular player belongs. It is that prior determination that, in my experience, players don't want us to be making, and the wording I favor would not require us to make it. If a player who is not a TD, regular AC member, or BLML subscriber asks, "Does the Law consider such-and-such play irrational?" the answer he expects is either "yes" or "no", not "I don't know unless you tell me the class of player involved", to which his natural response would be, "I didn't say anything about who was involved; what does that have to do with my question, and why do you want to know?" Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 3 11:10:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6319Te23475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:09:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6319OH23471 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:09:24 +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 17PYQg-0001oN-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 03 Jul 2002 01:55:38 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 23:42:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020702084234.00b369c0@pop.starpower.net> <001c01c221b1$34472140$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020702084234.00b369c0@pop.starpower.net> <9AmxQ3BEKbI9Ew6L@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.0.20020702165625.00b359a0@pop.starpower.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020702165625.00b359a0@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 >If a player who is not a TD, regular AC member, or BLML subscriber >asks, "Does the Law consider such-and-such play irrational?" the answer >he expects is either "yes" or "no", not "I don't know unless you tell >me the class of player involved", to which his natural response would >be, "I didn't say anything about who was involved; what does that have >to do with my question, and why do you want to know?" I am quite sure this is not how ordinary players think *at all*. No- one wants to know what the Law allows in this way. If you tell an ordinary player that different players play differently they will believe you. It *is* the people like TDs, regular AC members and BLML subscribers who have difficulty with the idea that different players play differently. They want some concept of fairness that is totally dissimilar from the way the game is actually played. Of course the main complaint will be from the BLs, but they are just looking for excuses: change the Law and they will just produce the opposite argument. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 3 11:10:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6319bp23481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:09:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6319VH23477 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:09:32 +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 17PYQh-0001oY-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 03 Jul 2002 01:55:46 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 01:23:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Usenet bridge abbreviations MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted I have taken out the other common Usenet abbreviations because of objections to them. The above may also be found on my Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 3 17:05:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g63741423645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:04:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6373tH23641 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:03:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.77.152] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17Pe2P-000GSv-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 03 Jul 2002 07:54:53 +0100 Message-ID: <004a01c2225e$3cfed8c0$3634e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020702082918.00ab26d0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Request for a ruling Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 07:51:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Request for a ruling > > To adjust the score here, I would have to be convinced > that there was a significant chance that W (perhaps on > the evidence from the first hand, but whatever) figured > out that 2H was probably not a transfer and phrased > his question as he did in a deliberate attempt to induce > S into a bidding misunderstanding (triggering an > adjustment under L73F2). I see no evidence of that > in the given scenario. > +=+ It is my opinion that, no matter the terms in which it is put, any request for explanation during the auction period should be deemed a request for "a full explanation of the opponents' auction", this being the requirement of Law 20F1 so long as the law remains as it is. (I offer no prediction whether it will be changed.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 3 17:29:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g637Snm23663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:28:49 +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 g637SeH23659 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:28:40 +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 RAA10034 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:29:47 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 03 Jul 2002 17:10:48 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Request for a ruling To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:04:07 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 03/07/2002 05:10:28 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] >To adjust the score here, I would have to be >convinced that there was a significant chance >that W (perhaps on the evidence from the first >hand, but whatever) figured out that 2H was >probably not a transfer and phrased his question >as he did in a deliberate attempt to induce S into >a bidding misunderstanding (triggering an >adjustment under L73F2). I see no evidence of >that in the given scenario. > >Eric Landau On the evidence of the first hand, any West could deduce that South was a rank beginner with no understanding of basic hand evaluation and the principle of abiding by partnership agreements. (North also bid, for the second auction, by the actual, implicit partnership agreement of non- transfers - ignoring the notional agreement of transfers which were written on the system card. Therefore, as TD, I would require NS to delete transfers from their system card.) Note that L73F2 does *not* require a "deliberate" confusing of South. Since West "could have known" that the phrasing of the question might confuse South, then L73F2 does IMHO apply to West's leading question. 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 Jul 3 17:50:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g637oeP23680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:50:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g637oYH23676 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:50:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-70514.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.147.114]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g637ah800914 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 09:36:43 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D22A9F5.4050908@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 09:38:29 +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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed, all this may well be true, and if it is, you are right, but it is totally irrelevant. What you are talking of is two total strangers sitting down. That is a very rare occasion. Even in your case, were you to play with David in Liverpool, David would know you better than his opponents do. That knowledge is enough for him to probably realize whether or not you are using Stayman in this case, and that knowledge needs to be transmitted to opponents. At the very least he should say somethng like: I have never met this person in my life, except on the Internet. He arrived in the club 10 minutes before the start of the tournament and we have simply agreed to play SAYC. I don't know that system very well but it is quite a modern one, and contains many gadgets. There are two general opinions about this 2Cl - either natural or stayman, but the natural meaning has gone out of vogue about 15 years ago. This is a modern player and he would probably think it is more normal to play 2Cl conventional I think it is Stayman. In my opinion that is what he ought to say, because it is very likely to be the truthful explanation. The De Wael school tells its pupils to omit 99% of this crap and simply say the last word. In my humble opinion the two explanations are legally equal. In my humble opinion "no agreement" is too little. (except in the very rare case where even the knowledge above is unavailable - but I stress that is a very rare occurence). Ed Reppert wrote: > On 7/2/02, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >>>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. >>> >>But the Director will rule that you have, if partner does have majors. >>So how can this be a breach of L75A? >> > > Pfui. The law requires the Director to *assume* misexplanation in the > absence of evidence to the contrary. There is evidence to the contrary - > David's statement - and mine - that we have not discussed this sequence. > But even if you toss that evidence out, the presumption of > misexplanation is *not* the same thing as "I rule that you have this > agreement". > > Claiming that we have an agreement we don't have is a breach of Law 75A > because that law requires us to *truthfully* and fully disclose our > agreements, no more, and no less. Since claiming we have an agreement we > don't have is not truthful, it's not legal. Yes, I know the word > "truthful" is not explicitly included in the law. It *is* implicit, > though. > > >>>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. >>> >>And more often than not, you know your partner better than the >>opponents do. So you know which category he falls in. >> > > There's a name for this kind of fallacy, but I forget what it is. > "Strawman", perhaps. "More often than not" is irrelevant, because David > postulated a specific partnership - and he does *not* know me that well. > > >>>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]. >>> >>And in this case, I might even accept this. Because you tell me that >>you really don't know this partner. But more often than not, that is >>not true, and then this answer of yours is simply unacceptable. >> > > Strawman again. > > >>>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. >>> >>No you haven't. You have told them you are going to guess, and you >>have not told them which way you are going to guess. >> > > So? They aren't entitled to know which way he's going to guess. They are > entitled to all knowledge gleaned from special partnership experience > and from agreements, and David has given them that. > > >>By your argument you would also go shot-free is you tell them, >>truthfully, "I have forgotten". >> > > Nonsense. It is implicit in the concept of full disclosure that one is > not permitted to forget the correct explanation of partner's call. > > >>> Why should we not tell opponents the truth? >>> >>Because more often than not, the truth is simply not enough. >>Substitute Ed for some Liverpudlian, and play against me and Ed. Do >>you really expect me to believe that although you have really never >>played with that fellow, you have absolutely no basis whatsoever to be >>guessing on ? >> > > There's that strawman again. If David were playing with a different > partner, his "special knowledge and experience" might well be different > - in which case his obligations under full disclosure would be > different. I'm sure David knows that, and so should you be. > > Regards, > > Ed > > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com > pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site > pgp 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 Wed Jul 3 19:07:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6397Mj23715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 19:07:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6397HH23711 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 19:07:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (hbge-216-37-227-55.dsl.hbge.epix.net [216.37.227.55]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g638rV3f012465 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 04:53:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Request for a ruling Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 04:54:20 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: <7le5iu4at6nijntfdqao3d1ssi0svnua64@4ax.com> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:04:07 +1000, Richard Hills wrote: > >On the evidence of the first hand, any West >could deduce that South was a rank beginner with >no understanding of basic hand evaluation and >the principle of abiding by partnership >agreements. > >(North also bid, for the second auction, by the >actual, implicit partnership agreement of non- >transfers - ignoring the notional agreement of >transfers which were written on the system card. >Therefore, as TD, I would require NS to delete >transfers from their system card.) > I think you have misread my description of the situation, Richard. N-S were playing transfers over a 1NT *opening* (1st hand). They were not playing them over a 1NT *overcall* (2nd hand). To the best of my (limited) knowledge of American bidding systems, this is a common arrangement amongst club-level SA players. North's actions on the two hands were therefore entirely in accord with their system card (North was the only experienced player of the four at the table, although South was by far the weakest of the other three). Brian. >Note that L73F2 does *not* require a "deliberate" >confusing of South. > >Since West "could have known" that the phrasing >of the question might confuse South, then L73F2 >does IMHO apply to West's leading question. > >Best wishes > >Richard -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 3 19:14:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g639DrU23735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 19:13:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g639DmH23731 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 19:13:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-34-87-46.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.34.87.46] helo=localhost) by tungsten.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17PfzV-0001uR-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 03 Jul 2002 10:00:01 +0100 Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 09:59:27 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v482) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [BLML] Request for a ruling From: Gordon Rainsford To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <2DB0B208-8E63-11D6-BA5B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.482) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > [snip] > > >>To adjust the score here, I would have to be >>convinced that there was a significant chance >>that W (perhaps on the evidence from the first >>hand, but whatever) figured out that 2H was >>probably not a transfer and phrased his question >>as he did in a deliberate attempt to induce S into >>a bidding misunderstanding (triggering an >>adjustment under L73F2). I see no evidence of >>that in the given scenario. >> >>Eric Landau >> > > On the evidence of the first hand, any West > could deduce that South was a rank beginner with > no understanding of basic hand evaluation and > the principle of abiding by partnership > agreements. > > (North also bid, for the second auction, by the > actual, implicit partnership agreement of non- > transfers - ignoring the notional agreement of > transfers which were written on the system card. I think you must have missed the line in the original post which said "system off over a 1NT overcall". > Therefore, as TD, I would require NS to delete > transfers from their system card.) > > Note that L73F2 does *not* require a "deliberate" > confusing of South. > > Since West "could have known" that the phrasing > of the question might confuse South, then L73F2 > does IMHO apply to West's leading question. > > Best wishes > > Richard > Gordon Rainsford London UK -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 3 22:32:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g63CVJw24026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 22:31:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe60.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.195]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g63CVAH24021 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 22:31:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 05:17:20 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [204.32.150.84] From: "Roger Pewick" To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020702084234.00b369c0@pop.starpower.net><001c01c221b1$34472140$6700a8c0@nwtyb><4.3.2.7.0.20020702084234.00b369c0@pop.starpower.net><9AmxQ3BEKbI9Ew6L@blakjak.demon.co.uk><4.3.2.7.0.20020702165625.00b359a0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 01:19:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2002 12:17:20.0491 (UTC) FILETIME=[945FF3B0:01C2228B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 17:42 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations > Eric Landau writes > > >If a player who is not a TD, regular AC member, or BLML subscriber > >asks, "Does the Law consider such-and-such play irrational?" the answer > >he expects is either "yes" or "no", not "I don't know unless you tell > >me the class of player involved", to which his natural response would > >be, "I didn't say anything about who was involved; what does that have > >to do with my question, and why do you want to know?" > > I am quite sure this is not how ordinary players think *at all*. No- > one wants to know what the Law allows in this way. If you tell an > ordinary player that different players play differently they will > believe you. > > It *is* the people like TDs, regular AC members and BLML subscribers > who have difficulty with the idea that different players play > differently. They want some concept of fairness that is totally > dissimilar from the way the game is actually played. > > Of course the main complaint will be from the BLs, but they are just > looking for excuses: change the Law and they will just produce the > opposite argument. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ The crux of the matter comes down largely that the laws do not give focus to what the game is about so how can players, or for that matter, anybody have a sense as to what is fair. For instance, it has often been said that a director can make up his mind how he wants a ruling to come out and then thumb through TFLB to find the words. Instead of saying 'This' the laws say 'This and That'. How can anybody be expected to get it? They can't. "'everybody' says that claims are for saving time". "claims are good and must be encouraged." "the purpose of claims is to curtail play." Well, imo nobody has got it right. You heard. Nobody. The purpose of a claim is to accomplish the same thing that playing out all thirteen tricks does- it resolves the hand. Sure time is saved and wear and tear on the brain, but it is all about resolving the hand. And how many chances is a player supposed to get to select the order that he plays his cards? One. but not the way the laws get applied. when it comes to claims... well? Player claims 'pulling trump'. But wait a minute, pulling trump is irrational for this player, claim is cancelled- we're taking it away from you- it's 'second chance' time. What everyone seems to have such a hard time grasping is that when a claim states a line it ought not matter how good or bad or irrational it was- it ought to be treated just as the tricks were played as stated even when it would become apparent to do something else had there been no claim. It is the unstated portions, and only the unstated portions, of a claim that there should or ought to be any consideration when making judgement as to what is normal or irrational or whatever. And for that matter, if a player was good enough to bolix his stated line, or leave things unstated, just what class of player is he? As such, irrational ought to be treated as an absolute, independent of player. Well, I tried to make it short. 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 Jul 3 22:46:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g63Ckad24084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 22:46:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g63CkSH24080 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 22:46:29 +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 17PjJL-0001FH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 03 Jul 2002 08:32:43 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020703082530.00b504f0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 08:33:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Request for a ruling In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:04 PM 7/2/02, richard wrote: >Note that L73F2 does *not* require a "deliberate" >confusing of South. > >Since West "could have known" that the phrasing >of the question might confuse South, then L73F2 >does IMHO apply to West's leading question. Any time anybody does anything, it is logically possible that someone "could have known" that it would happen. If we take that kind of strict view of L73F2, it will mean that any time a player gets a bad result through an action that he claims to have taken as the result of an inference from a remark or reply to a question by an opponent (etc.), L73F2 will apply, regardless of how unlikely or convoluted the logic that led him from the remark to the action. I don't believe that this is the intent of L73F2. It makes much more sense to me to interpret "could have known" in the sense of "might possibly have known". It surely does not require a deliberate attempt to confuse, but it does require an action that a reasonable person might expect would confuse, not merely an action which turns out after the fact to have confused. Of course, that's just my interpretation. The dictionary and the rules of English undeniably support either 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 Thu Jul 4 00:20:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g63EKLD24203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 00:20:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g63EKFH24199 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 00:20:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17Pkm0-0006j6-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 03 Jul 2002 15:06:28 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:06:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card References: <000801c221fb$64bb4e60$9d1ae150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000801c221fb$64bb4e60$9d1ae150@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >Grattan Endicott++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions >in favour of vegetarianism, while the wolf remains >of a different opinion." {W.R. Inge, > Dean of St. Paul's} >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 4:52 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card > > >> >> >> A weighted score in a claim is not legal at either rubber or >> duplicate. But it is quite sensible, and perhaps will appear in >the >> next law book. >> >+=+ In consultation with Chief TD Riccardi the Appeals Committee >in Salsomaggiore found a way round this obstacle, whilst maintaining >the earlier decision that 12C3 cannot apply. I would not wish to >speculate on what compromise position might be included in the >next Laws. But is the way they found in accordance with the Laws of bridge and the interpretations of the WBFLC and the CoP? Apparently some of the decisions in Ostend were not, and at first sight one wonders about this one. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 4 01:02:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g63F2fY24230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 01:02:41 +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 g63F2aH24226 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 01:02:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g63EmnC13654 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:48:49 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:48 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card 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: > My experience of bridge players is that they never draw trumps that > are not there however many they have to spare. Experiences vary. I know there are some players out there who always draw "one for lurkers" if they can clearly afford it (I do so myself if I am not claiming). Whether this group constitutes a "class of player" in the meaning of the law (and how to identify if a given player is a member of this group) I leave as an exercise to the reader. > So with the ace of trumps and a card they think is winner they will > *never* play the ace of trumps if they think there is no trump out. > > Example from South Africa of what players *do*: > > Your trump suit is AQJ983 opposite KT765. > > Oppos play two rounds of clubs - you have four clubs in the dummy and > one in hand. What do you play? Yes, declarer ruffed with the 3! Again I know some players who would *always* ruff with the Ace here. Charlie (Probst knows who I mean) will: a) Select SA from hand b) Raise it to arms length above head c) Bring arm down swiftly sending the SA to the middle of the table with a pronounced clockwise spin. > There is some instinct about not wasting trumps. Different types of player, different instincts maybe? Charlie is no more capable of playing the S3 than he is of underbidding for a complete session. > >I would like to be able to award a split score of say "10% of other > first >+ 90% of trump first". The 10% is *much* higher than my actual > expectancy >and thus contains a warning/mildly punitive element. I do > not think a >ruling like this (exactly right for rubber bridge) would > be legal at >duplicate. > > A weighted score in a claim is not legal at either rubber or Rubber bridge law seems to give an awful lot of flexibility to the players. IMO if all players at the table agree that a 90/10 type ruling is fair then that *makes* it legal. I know that in fairly high stakes games at the Wood "split scores" are used when appropriate (although not needed very often). > duplicate. But it is quite sensible, and perhaps will appear in the > next law book. As long as the weighting is somewhat skewed to the NOS I agree. Another area where weighted scores are currently limited is UI cases where the person in possession of UI has taken a clear majority action that nevertheless admits of a less successful LA. Maybe one should consider permitting the UI suggested action *some* weight in the final calculation. For example if you think a UK player took, in good faith, an action that "Nearly 70% of similar players would take" then it might be reasonable to weight that action at 50% in subsequent adjustments. The case is perhaps more pressing in e.g. the US where a player can take an action that 95% of his peers would take and still be judged to have had an LA available. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 4 01:12:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g63FCf824247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 01:12:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g63FCZH24243 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 01:12:35 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g63EwfI00962; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:58:41 +0100 Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Wed, 03 Jul 2002 14:58:41 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g63EwfI16913; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:58:41 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 03 Jul 2002 14:58:41 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA06182; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:58:40 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id PAA04020; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:58:40 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:58:40 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200207031458.PAA04020@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, ehaa@starpower.net Subject: Re: [BLML] Request for a ruling X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 08:33:56 -0400 > From: Eric Landau > Subject: Re: [BLML] Request for a ruling > > At 09:04 PM 7/2/02, richard wrote: > > >Note that L73F2 does *not* require a "deliberate" > >confusing of South. > > > >Since West "could have known" that the phrasing > >of the question might confuse South, then L73F2 > >does IMHO apply to West's leading question. > > Any time anybody does anything, it is logically possible that someone > "could have known" that it would happen. If we take that kind of > strict view of L73F2, it will mean that any time a player gets a bad > result through an action that he claims to have taken as the result of > an inference from a remark or reply to a question by an opponent > (etc.), L73F2 will apply, regardless of how unlikely or convoluted the > logic that led him from the remark to the action. I don't believe that > this is the intent of L73F2. > > It makes much more sense to me to interpret "could have known" in the > sense of "might possibly have known". It surely does not require a > deliberate attempt to confuse, but it does require an action that a > reasonable person might expect would confuse, not merely an action > which turns out after the fact to have confused. > > Of course, that's just my interpretation. The dictionary and the rules > of English undeniably support either interpretation. > I agree there is a problem with L73F2. Compare the wording in Laws 23 and 72 with the wording in Law 73 L23: could have known that the enforced pass would be likely to damage the non-offending side L72B1: could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side L73F2: could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit There is a difference between "likely to damage opponents" and "could work to his benefit". I think that the standard should be the same in all three laws: could have known, at the time, that the action/irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side [or] would be likely to work to his benefit 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 Jul 4 04:09:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g63I7lk24398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 04:07:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g63I7fH24394 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 04:07:42 +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 g63Hrtp18981 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 13:53:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 13:40:58 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3D22A9F5.4050908@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 7/3/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >Ed, all this may well be true, and if it is, you are right, but it is >totally irrelevant. David postulated a situation, you went off on a tangent, I called you on it, and you call *my* post irrelevant? Pfui. >Even in your case, were you to play with David in Liverpool, David >would know you better than his opponents do. That knowledge is enough >for him to probably realize whether or not you are using Stayman in >this case, and that knowledge needs to be transmitted to opponents. The fact that David knows me better than other Liverpudlians do does *not* lead to the conclusion that he should realize whether I mean 2C as Stayman. In fact the knowledge he has of me may lead to that conclusion, and in that case we agree - the knowledge should be disclosed. OTOH... You sit down with a pickup partner. You've had no discussion of system, but you're in England. You have never seen this person play before, nor spoken with him about the game. LHO opens 1S. Partner doubles. What does double mean? On what do you base your conclusion? >The De Wael school tells its pupils to omit 99% of this crap and >simply say the last word. > >In my humble opinion the two explanations are legally equal. They aren't. One is full disclosure. The other is a lie. >In my humble opinion "no agreement" is too little. >(except in the very rare case where even the knowledge above is >unavailable - but I stress that is a very rare occurence). I think where we disagree is that you seem to assume it is virtually certain that a player has "special knowledge or experience" about his partner's calls, whatever the player says. I don't buy it. If a player tells me he has no agreement and no special knowledge, why should I disbelieve him? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp 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 Jul 4 04:32:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g63IVHp24421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 04:31:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from out005.verizon.net (out005pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g63IVBH24417 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 04:31:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from MIKE ([67.250.125.11]) by out005.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.05 201-253-122-126-105-20020426) with SMTP id <20020703181640.BUWW4372.out005.verizon.net@MIKE> for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 13:16:40 -0500 Message-ID: <002b01c222be$04dc43f0$0100a8c0@MIKE> From: "mike dodson" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3D22A9F5.4050908@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:17:48 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > At the very least he should say somethng like: > > I have never met this person in my life, except on the Internet. He > arrived in the club 10 minutes before the start of the tournament and > we have simply agreed to play SAYC. I don't know that system very > well but it is quite a modern one, and contains many gadgets. There > are two general opinions about this 2Cl - either natural or stayman, > but the natural meaning has gone out of vogue about 15 years ago. This > is a modern player and he would probably think it is more normal to > play 2Cl conventional I think it is Stayman. > > In my opinion that is what he ought to say, because it is very likely > to be the truthful explanation. > > The De Wael school tells its pupils to omit 99% of this crap and > simply say the last word. > > In my humble opinion the two explanations are legally equal. > > In my humble opinion "no agreement" is too little. > (except in the very rare case where even the knowledge above is > unavailable - but I stress that is a very rare occurence). Herman, isn't this too little? Aren't the opponents due the same awareness of uncertainty you have? Otherwise I agree, if you have any partnership grounds for choosing the meaning of a bid, your opponents are entitled to that meaning. 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 Thu Jul 4 05:24:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g63JMp224550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 05:22:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu (col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu [128.206.7.129]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g63JMkH24546 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 05:22:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] ([128.206.98.1]) by col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Wed, 3 Jul 2002 14:09:00 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <7ks2iug4lmcee05a1p6f3tnqcovqmlrdo9@4ax.com> Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 14:29:41 -0500 To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Request for a ruling X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2002 19:09:00.0812 (UTC) FILETIME=[16E9D4C0:01C222C5] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows wrote: >I'd be interested in opinions on the following events. Just for >once, there are two hands to relate, because it's at least >possible that the first has some bearing on the second. If you >don't think this is the case, please disregard the first hand. > >The hands are played under ACBL regulations, two successive >boards in a pairs movement. > >N-S are a new pairing, it's the first time they've ever met, let >alone played together. Their hastily-filled in CC shows Standard >American with three weak 2 bids, 15-17 1NT, transfers over 1NT, >system off over a 1NT overcall, Blackwood and very little else. > > >On the first hand, *if* you think it's relevant, the auction is >as follows > >N E S W >- - pass pass >1NT pass 2D(1) pass >2H pass pass dbl >rdbl pass pass pass > >(1) announced as a transfer > >2H** goes for -1000 when south turns out to have 5 HCP and >3-3-4-3 shape (yes, 4 diamonds) for his transfer to hearts. There >is no director call on this hand, I've included the details >because you may (or may not!) think it has a bearing on the >events on the following hand. > > >On the very next hand, the bidding goes as follows (E/W are also >playing Standard American) > >N E S W >- - - pass >pass 1D 1NT pass >2H(1) Pass(2) 2S pass >pass pass > >(1) No announcement or alert >(2) W asks S "Is that a transfer?" S replies "Gee, I guess so". W >then passes. > >The director is called at the end of the bidding by North, who >objects to the form of West's question, and suggests that the >fact that south incorrectly took the bid as a transfer is at >least partly due to what North describes as "West's leading >question". West's contention is that he is allowed to know what >the bid means "particularly after what happened last hand". South >states that he would not have bid 2S had it not been for East's >question. > >Your ruling, please? > This sounds to me a lot like the sarcastic remarks that some "Experts" make to people they think are dubs after some screw-up. (We used to see a good deal of this at near-by sectionals and regionals. Zero tolerance has much reduced this behavior.) If so, L74A2 is the place to go. REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 4 10:06:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6405os24723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:05:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6405jH24719 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:05:46 +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 KAA17171 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:06:53 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 09:47:50 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 09:48:55 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 04/07/2002 09:47:30 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: [snip] >>There are two general opinions about this 2Cl - either >>natural or stayman, but the natural meaning has gone >>out of vogue about 15 years ago. This is a modern >>player and he would probably think it is more normal to >>play 2Cl conventional I think it is Stayman. >> >>In my opinion that is what he ought to say, because it >>is very likely to be the truthful explanation. >> >>The De Wael school tells its pupils to omit 99% of this >>crap and simply say the last word. >> >>In my humble opinion the two explanations are legally >>equal. [snip] The two explanations are not legally equal. For this apparently straightforward example, Brian Meadows has noted (in the thread "Request for a ruling"): >To the best of my (limited) knowledge of American bidding >systems, this [system off over a 1NT overcall] is a >common arrangement amongst club-level SA players. If Herman De Wael ommitted 99% "crap", and explained an undiscussed 2C call as Stayman, only to find pard was an ACBL club-level player who meant 2C as natural, then any TD would rule that Herman De Wael has given MI. But including the 99% "crap" correctly informs the opponents that no partnership agreement exists, and avoids the adverse TD ruling. Opponents are entitled to know your agreements, *not* your (possibly wrong) guess that your interpretation of 2C is identical to an unknown pard's interpretation of 2C. Where Herman De Wael and I do agree is that *regular* partnership do have meta-agreements. Where a regular partnership stumbles across a new auction, their style and agreements in parallel auctions create an implicit agreement for them, and such an implicit agreement should be freely available to the oppponents. 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 Jul 4 11:36:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g641aFN24757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 11:36:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g641aAH24753 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 11:36:10 +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 LAA09735 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 11:37:15 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 11:18:16 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] 1NT overcall is...? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 11:22:00 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 04/07/2002 11:17:56 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >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? The fact that West gave UI to East is not in dispute. Part One: I would rule that East's 6C rebid was not the only logical alternative and that 6C was demonstrably suggested by the UI. Without this UI, it is also likely that the final contract would have been 7C. An example sequence is: West East 1NT(1) 2D(2) 3C(3) 4H(4) 7C (1) East thinks this is a game-force, West thinks this is 15-18 balanced (2) East thinks this is positive with hearts, West thinks this is a transfer response to a natural 1NT. (3) East thinks this is showing clubs, West thinks it is a super-accept agreeing hearts. (4) East thinks this is a cue bid agreeing clubs, West thinks he is accepting a game invitation in hearts. Therefore, I would adjust the score to N/S +50, E/W -50. Part Two: An East, expert enough to be playing at Table One of the Southwest Pacific Teams, would have known about the requirements of Law 73C and thus probably also violated Law 72B2. Since both Laws contain the strongest injunction - "must" - I would take action under Law 91A. I would also refer East's actions to the relevant Conduct and Ethics committee under Law 81C9. Often, in practice, taking advantage of UI given by partner is a win or break even proposition. You win if the opponents do not bother summoning the TD. You break even with the legal alternative if the TD is summoned and adjusts the score to what it should have been. Blatant use of UI should be a losing proposition, provided that TDs have the courage to initiate appropriate disciplinary action. 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 Jul 4 11:59:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g641xAI24793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 11:59:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g641x5H24789 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 11:59:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA14648 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 12:00:12 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 11:41:12 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Request for a ruling To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 11:44:54 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 04/07/2002 11:40:52 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: [snip] >There is a difference between "likely to damage >opponents" and "could work to his benefit". [snip] There is no difference if you consider the contest between your side and your immediate opponents as a zero-sum game, with "what benefits your side" equivalent to "what damages the other side". But I am aware that the zero-sum principle is not universal in bridge; split scores under L12C2 being one counter-example. Therefore, I agree that it would cost nothing (and possibly avoid confusion), if the 2005 Laws uniformly used identical terminology for identical meanings. If such an identical terminology principle was specified in the 2005 Scope and Interpretation, it would be easier for ordinary TDs to understand Laws nuances. 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 Jul 4 13:39:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g643dB524852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 13:39:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g643d6H24848 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 13:39:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA01898 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 13:40:13 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 13:21:13 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 13:24:58 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 04/07/2002 01:20:53 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: >The crux of the matter comes down largely that the >laws do not give focus to what the game is about so >how can players, or for that matter, anybody have a >sense as to what is fair. For instance, it has >often been said that a director can make up his >mind how he wants a ruling to come out and then >thumb through TFLB to find the words. [snip] In a previous thread I wrote about how an Australian AC in a national championship apparently had a pre- determined view to apply a split score. First they tried an invalid Reveley ruling. When this was disallowed by the TD, they legalised what they had previously ruled an illegal OS action, but then achieved the equivalent of a split score by applying a substantial PP to the OS. An ideal 2005 Lawbook would be written in a clear, "bright line" fashion. TDs and ACs who have pre- determined views would then be clearly faced with the following moral dilemma from 2005 onwards: a) Follow through with their pre-determined views, even though now the Laws unambiguously show that the pre-determined view is unLawful; or, b) Ethically abandon pre-determined views to rule what is clearly required by the 2005 Laws. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 4 16:36:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g646Zo624922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 16:35:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g646ZjH24918 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 16:35:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.43.247] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17PzzO-000F5F-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 07:21:15 +0100 Message-ID: <001c01c22323$77247260$f72be150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <000801c221fb$64bb4e60$9d1ae150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 20:55:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 11:06 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "David Stevenson" > >To: > >Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 4:52 PM > >Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one > > other card > > > > But is the way they found in accordance with the Laws > of bridge and the interpretations of the WBFLC and the > CoP? > +=+ I do not know of any pronouncement of the WBFLC on the point in question. I have just re-read the CoP, in case, and I do not see anything about Law 70 in it. The CoP is not law but recommended regulation and practice, adopted by the EBL. In Salsomgre the AC found that the wording of Law 70A did not exclude the possibility of awarding a different result on the hand to each side where this is deemed by the Director to represent the most equitable adjudication. +=+ > > Apparently some of the decisions in Ostend were not, > and at first sight one wonders about this one. > +=+ I do not know of any AC decision in Ostend that was in breach of the laws of the game as written in English. There were two decisions which generated some heated reactions in relation to policy in executing the law, but the policy is a matter for the SO and the AC. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 4 16:49:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g646mTV24942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 16:48:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g646mOH24938 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 16:48:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-47972.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.100]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g646YW805212 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 08:34:32 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D23ECE3.8040201@skynet.be> Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 08:36:19 +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 Ed, I'm tired of this. You know what I mean, and you will not agree. Ed Reppert wrote: > On 7/3/02, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>Ed, all this may well be true, and if it is, you are right, but it is >>totally irrelevant. >> > > David postulated a situation, you went off on a tangent, I called you on > it, and you call *my* post irrelevant? Pfui. > > >>Even in your case, were you to play with David in Liverpool, David >>would know you better than his opponents do. That knowledge is enough >>for him to probably realize whether or not you are using Stayman in >>this case, and that knowledge needs to be transmitted to opponents. >> > > The fact that David knows me better than other Liverpudlians do does > *not* lead to the conclusion that he should realize whether I mean 2C as > Stayman. In fact the knowledge he has of me may lead to that conclusion, > and in that case we agree - the knowledge should be disclosed. OTOH... > > You sit down with a pickup partner. You've had no discussion of system, > but you're in England. You have never seen this person play before, nor > spoken with him about the game. LHO opens 1S. Partner doubles. What does > double mean? On what do you base your conclusion? > > >>The De Wael school tells its pupils to omit 99% of this crap and >>simply say the last word. >> >>In my humble opinion the two explanations are legally equal. >> > > They aren't. One is full disclosure. The other is a lie. > > >>In my humble opinion "no agreement" is too little. >>(except in the very rare case where even the knowledge above is >>unavailable - but I stress that is a very rare occurence). >> > > I think where we disagree is that you seem to assume it is virtually > certain that a player has "special knowledge or experience" about his > partner's calls, whatever the player says. I don't buy it. If a player > tells me he has no agreement and no special knowledge, why should I > disbelieve him? > > Regards, > > Ed > > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com > pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site > pgp 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 Thu Jul 4 16:51:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g646p6Q24954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 16:51:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g646p0H24950 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 16:51:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-47972.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.100]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g646bB808821 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 08:37:11 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D23ED82.404@skynet.be> Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 08:38:58 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <3D22A9F5.4050908@skynet.be> <002b01c222be$04dc43f0$0100a8c0@MIKE> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk mike dodson wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > >>At the very least he should say somethng like: >> >>I have never met this person in my life, except on the Internet. He >>arrived in the club 10 minutes before the start of the tournament and >>we have simply agreed to play SAYC. I don't know that system very >>well but it is quite a modern one, and contains many gadgets. There >>are two general opinions about this 2Cl - either natural or stayman, >>but the natural meaning has gone out of vogue about 15 years ago. This >>is a modern player and he would probably think it is more normal to >>play 2Cl conventional I think it is Stayman. >> >>In my opinion that is what he ought to say, because it is very likely >>to be the truthful explanation. >> >>The De Wael school tells its pupils to omit 99% of this crap and >>simply say the last word. >> >>In my humble opinion the two explanations are legally equal. >> >>In my humble opinion "no agreement" is too little. >>(except in the very rare case where even the knowledge above is >>unavailable - but I stress that is a very rare occurence). >> > > Herman, isn't this too little? Aren't the opponents due the same awareness > of uncertainty you have? Otherwise I agree, if you have any partnership > grounds for choosing the meaning of a bid, your opponents are entitled to > that meaning. > What do you mean, too little ? Ed and David are postulating that they say nothing, because the meaning is undiscussed. I am saying that they should tell the opponents what they think. And you are saying that this is even too little ? I humbly disagree, but I'd rather continue the discussion against Ed and David, not the other way. That is a discussion we have had before. Are the opponents entitled to the knowledge that you're not certain ? > 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/ > > > -- 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 Jul 4 16:55:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g646t9g24967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 16:55:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g646t3H24963 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 16:55:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-47972.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.100]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g646fDZ17827 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 08:41:13 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D23EE73.1000305@skynet.be> Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 08:42:59 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] 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: > Herman De Wael wrote: > > [snip] > > >>>There are two general opinions about this 2Cl - either >>>natural or stayman, but the natural meaning has gone >>>out of vogue about 15 years ago. This is a modern >>>player and he would probably think it is more normal to >>>play 2Cl conventional I think it is Stayman. >>> >>>In my opinion that is what he ought to say, because it >>>is very likely to be the truthful explanation. >>> >>>The De Wael school tells its pupils to omit 99% of this >>>crap and simply say the last word. >>> >>>In my humble opinion the two explanations are legally >>>equal. >>> > > [snip] > > The two explanations are not legally equal. For this > apparently straightforward example, Brian Meadows > has noted (in the thread "Request for a ruling"): > > >>To the best of my (limited) knowledge of American bidding >>systems, this [system off over a 1NT overcall] is a >>common arrangement amongst club-level SA players. >> > > If Herman De Wael ommitted 99% "crap", and explained an > undiscussed 2C call as Stayman, only to find pard was an > ACBL club-level player who meant 2C as natural, then any > TD would rule that Herman De Wael has given MI. > > But including the 99% "crap" correctly informs the > opponents that no partnership agreement exists, and avoids > the adverse TD ruling. > NO it does NOT. Not in my opinion it doesn't. You should not burden your opponents with trying to outguess you. And at least then the opponents have something to base their actions on. David suggests telling them absolutely nothing. That is singularily unhelpful. > Opponents are entitled to know your agreements, *not* your > (possibly wrong) guess that your interpretation of 2C is > identical to an unknown pard's interpretation of 2C. > > Where Herman De Wael and I do agree is that *regular* > partnership do have meta-agreements. Where a regular > partnership stumbles across a new auction, their style and > agreements in parallel auctions create an implicit agreement > for them, and such an implicit agreement should be freely > available to the oppponents. > And how shall you determine as a director whether such a meta-agreement actually exists ? I know it's akin to the rule of coincidence, but if 2 players are on the same wavelength, isn't it safe to assume there is some meta-understanding ? > 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 Thu Jul 4 16:59:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g646wuC24979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 16:58:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g646wqH24975 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 16:58:52 +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 QAA09390 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 16:59:59 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 16:40:56 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Request for a ruling To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 16:44:39 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 04/07/2002 04:40:36 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: [snip] >It surely does not require a deliberate attempt >to confuse, but it does require an action that a >reasonable person might expect would confuse, not >merely an action which turns out after the fact >to have confused. [snip] I support Eric's restrictive interpretation of L73F2. However, in the particular case which started this thread, my opinion is that a "reasonable person" might expect that South was sufficiently incompetent to be confused by a leading question. Many years ago, Eddie Kantar and Marshall Miles had a bidding stuff-up to reach a non-fit. One of the opponents made the mistake of listening to the solution Kantar-Miles discovered in their post-mortem. Subsequently, that opponent applied the Kantar- Miles idea in their own auction. But unfortunately their partner had not been paying attention to the Kantar-Miles post-mortem. Therefore, the other partnership also reached a non-fit - and this time Kantar-Miles doubled the non-fit. :-) 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 Jul 4 17:45:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g647iHL25012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 17:44:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g647iBH25008 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 17:44:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g647ULr06169 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 09:30:21 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Jul 04 09:25:51 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KJOXFUKVWQ000VWU@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 09:30:03 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <3CDNNJB5>; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 09:29:32 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 09:29:56 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "The Good Lord needed only Ten Commandments". > ~ Georges Clemenceau > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Interesting statement, the one above. Just another example of somebody sitting behind his desk thinking to be able to control the world with regulations. Some years before he saw that all was well, at a moment he hadn't invented mankind yet. As far as the correspondence below is concerned, I find Grattan's statement not less diputable than David's. In L70 nothing leads to the conclusion that this ruling in Salso was legal. And wasn't it Grattan who wanted us to believe that only when the laws explicitly allow it, things are legal? I admit: we have a problem in cases as this one and we need to change the laws to solve that. But in Salso the legal way to reach equity had been to award three tricks (does everybody know the case?) to declarer (no split score) and to penalize declarer for continuing play after a claim had been made. The penalty being the number of VP's he earned unjustified. It is not up to an appeal committee to deny decades of practise, of education, of rulings, of common understanding, just because there feeling of equity is not what the laws do say. In this way the AC's become the can of worms, unpredictable in their decisions, worth a try for every bridge player (who knows what they do this time?) ton (this is just my personal opinion, so not related to the WBFLC; not yet I mean) > > other card > > > > > > > But is the way they found in accordance with the Laws > > of bridge and the interpretations of the WBFLC and the > > CoP? > > > +=+ I do not know of any pronouncement of the WBFLC on > the point in question. I have just re-read the CoP, in case, > and I do not see anything about Law 70 in it. The CoP is > not law but recommended regulation and practice, adopted > by the EBL. In Salsomgre the AC found that the wording > of Law 70A did not exclude the possibility of awarding a > different result on the hand to each side where this is > deemed by the Director to represent the most equitable > adjudication. +=+ > > > > Apparently some of the decisions in Ostend were not, > > and at first sight one wonders about this one. > > > +=+ I do not know of any AC decision in Ostend that > was in breach of the laws of the game as written in > English. There were two decisions which generated > some heated reactions in relation to policy in > executing the law, but the policy is a matter for the > SO and the AC. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 4 19:47:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g649kW125072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 19:46:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g649kRH25068 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 19:46:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-47972.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.100]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g649WbH08924 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 11:32:37 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D24169F.6070708@skynet.be> Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 11:34:23 +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] claim with ace of trumps and one other card References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: > > I admit: we have a problem in cases as this one and we need to change the > laws to solve that. But in Salso the legal way to reach equity had been to > award three tricks (does everybody know the case?) to declarer (no split > score) and to penalize declarer for continuing play after a claim had been > made. The penalty being the number of VP's he earned unjustified. > No Ton, The AC did in fact award 4 tricks to defender, and 8 tricks to declarer (the thirteenth trick was for the director). > It is not up to an appeal committee to deny decades of practise, of > education, of rulings, of common understanding, just because there feeling > of equity is not what the laws do say. In this way the AC's become the can > of worms, unpredictable in their decisions, worth a try for every bridge > player (who knows what they do this time?) > I agree with that - but what do you do when 5 people, all together, decide that equity is best served by giving the score as above. ? > > ton > (this is just my personal opinion, so not related to the WBFLC; not yet I > mean) > > -- 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 Jul 4 22:11:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64CAis25180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 22:10:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g64CAdH25176 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 22:10:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.64.141.15] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17Q5Dh-000BPy-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 12:56:22 +0100 Message-ID: <001501c22351$a2769a00$0f8d403e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3D24169F.6070708@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 12:51:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: 04 July 2002 10:34 Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card > > > It is not up to an appeal committee to deny > > decades of practise, of education, of rulings, > > of common understanding, just because their > > feeling of equity is not what the laws do say. > > In this way the AC's become the can of worms, > > unpredictable in their decisions, worth a try for > > every bridge player (who knows what they do > > this time?) > > > > > I agree with that - but what do you do when 5 people, > all together, decide that equity is best served by > giving the score as above. ? > +=+ As Chairman of Appeals in Salso, Bill Pencharz stressed the corporate responsibility of an AC and required members not to comment adversely on the outside. There are limits, therefore, to what can be said. The Director entered for each side an unfavourable adjudication. The Chief Director had agreed this decision. The appeals committee, acting also as the national authority for the tournament per regulation, considered with the Chief Director the wording of Law 70A. This says positively that the director "adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides". The Chief Director said this was what had been done. There were no doubtful points and the ruling did not involve any failure to do as provided in 70B,C,D,E. Yes, traditionalists may recoil, but in keeping an open mind it is difficult to see anything in reading the law that denies such an adjudication and that the words quoted cannot be interpreted to authorize. (I had considered the word 'result' but the dictionary meaning of 'result' can be construed to encompass different numbers for NS and EW.) ----------------------------------------------------------- Pencharz also changed the policy of the EBL AC in one other respect: where pass is an LA and will close the auction no 12C3 ruling to be considered. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 4 23:07:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64D6Xt25301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 23:06:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g64D6RH25297 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 23:06:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g64Cqer07105 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 14:52:40 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Jul 04 14:48:07 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KJP8OQSQIA000WBU@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 14:51:48 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <3CDNNYSX>; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 14:51:19 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 14:51:47 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > > > It is not up to an appeal committee to deny > > > decades of practise, of education, of rulings, > > > of common understanding, just because their > > > feeling of equity is not what the laws do say. > > > In this way the AC's become the can of worms, > > > unpredictable in their decisions, worth a try for > > > every bridge player (who knows what they do > > > this time?) > > > > > > > > > I agree with that - but what do you do when 5 people, > > all together, decide that equity is best served by > > giving the score as above. ? > > > +=+ As Chairman of Appeals in Salso, Bill Pencharz > stressed the corporate responsibility of an AC and > required members not to comment adversely on the > outside. There are limits, therefore, to what can be > said. > The Director entered for each side an unfavourable > adjudication. The Chief Director had agreed this > decision. > The appeals committee, acting also as the national > authority for the tournament per regulation, considered > with the Chief Director the wording of Law 70A. This > says positively that the director "adjudicates the result > of the board as equitably as possible to both sides". > The Chief Director said this was what had been done. > There were no doubtful points and the ruling did not > involve any failure to do as provided in 70B,C,D,E. > Yes, traditionalists may recoil, but in keeping an > open mind it is difficult to see anything in reading the > law that denies such an adjudication and that the words > quoted cannot be interpreted to authorize. These words have been interpreted many times before, with a different and completely accepted outcome. Two years ago in Maastricht in a similar case as far as continuing play after a claim is concerned, the AC decided to award claimer a trick he couldn't make in actual play. Is it strange to express some doubts about the authority AC make decisions with? If a traditionalist is somebody who wants some consistency and predictability in the decisions of AC's, I must admit, then I am one. It would have been nice to quote the next words in L70A and sme others as well, (translated from my Dutch version): 'continued play after a claim is voided' and 'any doubtful point will be decided against claimer'. It is my strong feeling that the traditional interpretation that this leads to 3 tricks for declarer once this doubt is established, is the right one. I agree completely that this is not a desirable outcome, but that is not the issue here. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 00:34:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64EXdX25430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 00:33:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g64EXJH25403 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 00:33:21 +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 17Q7S9-0002Ya-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 15:19:30 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 13:40:40 +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 > >>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? > >The fact that West gave UI to East is not in >dispute. > >Part One: I would rule that East's 6C rebid was not >the only logical alternative and that 6C was >demonstrably suggested by the UI. Without this UI, >it is also likely that the final contract would have >been 7C. An example sequence is: > >West East > 1NT(1) >2D(2) 3C(3) >4H(4) 7C > >(1) East thinks this is a game-force, West thinks this >is 15-18 balanced >(2) East thinks this is positive with hearts, West thinks >this is a transfer response to a natural 1NT. >(3) East thinks this is showing clubs, West thinks it >is a super-accept agreeing hearts. >(4) East thinks this is a cue bid agreeing clubs, West >thinks he is accepting a game invitation in hearts. > >Therefore, I would adjust the score to N/S +50, >E/W -50. I do not think the actual sequence is particularly likely, though possible. I do think that L12C3 should be used here, with a percentage of 7C-1, and a percentage of other results. >Part Two: An East, expert enough to be playing at >Table One of the Southwest Pacific Teams, would >have known about the requirements of Law 73C and >thus probably also violated Law 72B2. Since both >Laws contain the strongest injunction - "must" - I >would take action under Law 91A. I would also refer >East's actions to the relevant Conduct and Ethics >committee under Law 81C9. > >Often, in practice, taking advantage of UI given by >partner is a win or break even proposition. You win >if the opponents do not bother summoning the TD. >You break even with the legal alternative if the TD >is summoned and adjusts the score to what it should >have been. Blatant use of UI should be a losing >proposition, provided that TDs have the courage to >initiate appropriate disciplinary action. I do not think there is any reason for disciplinary action. No-one hit anyone else, for example. A C&E hearing should not be given for this. After all, in the Southwest Pacific Teams, there were probably a couple of hundred failures to follow L73C. The procedure outlined in L73C was not followed, so hit him with a PP, say 6 imps. There is no need for vicious rulings, just enough to persuade players to follow the laws in future. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 00:34:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64EXhZ25434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 00:33:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g64EXSH25424 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 00:33:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g64EJZL00209; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:19:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 03:07:10 -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: <3D23ECE3.8040201@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 7/4/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >Ed, I'm tired of this. Sorry if I've tired you, Herman. >You know what I mean, and you will not agree. Do I? I have responded to what you have written. If it appears to you that I have not responded to what you intended, then I submit that I do *not* know what you mean. As for agreeing, nothing you have written has convinced me that you're right (or perhaps, that what I understand you to have meant is right), so of course I won't agree to it. If that's where it stands, then I suppose we'd best just agree to disagree. :-) 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 Jul 5 00:34:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64EXdE25429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 00:33:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g64EXJH25402 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 00:33:20 +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 17Q7S9-0002Yd-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 15:19:28 +0100 Message-ID: <4P5AjgD9qEJ9EwCV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 14:16:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card References: <3D24169F.6070708@skynet.be> In-Reply-To: <3D24169F.6070708@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 >I agree with that - but what do you do when 5 people, all together, >decide that equity is best served by giving the score as above. ? I suggest they read the Law book. For years ACBL ACs have ignored the Laws freely and down what they feel however illegal. Now, just as ACBL ACs are learning the laws, EBL ACs are starting to ignore them. The *first* objective of an AC is to apply the laws of Bridge. Equity should be their next consideration. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 00:34:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64EXgb25432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 00:33:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g64EXJH25404 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 00:33:21 +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 17Q7S9-0002Yf-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 15:19:29 +0100 Message-ID: <8P+BTtDhtEJ9EwiO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 14:19:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <3D23EE73.1000305@skynet.be> In-Reply-To: <3D23EE73.1000305@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 >NO it does NOT. >Not in my opinion it doesn't. >You should not burden your opponents with trying to outguess you. >And at least then the opponents have something to base their actions on. >David suggests telling them absolutely nothing. That is singularily >unhelpful. It is not true either. I have said that you should not lie to opponents, not that you should be unhelpful. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 00:34:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64EXhb25433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 00:33:43 +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-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 g64EXPH25418 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 00:33:26 +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 17Q7SK-0002Yc-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 15:19:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 13:48:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card References: <000801c221fb$64bb4e60$9d1ae150@dodona> <001c01c22323$77247260$f72be150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001c01c22323$77247260$f72be150@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> >From: "David Stevenson" >> >To: >> >Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 4:52 PM >> >Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one >> > other card >> > >> >> But is the way they found in accordance with the Laws >> of bridge and the interpretations of the WBFLC and the >> CoP? >> >+=+ I do not know of any pronouncement of the WBFLC on >the point in question. I have just re-read the CoP, in case, >and I do not see anything about Law 70 in it. The CoP is >not law but recommended regulation and practice, adopted >by the EBL. In Salsomgre the AC found that the wording >of Law 70A did not exclude the possibility of awarding a >different result on the hand to each side where this is >deemed by the Director to represent the most equitable >adjudication. It sounds illegal to me. OK, so an AC decided to go with fairness rather than follow the Law: that is *exactly* what we have been complaining about ACBL ACs for some years. Why is it right when an EBL AC does it? Of course we know that Mr Riccardi is in a minority in his treatment of claims - and by a minority I mean he has no support from the European TDs. >> Apparently some of the decisions in Ostend were not, >> and at first sight one wonders about this one. >+=+ I do not know of any AC decision in Ostend that >was in breach of the laws of the game as written in >English. There were two decisions which generated >some heated reactions in relation to policy in >executing the law, but the policy is a matter for the >SO and the AC. Yeah, well, I am hoping to see them in print. But the scuttlebutt suggests that two Reveley rulings were given, despite the SO saying No. Furthermore the CoP decision of assuming the TD is correct as a starting point was not followed on several occasions: the AC "fiddled" with weightings. Lastly there was split score given for no obvious reason and again in defiance of what the SO said. Or do ACs assume that the decisions of Tabiano have no force? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 00:34:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64EXf825431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 00:33:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g64EXNH25411 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 00:33:24 +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 17Q7SI-0002Yd-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 15:19:36 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 15:18:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card 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 >Another >area where weighted scores are currently limited is UI cases where the >person in possession of UI has taken a clear majority action that >nevertheless admits of a less successful LA. Maybe one should consider >permitting the UI suggested action *some* weight in the final calculation. >For example if you think a UK player took, in good faith, an action that >"Nearly 70% of similar players would take" then it might be reasonable to >weight that action at 50% in subsequent adjustments. Just remember what you are doing. If a player follows L73C he gets a bad score: if he ignores L73C he gets 50% of a good score. So whatever good faith means, your method would reward people who have flouted the Law. I do not approve. > The case is perhaps >more pressing in e.g. the US where a player can take an action that 95% of >his peers would take and still be judged to have had an LA available. He has still taken an illegal action. Why reward him for doing so? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 01:28:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64FSce25492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 01:28:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g64FSXH25488 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 01:28:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-47972.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.100]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g64FEg903481 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 17:14:42 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2466CB.4050503@skynet.be> Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 17:16:27 +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] claim with ace of trumps and one other card References: <000801c221fb$64bb4e60$9d1ae150@dodona> <001c01c22323$77247260$f72be150@dodona> 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: > > It sounds illegal to me. OK, so an AC decided to go with fairness > rather than follow the Law: please add to this "the Law as I interpret it to be". The AC in Salsomaggiore interpreted the law in some other way. > that is *exactly* what we have been > complaining about ACBL ACs for some years. Why is it right when an EBL > AC does it? > > Of course we know that Mr Riccardi is in a minority in his treatment > of claims - and by a minority I mean he has no support from the European > TDs. > > >>>Apparently some of the decisions in Ostend were not, >>>and at first sight one wonders about this one. >>> > >>+=+ I do not know of any AC decision in Ostend that >>was in breach of the laws of the game as written in >>English. There were two decisions which generated >>some heated reactions in relation to policy in >>executing the law, but the policy is a matter for the >>SO and the AC. >> > > Yeah, well, I am hoping to see them in print. But the scuttlebutt > suggests that two Reveley rulings were given, despite the SO saying No. > Furthermore the CoP decision of assuming the TD is correct as a starting > point was not followed on several occasions: the AC "fiddled" with > weightings. Lastly there was split score given for no obvious reason > and again in defiance of what the SO said. > > Or do ACs assume that the decisions of Tabiano have no force? > > -- 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 Jul 5 01:30:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64FUfF25504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 01:30:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g64FUZH25500 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 01:30:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-47972.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.100]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g64FGkZ19388 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 17:16:46 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D246747.5030902@skynet.be> Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 17:18:31 +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] claim with ace of trumps and one other card References: <3D24169F.6070708@skynet.be> <4P5AjgD9qEJ9EwCV@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: > Herman De Wael writes > > >>I agree with that - but what do you do when 5 people, all together, >>decide that equity is best served by giving the score as above. ? >> > > I suggest they read the Law book. > Which is exactly what they did. > For years ACBL ACs have ignored the Laws freely and down what they > feel however illegal. Now, just as ACBL ACs are learning the laws, EBL > ACs are starting to ignore them. > > The *first* objective of an AC is to apply the laws of Bridge. Equity > should be their next consideration. > > Well, that is what they did. -- 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 Jul 5 01:37:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64FbPX25516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 01:37:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g64FbJH25512 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 01:37:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-47972.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.100]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g64FNSH09062 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 17:23:28 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2468D8.3040205@skynet.be> Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 17:25:12 +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] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <3D23EE73.1000305@skynet.be> <8P+BTtDhtEJ9EwiO@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, once again. David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael writes > > >>NO it does NOT. >>Not in my opinion it doesn't. >>You should not burden your opponents with trying to outguess you. >>And at least then the opponents have something to base their actions on. >>David suggests telling them absolutely nothing. That is singularily >>unhelpful. >> > > It is not true either. > > I have said that you should not lie to opponents, not that you should > be unhelpful. > Nowhere in the Laws it is stated that you should or should not lie to opponents, so please don't drag this in. I've given many an example where it is seen that lying has nothing to do with this matter. What is important is that opponents end up in possession of all pieces of information to which they are entitled. If I judge, as Director, that your partnership agreement is "Stayman", then any other statement other than "Stayman" will possibly be ruled against by me. THAT is what I am saying. If Ed bids 2Cl with majors, and you bid 2He afterwards with 4He and 3Sp, then I judge you are playing Stayman, and whether or not it is true that you have not discussed this sequence will not feature in my decision. And if you have responded "no agreement" to your opponents, I will rule against you. Which is why I advise you to answer "Stayman" in future. Whether that is the truth or not. And don't hide behind "lying". You'll get a PP as well. > -- 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 Jul 5 03:40:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64Hdrd25612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 03:39:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g64HdlH25608 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 03:39:48 +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 NAA09724 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 13:25:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA06692 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 13:25:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 13:25:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200207041725.NAA06692@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] New policy re L12C3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Pencharz also changed the policy of the EBL AC in one > other respect: where pass is an LA and will close > the auction no 12C3 ruling to be considered. This is interesting. I know it was just an afterthought to the main post, but could you please clarify a bit? I assume "where pass is an LA" is shorthand for "where pass is the only legal call because of L16A+L16C+L73C." Is that correct? If so, it makes sense to consider only the single, legal final contract. Even so, couldn't L12C3 still apply when it isn't clear how many tricks will be won by each side? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 03:56:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64HtsH25629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 03:55:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g64HtnH25625 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 03:55:49 +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 NAA09980 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 13:42:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA06805 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 13:42:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 13:42:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200207041742.NAA06805@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > We can argue til Hell freezes what is "fair". Indeed, as several threads in BLML attest. > There is sufficient evidence in history that even top experts > occationally make "irrational" play. Until this date, whenever > I have had to judge "irrational" (as opposed to "careless" or > "inferior") play I have held the door open for such mistakes > and only accepted as "irrational" plays that would be irrational > regardless of the player involved. (Like failing to play an Ace > from Ace Queen over the King). Eric and I like this sort of approach, but the WBFLC does not. Of course that is not to say that we will agree which specific plays are irrational, although I certainly hope we would all agree with the example above. > I definitely do not want to protect the "safety play" of a claim > trusting that the Director and/or AC will rule against any > possibility of an insane mistake which at least in theory could > have been made by playing on. Isn't "insane mistake" the same as "irrational?" > My duty as a Director the way I understand it is to protect > the opponents from possible damage due to any deviation > from the "normal" playout of all thirteen tricks. This includes > any attempt to claim as a "safeguard" against silly mistakes. Isn't your duty also to protect the claimer against irrational plays? Sometimes I revoke. Will you judge all of my claims on the basis that I might have revoked, had I played the hand out? Or, to use your example, I might have played the queen under an opponents king. Or crashed my own honors. Or played AKQ2 by leading the two. Actually that last is something I would never do, but the others are possible. I do not understand the attitude that wants to punish claimers. If a claimer is protected against an occasional irrational play, is that a bad thing? It seems to me that it's a fair reward for claiming and shortening play. Consider also that it's possible that the non- claiming side would have made an irrational play, and they are protected, too. Of course there can still be a debate about where to draw the line between "normal" and "irrational," but equating "normal" to "any legal play" is going much too far. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 05:10:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64JAMr25742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 05:10:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g64JAGH25738 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 05:10:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g64IuSc05766 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 19:56:28 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 19:56 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card 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: > Tim West-meads writes > > >Another > >area where weighted scores are currently limited is UI cases where the > >person in possession of UI has taken a clear majority action that > >nevertheless admits of a less successful LA. Maybe one should > consider >permitting the UI suggested action *some* weight in the final > calculation. > >For example if you think a UK player took, in good faith, an action > that >"Nearly 70% of similar players would take" then it might be > reasonable to >weight that action at 50% in subsequent adjustments. > > Just remember what you are doing. If a player follows L73C he gets a > bad score: if he ignores L73C he gets 50% of a good score. So whatever > good faith means, your method would reward people who have flouted the > Law. I do not approve. In my experience when the suggested LA is a clear majority action it is very difficult for players who are actively trying to follow the law. "Good faith" means that an AC/TD can see why a player may not have considered there to be LAs even though they may eventually decide otherwise. I would never consider it "flouting" the law if an AC said "We think it is very close but on balance consider ?? an LA". Getting a close decision wrong is not "flouting". Perhaps ACs are also uncomfortable in the above situation and decide "yes that was an action 70% of his peers would take" in order to avoid giving an "overly severe" adjustment. Perhaps it would make people feeling more comfortable about asking for a ruling when they should. I > > The case is perhaps > >more pressing in e.g. the US where a player can take an action that > 95% of >his peers would take and still be judged to have had an LA > available. > > He has still taken an illegal action. Why reward him for doing so? It's not a matter of reward. It's a matter of trying to achieve equity (or something like it). I don't think ethical players are particularly well served by the current approach. I also don't think that the difference of interpretation between LAs in different zones is helpful - geography seems a very strange determinant of when a player fails to avoid taking advantage. Perhaps the WBFLC have debated these issues recently, perhaps they haven't. If they haven't I believe that considering them in the context of "weighted scores" may be helpful. 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 Jul 5 05:13:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64JD0J25764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 05:13:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.tiscali.nl (rhea.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.178]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g64JCtH25759 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 05:12:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from LNV (xs241-254-122.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.254.122]) by rhea.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 8F7F33C0AF; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 20:59:07 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00d401c2238c$e39658f0$7afef1c3@LNV> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200207041725.NAA06692@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] New policy re L12C3 Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 20:26:30 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > Pencharz also changed the policy of the EBL AC in one > > other respect: where pass is an LA and will close > > the auction no 12C3 ruling to be considered. > > This is interesting. I know it was just an afterthought to the main > post, but could you please clarify a bit? I assume "where pass is an > LA" is shorthand for "where pass is the only legal call because of > L16A+L16C+L73C." Is that correct? If so, it makes sense to consider > only the single, legal final contract. > > Even so, couldn't L12C3 still apply when it isn't clear how many tricks > will be won by each side? Your suggestion this to be a new policy is not right. It is so to speak a very traditional policy which was attacked in Ostende (this gives Grattan an answer on a question/remark he had for David St about Ostende) were half you may bid and half you may not bid decisions (or at least one) were taken. And yes you still may use 12C3 once you have decided that the offender may not make the favourable call. But the latter is not 12C3. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 05:13:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64JD8A25770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 05:13:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.tiscali.nl (rhea.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.178]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g64JD0H25765 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 05:13:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from LNV (xs241-254-122.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.254.122]) by rhea.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 059AB390AF; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 20:59:07 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00d301c2238c$e3530e60$7afef1c3@LNV> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3D24169F.6070708@skynet.be> <001501c22351$a2769a00$0f8d403e@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 20:11:02 +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 > Pencharz also changed the policy of the EBL AC in one > other respect: where pass is an LA and will close > the auction no 12C3 ruling to be considered. Grattan I don't understand a syllable of this statement. Did Bill say that when a player makes a call that could be based on UI where he has a LA the TD nor the AC should ever decide to make a 12C3 ruling. That makes sense to me. And is in accordance with the laws (bad news for Sweden). It is a pity that comfort is sought in other areas to use 12C3. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 05:18:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64JHot25812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 05:17:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.tiscali.nl (rhea.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.178]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g64JHjH25808 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 05:17:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from LNV (unknown [195.240.62.216]) by rhea.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id AA2ED3C14D; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 21:03:57 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00dd01c2238d$90859670$7afef1c3@LNV> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200207041742.NAA06805@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 21:03:56 +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 Steve said: > > Of course there can still be a debate about where to draw the line > between "normal" and "irrational," but equating "normal" to "any legal > play" is going much too far. That is mildly said, I would call it irrational. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 05:24:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64JNwH25838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 05:23:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail47.fg.online.no (mail47-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g64JNpH25834 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 05:23:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1628.bb.online.no [80.212.214.92]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA09331 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 21:09:57 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002701c2238e$6329b0c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200207041742.NAA06805@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 21:09:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" > > From: "Sven Pran" > > We can argue til Hell freezes what is "fair". > > Indeed, as several threads in BLML attest. > > > There is sufficient evidence in history that even top experts > > occationally make "irrational" play. Until this date, whenever > > I have had to judge "irrational" (as opposed to "careless" or > > "inferior") play I have held the door open for such mistakes > > and only accepted as "irrational" plays that would be irrational > > regardless of the player involved. (Like failing to play an Ace > > from Ace Queen over the King). > > Eric and I like this sort of approach, but the WBFLC does not. Of > course that is not to say that we will agree which specific plays are > irrational, although I certainly hope we would all agree with the > example above. > > > I definitely do not want to protect the "safety play" of a claim > > trusting that the Director and/or AC will rule against any > > possibility of an insane mistake which at least in theory could > > have been made by playing on. > > Isn't "insane mistake" the same as "irrational?" This point is well taken, and when I apparently have a different opinion to yours on handling claims it is for this reason: I bet there has never existed a bridge player who hasn't at some time made an irrational play (i.e. insane mistake) nor does such a player exist today. We could both agree that with only the King in a suit missing it is irrational not to drop it, still players continue to concede a trick failing a count to thirteen. If a player concedes a trick to that King it is certainly evidence that he has lost his count. I place the onus of mentioning all relevant details on the claimer and resolve all doubtful points in favour of the opponents. True this implies irrational play (by some, but not by all standards). However, an incomplete claim is itself at least careless and an indication that in this case the player might have made an "insane error" had he not claimed. I do not want to protect the claimer against such mistakes. > > > My duty as a Director the way I understand it is to protect > > the opponents from possible damage due to any deviation > > from the "normal" playout of all thirteen tricks. This includes > > any attempt to claim as a "safeguard" against silly mistakes. > > Isn't your duty also to protect the claimer against irrational plays? Yes, the question is what shall be considered irrational. My rule is that this has to be decided from the way cards are revealed as the play would have progressed without the claim/concession. I do not accept that a player who fails to mention a critical point shall be assumed being aware of it unless this point would reveal itself in time during the subsequent play. > Sometimes I revoke. Will you judge all of my claims on the basis that I > might have revoked, had I played the hand out? Or, to use your example, > I might have played the queen under an opponents king. Or crashed my > own honors. Or played AKQ2 by leading the two. Actually that last is > something I would never do, but the others are possible. I certainly do not include illegal plays among the "normal" options when assessing a claim. And as already indicated above I do not include plays which at the moment made must stand out as irrational from the cards already revealed. > I do not understand the attitude that wants to punish claimers. If a > claimer is protected against an occasional irrational play, is that a > bad thing? It seems to me that it's a fair reward for claiming and > shortening play. Consider also that it's possible that the non- > claiming side would have made an irrational play, and they are > protected, too. I do not want to punish a claimer, but nor do I want to give him the benefit of doubt as to how he would have played his cards when the doubt arises from him failing to give all relevant and important details with his claim. > Of course there can still be a debate about where to draw the line > between "normal" and "irrational," but equating "normal" to "any legal > play" is going much too far. I agree, but I think that recent AC decitions have given too much leeway to incomplete claims (from what I have read). There is obviously a demanding need for clarifications on where we draw the line between "irrational" and not so irrational plays. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 06:41:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64KexU26044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 06:41:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (nuser.dybdal.dk [62.242.254.78]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g64KesH26040 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 06:40:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 92BE110706F for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 22:27:05 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 22:27:05 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <5f89iu8h447lt2aslfedk2hree6r8njavf@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: <3D24169F.6070708@skynet.be> <001501c22351$a2769a00$0f8d403e@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001501c22351$a2769a00$0f8d403e@pacific> 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 g64KeuH26041 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 4 Jul 2002 12:51:54 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > The appeals committee, acting also as the national >authority for the tournament per regulation, considered >with the Chief Director the wording of Law 70A. This >says positively that the director "adjudicates the result >of the board as equitably as possible to both sides". >The Chief Director said this was what had been done. >There were no doubtful points and the ruling did not >involve any failure to do as provided in 70B,C,D,E. > Yes, traditionalists may recoil, I do! When, in a claims situation, it seems that the two sides only deserve a total of 12 tricks, then it seems very clear to me that * the ownership of the 13th trick is a "doubtful point", and * since "any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer", the 13th trick must thus go to the non-claiming side. > but in keeping an >open mind it is difficult to see anything in reading the >law that denies such an adjudication and that the words >quoted cannot be interpreted to authorize. (I had >considered the word 'result' but the dictionary meaning >of 'result' can be construed to encompass different >numbers for NS and EW.) I agree that the word "result" in itself in some other circumstances could be construed that way. However, this is in the context of L70. L70 contains many detailed instructions about the procedure to be followed by the TD. It repeatedly uses words like "award a trick", and it talks about accepting lines of play. There are no lines of play in bridge that produce a split score. L12C1 and L12C2 both carefully point out that the scores need not balance; L70 does not. It does not even use the word "score" at all. L12C1 and L12C2 both carefully explain the procedure for assigning the scores, and it is clear from that procedure how non-balancing results can occur and which judgments from the TD should result in non-balancing scores. L70 does not explain a procedure that results in a split score; it gives no guidance at all as to what circumstances might cause a split score. It seems completely obvious to me that the author's intention with the wording of L70 was that the TD should distribute 13 tricks between the two sides in a way that is consistent with some possible play of the remaining cards, and that "against the claimer" also means "to the benefit of the claimer's opponents". For instance, in L70C, it talks about awarding a trump trick to the opponents, but does not specify any possible conditions for taking away the trick from claimer without giving it to the opponents. That is of course because L70C exists in a context where there are exactly 13 tricks to be awarded, so a trick cannot be taken away from claimer without being given to opponents. It also does not mention whether the claimer might also get the trick that opponents get (if we can award just 12, surely we can also award 14); that is because it is implied that there are 13 tricks. I therefore find the interpretation that split scores are legal in L70 situations absurd. If it becomes accepted that interpretations can be as far-fetched as that, then I think the drafting committee will have a quite impossible task writing laws that cannot be interpreted to mean something very different than the intention. So much for what the law says. As for what is reasonable, and will be reasonable in 2005, I believe that a claim should be a way to "play" the remaining tricks quickly, and that the result should be a possible result of playing those tricks. If the hand had been played out, one of the sides would have got that 13th trick. A claim is not an irregularity; it is a way to "play" the rest of the hand. A bad claim is a bridge error: bridge errors should, as far as possible, result in fewer tricks that go to the opponents instead. It seems to me that it would be unreasonable if the claimer could take away a trick from his opponents by claiming badly instead of playing on badly. It is claimer who has chosen to claim rather than play on, and if the act of claiming results in uncertainty about the number of tricks, then it is claimer and not the opponents who should pay the price for that. Notice that the act of claiming is always a deliberate act that the claimer has had a chance to think carefully through first - as opposed to UI and MI situations, which are generally not created deliberately, and in which it is therefore much more reasonable to award scores that cannot be reached by normal play. -- 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 Fri Jul 5 07:52:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64LqLI26132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 07:52:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g64LqGH26128 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 07:52:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.41.46] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17QEII-000PsA-00; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 22:37:44 +0100 Message-ID: <002e01c223a3$7f9f8f80$2e29e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200207041725.NAA06692@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] New policy re L12C3 Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 22:38:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 6:25 PM Subject: [BLML] New policy re L12C3 > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > Pencharz also changed the policy of the EBL AC in one > > other respect: where pass is an LA and will close > > the auction no 12C3 ruling to be considered. > > This is interesting. I know it was just an afterthought to > the main post, but could you please clarify a bit? I assume > "where pass is an LA" is shorthand for "where pass is the > only legal call because of L16A+L16C+L73C." Is that > correct? If so, it makes sense to consider only the single, > legal final contract. > +=+ It is not 'new', except for its adoption by the EBL TAC on this occasion. It is a policy with which I am comfortable. What I do not agree is that Law 12C3 does not allow of the policy adopted by some chairmen previously. I have always been asked about the meaning of 12C3 (which gives absolute power to the AC to vary an assigned score to do equity) not about my view on policy in using this power. There was one case in Salso where the acting chair of the committee would have liked to apply the policy as in Ostend but kept steady to the policy of the day. What I do say is that appeals committee procedures and policy, like screen procedures, are not matters of law but of regulation - and should remain so. +=+ > > Even so, couldn't L12C3 still apply when it isn't clear > how many tricks will be won by each side? > -- +=+ Possibly, but not tested. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 07:52:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64Lq9i26126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 07:52:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g64Lq4H26122 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 07:52:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.41.46] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17QEI5-000PsA-00; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 22:37:32 +0100 Message-ID: <002d01c223a3$78525be0$2e29e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <000801c221fb$64bb4e60$9d1ae150@dodona> <001c01c22323$77247260$f72be150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 21:36:24 +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: Thursday, July 04, 2002 1:48 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card > > It sounds illegal to me. OK, so an AC decided to go with > fairness rather than follow the Law: that is *exactly* what > we have been complaining about ACBL ACs for some years. > Why is it right when an EBL AC does it? > +=+ My previous comments refer to the Committee's finding as to the state of the law. It is misconceived to say that the AC decided "to go with fairness"; the AC explored the law on the subject and found scope in it for the Director to do as he did in the circumstances in which he did it. +=+ > > Of course we know that Mr Riccardi is in a minority in his > treatment of claims - and by a minority I mean he has no > support from the European TDs. > +=+ I think it is a little difficult to argue that Antonio has no support from the European TDs; I gather there was lengthy consultation amongst senior TDs there concerning the application of Law 70A - possibly including the Co-CTD. The Committee report repeats the decision of an earlier AC that 12C3 cannot be used. +=+ > ----------- \x/ ----------- > > Or do ACs assume that the decisions of Tabiano > have no force? > +=+ The contents of a seminar for TDs are not included in the rules and regulations for Championships. They constitute advice not regulation. What the regulations said was: "The Tournament Director's responsibilities are in the main covered by Law 81. The Director will follow the WBF Code of Practice wherever its recommendations are relevant, and he enjoys the delegation of 12C3 powers from the Appeals Committee. A Co-Chief Tournament Director may act with the powers of and in place of the Chief Tournament Director in any matter." (There are other statements about the TD's procedures but not of relevance here) and "The Tournament Appeals Committee, also acting as the national authority as meant in Law 93C, shall have the power to determine all facts and decide all questions of law, whether under the Laws, the Proprieties, or these Rules and Regulations, arising from any appeal or investigation and its findings and decisions will be final. The Appeals Committee may confirm, reverse, vary or modify the findings or decisions of a Tournament Director (except those foreseen by Law 93B3.) and remove, increase or vary any penalty which may have been imposed, or substitute a different class of penalty or an adjusted score." and "The Appeals Committee will be entitled to interview and to take into account the statement or representation of any person and any documentary matter that it considers may assist the Committee to reach a decision. The WBF Code of Practice has been adopted by the EBL and applies in the procedures and decisions of the Committee unless directly in conflict with a specific statement in these Rules and Regulations." ~ 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 Jul 5 08:18:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64MI9h26167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 08:18:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dc-mx08.cluster1.charter.net (dc-mx08.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.8.18]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g64MI4H26163 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 08:18:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.196.230.145] (HELO oemcomputer) by dc-mx08.cluster1.charter.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.9) with SMTP id 62147516 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 18:04:03 -0400 Message-ID: <017d01c223a6$a7643220$91e6c418@charter.net> From: "Bill Bickford" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3D23EE73.1000305@skynet.be> <8P+BTtDhtEJ9EwiO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3D2468D8.3040205@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 18:03:39 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 11:25 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis > Which is why I advise you to answer "Stayman" in future. Whether that > is the truth or not. > > And don't hide behind "lying". You'll get a PP as well. I believe we should be subject to a "higher" law; it's called the Ten Commandments. Cheers............./Bill Bickford > > > > > > -- > 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 Jul 5 08:43:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64Mglt26188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 08:42:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g64MgfH26184 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 08:42:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.56.156] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17QFAR-0006UA-00; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 23:33:40 +0100 Message-ID: <006801c223aa$8b4bac40$2e29e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ton Kooijman" , "Grattan Endicott" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3D24169F.6070708@skynet.be> <001501c22351$a2769a00$0f8d403e@pacific> <00d301c2238c$e3530e60$7afef1c3@LNV> Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 22:56:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 7:11 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card > > > > Pencharz also changed the policy of the EBL AC in one > > other respect: where pass is an LA and will close > > the auction no 12C3 ruling to be considered. > > Grattan > > I don't understand a syllable of this statement. Did Bill > say that when a player makes a call that could be based > on UI where he has a LA the TD nor the AC should ever > decide to make a 12C3 ruling. That makes sense to me. > And is in accordance with the laws (bad news for Sweden). > It is a pity that comfort is sought in other areas to use > 12C3. > > > ton > +=+ If the auction does not close (i.e. partner of the offender still has a turn after the LA is enforced) a 12C3 ruling is still possible on the basis of what the partner may do since he does not have UI and is free to bid as he judges. . ~ 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 Jul 5 09:30:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64NTvM26444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 09:29:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g64NTqH26440 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 09:29:52 +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 JAA15305 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 09:30:58 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 09:11:55 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] 1NT overcall is...? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 09:15:39 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 05/07/2002 09:11:36 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: [snip] >> An East, expert enough to be playing at >>Table One of the Southwest Pacific Teams, would >>have known about the requirements of Law 73C and >>thus probably also violated Law 72B2. Since both >>Laws contain the strongest injunction - "must" - I >>would take action under Law 91A. [snip] David Stevenson replied: > I do not think there is any reason for disciplinary >action. No-one hit anyone else, for example. [snip] L73B2 specifically mentions "expulsion" as a sanction, so application of L91A is obviously appropriate to deal with a breach of L73B2. However, apart from L73B2 violations, is the appropriate use of L91A restricted to non-bridge bad behaviour such as fisticuffs or drunk and disorderly? 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 Jul 5 09:35:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64NZa226466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 09:35:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g64NZSH26458 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 09:35:28 +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 17QFuq-0000jV-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 00:21:39 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 20:28:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card References: <000801c221fb$64bb4e60$9d1ae150@dodona> <001c01c22323$77247260$f72be150@dodona> <3D2466CB.4050503@skynet.be> In-Reply-To: <3D2466CB.4050503@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: > >> >> It sounds illegal to me. OK, so an AC decided to go with fairness >> rather than follow the Law: > > >please add to this "the Law as I interpret it to be". Why do you assume people do not mean what they say? I mean they interpreted them in a way that is different from the decisions in Tabiano made with the support of Kooijman, Bavin, Endicott et al. >The AC in Salsomaggiore interpreted the law in some other way. Correct: but they should not be making up new interpretations of the law in defiance of their SO. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 09:35:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g64NZbh26467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 09:35:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g64NZTH26459 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 09:35:29 +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 17QFur-0000jZ-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 00:21:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 20:59:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <3D23EE73.1000305@skynet.be> <8P+BTtDhtEJ9EwiO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3D2468D8.3040205@skynet.be> In-Reply-To: <3D2468D8.3040205@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, once again. > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Herman De Wael writes >> >> >>>NO it does NOT. >>>Not in my opinion it doesn't. >>>You should not burden your opponents with trying to outguess you. >>>And at least then the opponents have something to base their actions on. >>>David suggests telling them absolutely nothing. That is singularily >>>unhelpful. >>> >> >> It is not true either. >> >> I have said that you should not lie to opponents, not that you should >> be unhelpful. >> > > >Nowhere in the Laws it is stated that you should or should not lie to >opponents, so please don't drag this in. So you think we should ignore L75A? >I've given many an example where it is seen that lying has nothing to >do with this matter. So what? >What is important is that opponents end up in possession of all pieces >of information to which they are entitled. Exactly: and that is what you refuse to do. The thing I really dislike though, is not that you want us to ignore the Laws and make this game much poorer than it is: it is misquoting so as to give the wrong impression. To refuse to answer a question when you have a helpful and truthful answer is obviously wrong, and I am very surprised that you think I would ever suggest such a thing. I have said that I do not think we should tell deliberate lies. Ok, we disagree: you think that misleading opponents as to your methods is acceptable. But that does not mean that I am going to hide other agreements or be unhelpful in any other way. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 11:06:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65165x26540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 11:06:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6515oH26521 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 11:05:50 +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 17QHKG-0005aC-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 01:52:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 01:08:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card References: <000801c221fb$64bb4e60$9d1ae150@dodona> <001c01c22323$77247260$f72be150@dodona> <002d01c223a3$78525be0$2e29e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002d01c223a3$78525be0$2e29e150@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"The Good Lord needed only Ten Commandments". > ~ Georges Clemenceau >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 1:48 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card > > >> >> It sounds illegal to me. OK, so an AC decided to go with >> fairness rather than follow the Law: that is *exactly* what >> we have been complaining about ACBL ACs for some years. >> Why is it right when an EBL AC does it? >> >+=+ My previous comments refer to the Committee's finding >as to the state of the law. It is misconceived to say that the >AC decided "to go with fairness"; the AC explored the law >on the subject and found scope in it for the Director to do >as he did in the circumstances in which he did it. +=+ >> >> Of course we know that Mr Riccardi is in a minority in his >> treatment of claims - and by a minority I mean he has no >> support from the European TDs. >> >+=+ I think it is a little difficult to argue that Antonio has >no support from the European TDs; I gather there was >lengthy consultation amongst senior TDs there concerning >the application of Law 70A - possibly including the Co-CTD. >The Committee report repeats the decision of an earlier AC >that 12C3 cannot be used. +=+ >> >----------- \x/ ----------- >> >> Or do ACs assume that the decisions of Tabiano >> have no force? >> >+=+ The contents of a seminar for TDs are not included >in the rules and regulations for Championships. They >constitute advice not regulation. What the regulations >said was: > "The Tournament Director's responsibilities are >in the main covered by Law 81. The Director will follow >the WBF Code of Practice wherever its recommendations >are relevant, and he enjoys the delegation of 12C3 >powers from the Appeals Committee. A Co-Chief >Tournament Director may act with the powers of and in >place of the Chief Tournament Director in any matter." >(There are other statements about the TD's procedures >but not of relevance here) > and > "The Tournament Appeals Committee, also acting >as the national authority as meant in Law 93C, shall >have the power to determine all facts and decide all >questions of law, whether under the Laws, the >Proprieties, or these Rules and Regulations, arising >from any appeal or investigation and its findings and >decisions will be final. The Appeals Committee may >confirm, reverse, vary or modify the findings or >decisions of a Tournament Director (except those >foreseen by Law 93B3.) and remove, increase or vary >any penalty which may have been imposed, or >substitute a different class of penalty or an adjusted >score." > and > "The Appeals Committee will be entitled to interview >and to take into account the statement or representation >of any person and any documentary matter that it >considers may assist the Committee to reach a decision. >The WBF Code of Practice has been adopted by the EBL >and applies in the procedures and decisions of the >Committee unless directly in conflict with a specific >statement in these Rules and Regulations." You can swallow us with words, Grattan, but after the efforts of the last few years by the WBFLC, yourself, and many others to teach people the Laws, the spectacle of ACs suddenly running wild and making up new Laws to suit themselves is not edifying. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 11:06:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65164D26539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 11:06:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6515oH26524 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 11:05:51 +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 17QHKG-0005aD-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 01:52:02 +0100 Message-ID: <13hDtOIecOJ9EwgB@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 01:23:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card References: <3D24169F.6070708@skynet.be> <001501c22351$a2769a00$0f8d403e@pacific> <00d301c2238c$e3530e60$7afef1c3@LNV> In-Reply-To: <00d301c2238c$e3530e60$7afef1c3@LNV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton Kooijman writes >> Pencharz also changed the policy of the EBL AC in one >> other respect: where pass is an LA and will close >> the auction no 12C3 ruling to be considered. > >Grattan >I don't understand a syllable of this statement. Did Bill say that when a >player makes a call that could be based on UI where he has a LA the TD nor >the AC should ever decide to make a 12C3 ruling. That makes sense to me. And >is in accordance with the laws (bad news for Sweden). It is a pity that >comfort is sought in other areas to use 12C3. What happens when there are other LAs? It seems a strange decision, often right, perhaps, though what about the number of tricks made? And what about times when it is wrong? Let me see. Suppose the bidding goes 1D P 3D P ? Now, if the 3D bidder had made it clear that he was considering bidding 2NT instead then you might consider the UI suggests bidding 3NT rather than trying for game in diamonds. Naturally the player bids 3NT and makes nine tricks. Let us suppose we poll 10 players. 3 pass, 3 bid 3NT, and 4 bid 5D. So those three bids look like LAs. If we ignore the Pencharz rule, we disallow 3NT, and give a L12C3 ruling of [say] 50% 3D+1 + 50% 5D-1 But the Pencharz rule means we have to give 100% 3D+1, ie it benefits the offending side. Is this really what he means? Of course we do not include 3NT in the percentages - do we? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 11:06:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65164326538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 11:06:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6515pH26527 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 11:05:51 +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 17QHKG-0005aE-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 01:52:02 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 01:31:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >DWS wrote: > >> Tim West-meads writes >> >> >Another >> >area where weighted scores are currently limited is UI cases where the >> >person in possession of UI has taken a clear majority action that >> >nevertheless admits of a less successful LA. Maybe one should >> consider >permitting the UI suggested action *some* weight in the final >> calculation. >> >For example if you think a UK player took, in good faith, an action >> that >"Nearly 70% of similar players would take" then it might be >> reasonable to >weight that action at 50% in subsequent adjustments. >> >> Just remember what you are doing. If a player follows L73C he gets a >> bad score: if he ignores L73C he gets 50% of a good score. So whatever >> good faith means, your method would reward people who have flouted the >> Law. I do not approve. > >In my experience when the suggested LA is a clear majority action it is >very difficult for players who are actively trying to follow the law. >"Good faith" means that an AC/TD can see why a player may not have >considered there to be LAs even though they may eventually decide >otherwise. > >I would never consider it "flouting" the law if an AC said "We think it is >very close but on balance consider ?? an LA". Getting a close decision >wrong is not "flouting". > >Perhaps ACs are also uncomfortable in the above situation and decide "yes >that was an action 70% of his peers would take" in order to avoid giving >an "overly severe" adjustment. Perhaps it would make people feeling more >comfortable about asking for a ruling when they should. Let us just see what you want. We play a match, and reach a situation where 60% of people would bid game, but we know that is correct because of UI. Because you and I know L73C, we pass as the Law requires. In the other room they bid game despite a similar UI position. Quite possibly they just misjudged that it was a 60% action: their ethics are irrelevant. If we follow your line then you and I have just lost 7 imps for being ethical. Now suppose that in the other room they are people who will try as hard as possible to gain any advantage with no regard for ethics. They will gain 7 imps as well. If you allow Reveley rulings then you punish highly ethical players. OK, so the people that gain might be ignorant, or might be unethical: they might be guilty of poor judgement or they might be deliberately trying it on. But why should we lose 7 imps for being ethical. Is that what you *really* want from the Law? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 11:06:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6515we26537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 11:05:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6515mH26518 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 11:05:48 +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 17QHKF-0005aB-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 01:51:59 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 01:03:56 +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 >I wrote: > >[snip] > >>> An East, expert enough to be playing at >>>Table One of the Southwest Pacific Teams, would >>>have known about the requirements of Law 73C and >>>thus probably also violated Law 72B2. Since both >>>Laws contain the strongest injunction - "must" - I >>>would take action under Law 91A. > >[snip] > >David Stevenson replied: > >> I do not think there is any reason for disciplinary >>action. No-one hit anyone else, for example. > >[snip] > >L73B2 specifically mentions "expulsion" as a sanction, >so application of L91A is obviously appropriate to >deal with a breach of L73B2. > >However, apart from L73B2 violations, is the appropriate >use of L91A restricted to non-bridge bad behaviour such >as fisticuffs or drunk and disorderly? I do not know - it is probably one of these "I know one when I see one cases". But I am sure it is not suitable for something happening frequently. As you say, pure cheating is the right sort of level, or fisticuffs. But most cases of discipline I think are of that sort. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 11:26:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g651QB626579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 11:26:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g651Q5H26575 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 11:26:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g651Esx30656 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 02:14:54 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 02:10:38 +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 > >I wrote: > >[snip] > >>> An East, expert enough to be playing at >>>Table One of the Southwest Pacific Teams, would >>>have known about the requirements of Law 73C and >>>thus probably also violated Law 72B2. Since both >>>Laws contain the strongest injunction - "must" - I >>>would take action under Law 91A. > >[snip] > >David Stevenson replied: > >> I do not think there is any reason for disciplinary >>action. No-one hit anyone else, for example. > >[snip] > >L73B2 specifically mentions "expulsion" as a sanction, >so application of L91A is obviously appropriate to >deal with a breach of L73B2. > >However, apart from L73B2 violations, is the appropriate >use of L91A restricted to non-bridge bad behaviour such >as fisticuffs or drunk and disorderly? > I expelled someone for commenting (after I'd made a UI ruling against him) "I don't need to cheat to get a good result", clearly referring to the opponent who'd called me over. When he wouldn't withdraw the comment I expelled him. I generally expel people for extreme rudeness after having given them the opportunity to apologise. I've also done it for fighting. Drunkenness I can handle, rudeness I won't tolerate. cheers john >Best wishes > >Richard > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 12:36:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g652aLI26639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 12:36:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g652aEH26635 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 12:36:14 +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 MAA07511 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 12:37:21 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 12:18:18 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 12:21:22 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 05/07/2002 12:17:58 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] Herman De Wael wrote: >>>The AC in Salsomaggiore interpreted the law in some >>>other way. David Stevenson replied: >>Correct: but they should not be making up new >>interpretations of the law in defiance of their SO. The relevant part of the Salsomaggiore regulations is: [snip] >The Tournament Appeals Committee, also acting as the >national authority as meant in Law 93C, shall have the >power to determine all facts and decide all questions >of law, [snip] That is, in Salsomaggiore a special case existed where the AC was *also* Lawfully the NA of the SO, and so could therefore interpret Law as it saw fit. The fact that I also think that this highly stretched interpretation is a ridiculous reading of Law is irrelevant. No doubt the WBFLC will provide unambiguous claim laws in the 2005 Laws. No doubt. No doubt. :-) 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 Jul 5 13:19:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g653JJP26672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 13:19:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g653JFH26668 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 13:19:15 +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 NAA12882 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 13:20:22 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 13:01:17 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 13:04:44 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 05/07/2002 01:00:57 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", I wrote: [snip] >>>>If Herman De Wael ommitted 99% "crap", and explained an >>>>undiscussed 2C call as Stayman, only to find pard was an >>>>ACBL club-level player who meant 2C as natural, then any >>>>TD would rule that Herman De Wael has given MI. >>>> >>>>But including the 99% "crap" correctly informs the >>>>opponents that no partnership agreement exists, and avoids >>>>the adverse TD ruling. Herman De Wael replied: >>>NO it does NOT. >>>Not in my opinion it doesn't. >>>You should not burden your opponents with trying to outguess >>>you. [snip] Herman's last sentence is a nutshell summary of the De Wael School interpretation of Law 75. Herman De Wael is a distinguished Director who has made many cogent contributions to BLML on other aspects of Law. Casual readers of BLML may therefore gain the misleading impression that the De Wael School is the valid interpretation (or one of several equally valid interpretations) of Law 75. However, given that Edgar Kaplan co-authored the 1975, 1987 and 1997 editions of the Laws, the Edgar Kaplan school is more likely to be a valid interpretation of Law 75. In the June 1985 Bridge World editorial, Australian CTD Richard Grenside wrote: [snip] >>A pair through a misunderstanding arrived at a contract of >>five diamonds, which went one off. Misinformation was given >>in the explanation of the hand pattern. It was clear to all >>concerned that with a correct explanation the final contract >>would not have exceeded three diamonds or, funnily enough, a >>makeable three notrump. The opponents claimed damage: with a >>certain line of defense, five diamonds could have been >>defeated by two tricks. On my thesis that "the director >>awards an adjusted score only if the nonoffending side has >>been damaged in relation to a rational result," I made no >>adjustment. >> >>My decisions are based on the aspect of *damage* - whether >>the nonoffending side received a worse score than would have >>occurred normally. What is your opinion? Edgar Kaplan replied: >Assume, for the moment, that the North-South players have fed >into a computer their complete partnership agreements. They >themselves are not permitted to make use of the computer >during play, of course, but their opponents, East-West, are >able to obtain the relevant print-out upon proper demand. In >effect, *that* is the position East-West are entitled to be >under law. [snip] >The same misunderstanding that puts North-South into a silly >five diamonds, down one, results in misinformation to East- >West, who consequently fail to beat the contract two. On that >statement of facts, the score should be adjusted to down two. [snip] >East-West have the legal right to learn what the actual North- >South partnership agreements are. When North-South have a >mix-up, East-West are entitled to benefit both from the fact >that North-South don't know what they are doing *and* from the >fact that East-West do know. This is true regardless of where >the East-West knowledge came from: > >(a) from the computer print-out; > >(b) from the North-South convention card; > >(c) from frequent partnership with North or with South; > >(d) from explanations at the table. > >In (d), of course, the enemy mix-up will frequently result in a >sincere but incorrect explanation, misinformation; yet East- >West are no less entitled to act on the basis of correct >information than in (a), (b), or (c). So, any resulting damage >to East-West, any poorer score than the one to which they were >entitled (*not*, please note, poorer than what would have been >normal in the absence of the enemy confusion), should be >redressed. So the distinguishing feature of the Edgar Kaplan school is that the opponents are entitled to a computer print-out of your *complete* partnership agreements, no more, no less. The De Wael School less logically states that the opponents should never have to outguess you, when a particular call does not appear on the computer print-out of your *complete* partnership agreements. 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 Jul 5 17:04:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6572hu26810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 17:02:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6572cH26806 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 17:02:38 +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 RAA20660 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 17:03:45 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 16:44:40 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Truth, Justice and Lady Macbeth To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 16:48:27 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 05/07/2002 04:44:20 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 "claim with ace of trumps and one other card", David Stevenson asked: [snip] >>But why should we lose 7 imps for being >>ethical? Is that what you *really* want >>from the Law? In the thread "Irrational claim", Peter Gill wrote: [snip] >the rare kind of player whose bridge record >might have been more glittering had he been >less ethical, sad but true to say [snip] One should not be ethical in the hope or expectation of a tangible reward of 7 imps. One should be ethical for its own sake; as the cliche states, "Virtue is its own reward." No matter how the Laws are constructed, slightly unethical players will gain a tangible edge over ethical players. My personal opinion is that there is no satisfaction in hollow victories gained partly through bad ethics. When I win a bridge event, I sleep better than Lady Macbeth did. 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 Jul 5 17:14:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g657Ccr26837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 17:12:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g657CWH26833 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 17:12:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48837.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.197]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g656wcH29745 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 08:58:38 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D254405.3030902@skynet.be> Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 09:00:21 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card References: <000801c221fb$64bb4e60$9d1ae150@dodona> <001c01c22323$77247260$f72be150@dodona> <3D2466CB.4050503@skynet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael writes > >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >>> It sounds illegal to me. OK, so an AC decided to go with fairness >>>rather than follow the Law: >>> >> >>please add to this "the Law as I interpret it to be". >> > > Why do you assume people do not mean what they say? I mean they > interpreted them in a way that is different from the decisions in > Tabiano made with the support of Kooijman, Bavin, Endicott et al. > May I quote from the write-up ? The Committee then turned its attention to Law 70A: In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer. The Committee considered that this sentence did not explicitly exclude a split decision. The Committee then confirmed the following reasoning: With regards to West, there is doubt as to what line declarer might take, and so to East/West the equitable result is 9 tricks to North/South. With regards to North, there is no doubt as to which line he would take (considering among other things that he actually took it), and so there are no doubtful points to be ruled on, and so the equitable result for North/South is 8 tricks. Now I am not saying that this is correct, but I am saying that it is an interpretation, which is not contradictory to anything said or stated before. Never done before, true, but I doubt if anyone has ever stated that "this sentence (of L70A) DOES explicitly exclude a split decision" So it is a different interpretation, true, but not necessarily "against the law". > >>The AC in Salsomaggiore interpreted the law in some other way. >> > > Correct: but they should not be making up new interpretations of the > law in defiance of their SO. > For these purposes, they ARE the SO. And the NBO. And the ZA. > -- 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 Jul 5 17:52:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g657oSx26882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 17:50:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g657oNH26878 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 17:50:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48837.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.197]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g657aOH19622 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 09:36:24 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D254CDF.70104@skynet.be> Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 09:38:07 +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: <3D23EE73.1000305@skynet.be> <8P+BTtDhtEJ9EwiO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3D2468D8.3040205@skynet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David, please try and understand some simple English. David Stevenson wrote: >> >>Nowhere in the Laws it is stated that you should or should not lie to >>opponents, so please don't drag this in. >> > > So you think we should ignore L75A? > Does L75A include the word "lying"? I am saying that opponents should receive the correct information regarding "agreements". I, as Director, judge that you have an agreement. You say you don't have that agreement. In that sense indeed, you should lie to your opponents. > >>What is important is that opponents end up in possession of all pieces >>of information to which they are entitled. >> > > Exactly: and that is what you refuse to do. > No, because they are NOT entitled to know that you are uncertain. Neither are they entitled to knowing that you have agreed this convention on a wednesday. In your opinion you'd also be lying by withholding them that important piece of information. > > > The thing I really dislike though, is not that you want us to ignore > the Laws and make this game much poorer than it is: it is misquoting so > as to give the wrong impression. > > To refuse to answer a question when you have a helpful and truthful > answer is obviously wrong, and I am very surprised that you think I > would ever suggest such a thing. > > I have said that I do not think we should tell deliberate lies. Ok, > we disagree: you think that misleading opponents as to your methods is > acceptable. > But it is not misleading - it is telling the agreement. It is you who is withholding the method, by not saying it is Stayman, or at best enshrouding it, by saying 100 words instead of one. > But that does not mean that I am going to hide other agreements or be > unhelpful in any other way. > I have never suggested that you'd be in any way unethical, far from it David. I'm just saying that you are not being helpful when replying "no agreement". And not because that is not the truth, because it may well be, but because the director will judge it to be irrelevant when you are apparently on the same track. Don't you agree that if one player bids 2Cl with 4-4 in the majors, and the other responds 2He with a minimum, 4He and 4Cl, that this sounds like Stayman? Would you, as Director, not also rule that "Stayman" is the only correct explanation? Would you not also feel that even if you believe the pair saying they never played together, that the opponents were entitled to the knowledge that 2Cl asked for the majors? Look at it from the point of a director and tell me if you can agree with that ruling, in certain circumstances? Which is why I advise players to answer "Stayman", even if they are not certain. You have still not ever given me an example where answering "Stayman" instead of "Stayman, but I'm not certain" damages opponents in any legal way. > -- 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 Jul 5 18:01:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g657xal26895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 17:59:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g657xUH26891 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 17:59:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.80.65] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17QNrH-0000hA-00; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 08:50:29 +0100 Message-ID: <003c01c223f8$5414b520$4150e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , "bridge-laws" References: <000801c221fb$64bb4e60$9d1ae150@dodona> <001c01c22323$77247260$f72be150@dodona> <002d01c223a3$78525be0$2e29e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 08:47:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 1:08 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card > > You can swallow us with words, Grattan, but after the > efforts of the last few years by the WBFLC, yourself, and > many others to teach people the Laws, the spectacle of > ACs suddenly running wild and making up new Laws to > suit themselves is not edifying. > +=+ I am only asking you to have the facts right. Your email had them wrong. It would be inappropriate for me to debate the decision of the AC to uphold the Director's ruling. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 18:03:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6582T926911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 18:02:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6582NH26907 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 18:02:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48837.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.197]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g657mW819377 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 09:48:32 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D254FB7.1060804@skynet.be> Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 09:50:15 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school 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 Richard. Quite valid contribution, this. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > In the thread "Steps in an appeal analysis", I wrote: > > [snip] > > >>>>>If Herman De Wael ommitted 99% "crap", and explained an >>>>>undiscussed 2C call as Stayman, only to find pard was an >>>>>ACBL club-level player who meant 2C as natural, then any >>>>>TD would rule that Herman De Wael has given MI. >>>>> >>>>>But including the 99% "crap" correctly informs the >>>>>opponents that no partnership agreement exists, and avoids >>>>>the adverse TD ruling. >>>>> > > Herman De Wael replied: > > >>>>NO it does NOT. >>>>Not in my opinion it doesn't. >>>>You should not burden your opponents with trying to outguess >>>>you. >>>> > > [snip] > > Herman's last sentence is a nutshell summary of the De Wael > School interpretation of Law 75. > > Herman De Wael is a distinguished Director who has made many > cogent contributions to BLML on other aspects of Law. Casual > readers of BLML may therefore gain the misleading impression > that the De Wael School is the valid interpretation (or one of > several equally valid interpretations) of Law 75. > I have never claimed to be the only authority on this subject. The very fact that this is called a "school" should tell newcomers that there are other schools. > However, given that Edgar Kaplan co-authored the 1975, 1987 and > 1997 editions of the Laws, the Edgar Kaplan school is more > likely to be a valid interpretation of Law 75. > In what you write below, there is not a lot of difference with my views. [snip] > > Edgar Kaplan replied: > > >>Assume, for the moment, that the North-South players have fed >>into a computer their complete partnership agreements. They >>themselves are not permitted to make use of the computer >>during play, of course, but their opponents, East-West, are >>able to obtain the relevant print-out upon proper demand. In >>effect, *that* is the position East-West are entitled to be >>under law. >> > > [snip] > > >>The same misunderstanding that puts North-South into a silly >>five diamonds, down one, results in misinformation to East- >>West, who consequently fail to beat the contract two. On that >>statement of facts, the score should be adjusted to down two. >> > > [snip] > > >>East-West have the legal right to learn what the actual North- >>South partnership agreements are. When North-South have a >>mix-up, East-West are entitled to benefit both from the fact >>that North-South don't know what they are doing *and* from the >>fact that East-West do know. This is true regardless of where >>the East-West knowledge came from: >> >>(a) from the computer print-out; >> >>(b) from the North-South convention card; >> >>(c) from frequent partnership with North or with South; >> >>(d) from explanations at the table. >> >>In (d), of course, the enemy mix-up will frequently result in a >>sincere but incorrect explanation, misinformation; yet East- >>West are no less entitled to act on the basis of correct >>information than in (a), (b), or (c). So, any resulting damage >>to East-West, any poorer score than the one to which they were >>entitled (*not*, please note, poorer than what would have been >>normal in the absence of the enemy confusion), should be >>redressed. >> > While the explanations at the table are of course UI to opponents, if they have a complete print-out, they will not also get explanations. The misunderstanding is NOT a piece of information opponents are entitled to. > So the distinguishing feature of the Edgar Kaplan school is that > the opponents are entitled to a computer print-out of your > *complete* partnership agreements, no more, no less. > indeed: *no more* > The De Wael School less logically states that the opponents > should never have to outguess you, when a particular call does > not appear on the computer print-out of your *complete* > partnership agreements. > aha - but you seem to assume that the players themselves have correctly filled out the computer print-out, and that everything not on there is not an agreement. The real world does not work like that. In the case I've been discussing with David and Ed, their 2Cl as Stayman is not among the things they agreed upon. Yet as Director, I may choose to rule that since they both understood it in the same manner, Stayman is in fact among their agreements. By the same token, it would be on the hypothetical print-out of the hypothetical complete system. Mind you, I am not saying that every auction where they agree on the meaning is an agreement, only that there are more agreements than those "agreed upon beforehand". > 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 Jul 5 19:08:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6597f726978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 19:07:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6597ZH26974 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 19:07:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (hbge-216-37-227-55.dsl.hbge.epix.net [216.37.227.55]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g658rj3f028508 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 04:53:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 04:54:41 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <3D23EE73.1000305@skynet.be> <8P+BTtDhtEJ9EwiO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3D2468D8.3040205@skynet.be> <3D254CDF.70104@skynet.be> In-Reply-To: <3D254CDF.70104@skynet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 09:38:07 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: Just a minor point, Herman.... > >Don't you agree that if one player bids 2Cl with 4-4 in the majors, >and the other responds 2He with a minimum, 4He and 4Cl, that this >sounds like Stayman? Would you, as Director, not also rule that >"Stayman" is the only correct explanation? Would you not also feel >that even if you believe the pair saying they never played together, >that the opponents were entitled to the knowledge that 2Cl asked for >the majors? I think if you have 4 hearts and 4 clubs, then responding 2H if you *genuinely* don't know whether 2C is Stayman or natural is only sensible, because with your 4 card support if partner's 2C turns out to be natural, you're probably not going to meet up with a total disaster if partner returns to 3C. The same can't be said for passing 2C if partner holds the classic weak runout, 4-4-5-0. The 4C & 4H holding gives you the perfect opportunity to hedge your bets. I think you'd make a far better case to support your views if you gave the responder 4 hearts and only *two* clubs, assuming that two clubs is the minimum that (presumably) opener can hold. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 19:32:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g659WWp26996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 19:32:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g659WQH26992 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 19:32:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from conversion-daemon by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2000.10.12.16.25.p8) id <0GYR00601R6Y4L@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 11:18:35 +0200 (MEST) Received: from Isis124.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis124.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.124]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2000.10.12.16.25.p8) with ESMTP id <0GYR0036YR6WHU@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 11:18:34 +0200 (MEST) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 11:18:30 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re[2]: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-reply-to: <3D254CDF.70104@skynet.be> To: Bridge Laws Reply-to: Richard Bley Message-id: <47940983.20020705111830@uni-duesseldorf.de> Organization: Univ. =?UNKNOWN?Q?D=FCsseldorf?= MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.60e) Educational Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3D23EE73.1000305@skynet.be> <8P+BTtDhtEJ9EwiO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3D2468D8.3040205@skynet.be> <3D254CDF.70104@skynet.be> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g659WSH26993 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hallo Herman, Freitag, 5. Juli 2002, 11:16:51 AM, schriebst Du: H> David, please try and understand some simple English. H> David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>>Nowhere in the Laws it is stated that you should or should not lie to >>>opponents, so please don't drag this in. >>> >> >> So you think we should ignore L75A? >> H> Does L75A include the word "lying"? H> I am saying that opponents should receive the correct information H> regarding "agreements". H> I, as Director, judge that you have an agreement. You say you don't H> have that agreement. In that sense indeed, you should lie to your H> opponents. >> >>>What is important is that opponents end up in possession of all pieces >>>of information to which they are entitled. >>> >> >> Exactly: and that is what you refuse to do. >> H> No, because they are NOT entitled to know that you are uncertain. H> Neither are they entitled to knowing that you have agreed this H> convention on a wednesday. In your opinion you'd also be lying by H> withholding them that important piece of information. >> >> >> The thing I really dislike though, is not that you want us to ignore >> the Laws and make this game much poorer than it is: it is misquoting so >> as to give the wrong impression. >> >> To refuse to answer a question when you have a helpful and truthful >> answer is obviously wrong, and I am very surprised that you think I >> would ever suggest such a thing. >> >> I have said that I do not think we should tell deliberate lies. Ok, >> we disagree: you think that misleading opponents as to your methods is >> acceptable. >> H> But it is not misleading - it is telling the agreement. It is you who H> is withholding the method, by not saying it is Stayman, or at best H> enshrouding it, by saying 100 words instead of one. >> But that does not mean that I am going to hide other agreements or be >> unhelpful in any other way. >> H> I have never suggested that you'd be in any way unethical, far from it H> David. I'm just saying that you are not being helpful when replying H> "no agreement". And not because that is not the truth, because it may H> well be, but because the director will judge it to be irrelevant when H> you are apparently on the same track. H> Don't you agree that if one player bids 2Cl with 4-4 in the majors, H> and the other responds 2He with a minimum, 4He and 4Cl, that this H> sounds like Stayman? Would you, as Director, not also rule that H> "Stayman" is the only correct explanation? Would you not also feel H> that even if you believe the pair saying they never played together, H> that the opponents were entitled to the knowledge that 2Cl asked for H> the majors? H> Look at it from the point of a director and tell me if you can agree H> with that ruling, in certain circumstances? H> Which is why I advise players to answer "Stayman", even if they are H> not certain. H> You have still not ever given me an example where answering "Stayman" H> instead of "Stayman, but I'm not certain" damages opponents in any H> legal way. Maybe: 1H 1NT P 2C P 2S P 3C with a first-time partner. (With Screens of course) With a first-time partner I would guess it is NAT and to play (even if I tell opps it is "stayman, but I´m not sure") -- Gruß Richard mailto:bley@uni-duesseldorf.de -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 20:11:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65AAnl27057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 20:10:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g65AAaH27045 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 20:10:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g659ukS06328 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 10:56:46 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 10:56 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school 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: <3D254FB7.1060804@skynet.be> HdW wrote: > Yet as Director, I > may choose to rule that since they both understood it in the same > manner, Stayman is in fact among their agreements. By the same token, > it would be on the hypothetical print-out of the hypothetical complete > system. The hypothetical printout covers their complete agreements - not a complete system (a very different beast). The printout might read 2C is undiscussed. Both players are aware that it could be either natural or Stayman and are also aware that their partner will know this. David knows that "systems off" is the US default but doesn't realise that Ed knows that "systems on" is the practice in Liverpool. And now every player at the table can, in full knowledge of what the agreements are, look at their hands and make their own judgements. (Ed/David may be operating under constraints imposed by UI). Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 20:11:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65AAm127056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 20:10:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g65AAYH27040 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 20:10:35 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g659ujs06314 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 10:56:45 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 10:56 +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: <3D254CDF.70104@skynet.be> HdW wrote: > No, because they are NOT entitled to know that you are uncertain. > Neither are they entitled to knowing that you have agreed this > convention on a wednesday. In your opinion you'd also be lying by > withholding them that important piece of information. If an ambiguous bid occurs in one of my auctions there is a chance that both partner and I will know it is ambiguous - and use this information in selecting our subsequent calls. Of course opponents are entitled to the information. If we agreed a convention last Wednesday I will take that into account when selecting my calls as well. Again I don't see why opponents aren't entitled to the same information I have myself. Opponents are not entitled to the information that we are having a misunderstanding - they are entitled to relevant information about our agreements that may help them arrive at such a conclusion. 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 Jul 5 20:11:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65AAlh27055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 20:10:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g65AAXH27038 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 20:10:34 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g659uhu06287 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 10:56:43 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 10:56 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card 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: <13hDtOIecOJ9EwgB@blakjak.demon.co.uk> > > If we ignore the Pencharz rule, we disallow 3NT, and give a L12C3 > ruling of [say] > > 50% 3D+1 > + 50% 5D-1 > > But the Pencharz rule means we have to give 100% 3D+1, ie it benefits > the offending side. Is this really what he means? > > Of course we do not include 3NT in the percentages - do we? What if we can argue that the lead to 3N was based on the call being clear-cut. I could imagine hands where e.g. 50% of 5D-1 30% of 3D+1 20% of 3N-1 Might be our expected outcome had the game been played with screens. NB, even in the approach I suggest in another thread the 3N making score would not come close to being a candidate for inclusion. 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 Jul 5 20:11:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65AAjP27054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 20:10:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g65AAWH27035 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 20:10:32 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g659ufe06234 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 10:56:41 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 10:56 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card 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: > Let us just see what you want. We play a match, and reach a situation > where 60% of people would bid game, but we know that is correct because > of UI. Because you and I know L73C, we pass as the Law requires. 60% doesn't come in to L73c at all. But yes we make a pass under L73c when it seems right so to do. > In the other room they bid game despite a similar UI position. Quite > possibly they just misjudged that it was a 60% action: their ethics are > irrelevant. If we follow your line then you and I have just lost 7 imps > for being ethical. Firstly 60% wasn't what I had in mind as "very close to 70%". I am interested here in cases that are right on the borderline. I could live with a formula like "maximum weighting for inclusion = 55-(5 x (70- estimated %age)). Which would restrict our loss to 1 IMP. We could also tackle how we expect players to handle "close 73c decisions". If you consider the decision on whether a call "carefully avoids taking advantage" to be close then you should always call the TD at the end of the hand. > But why should we lose 7 imps for being ethical. Is that what you > *really* want from the Law? Of course not. But I know that ethical players lose out under the current laws. Ethical players don't want risk a ruling and set their "personal" threshold beyond the standards required in law (ask JP how he and I went out of the Nicko because of such ethics - I agree with what he did, but am not so comfortable with the law that made him do it). I am pretty sure I am not the only person who doesn't call the TD in borderline cases by opponents because I believe a ruling would not give a fair score. Perhaps the facility to request a "partial adjustment" would increase the comfort with which rulings can be requested by NOS and reduce the temptation of OS to persuade themselves that an action is completely justified. David, please don't think I am dismissing your concerns - I share them. I just feel that *looking* at different approaches to this issue might improve the game. 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 Jul 5 21:51:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65BpAs27251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 21:51:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g65Bp4H27247 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 21:51:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48837.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.197]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g65Bb8827296 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 13:37:08 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D258549.4000701@skynet.be> Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 13:38:49 +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: <3D23EE73.1000305@skynet.be> <8P+BTtDhtEJ9EwiO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3D2468D8.3040205@skynet.be> <3D254CDF.70104@skynet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Indeed a minor point, Brian, but a good one. All your point adds is to turn it into a better example. Brian Meadows wrote: > On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 09:38:07 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > Just a minor point, Herman.... > > >>Don't you agree that if one player bids 2Cl with 4-4 in the majors, >>and the other responds 2He with a minimum, 4He and 4Cl, that this >>sounds like Stayman? Would you, as Director, not also rule that >>"Stayman" is the only correct explanation? Would you not also feel >>that even if you believe the pair saying they never played together, >>that the opponents were entitled to the knowledge that 2Cl asked for >>the majors? >> > > I think if you have 4 hearts and 4 clubs, then responding 2H if > you *genuinely* don't know whether 2C is Stayman or natural is > only sensible, because with your 4 card support if partner's 2C > turns out to be natural, you're probably not going to meet up > with a total disaster if partner returns to 3C. The same can't be > said for passing 2C if partner holds the classic weak runout, > 4-4-5-0. The 4C & 4H holding gives you the perfect opportunity to > hedge your bets. > > I think you'd make a far better case to support your views if you > gave the responder 4 hearts and only *two* clubs, assuming that > two clubs is the minimum that (presumably) opener can hold. > > > > Brian. > > -- 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 Jul 5 21:56:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65BuU827264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 21:56:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g65BuOH27260 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 21:56:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48837.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.197]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g65BgR924101 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 13:42:27 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D258689.60201@skynet.be> Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 13:44:09 +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: <3D23EE73.1000305@skynet.be> <8P+BTtDhtEJ9EwiO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3D2468D8.3040205@skynet.be> <3D254CDF.70104@skynet.be> <47940983.20020705111830@uni-duesseldorf.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Richard, long time no read ... Richard Bley wrote: > Hallo Herman, > > > H> You have still not ever given me an example where answering "Stayman" > H> instead of "Stayman, but I'm not certain" damages opponents in any > H> legal way. > > Maybe: > > 1H 1NT P 2C > P 2S P 3C with a first-time partner. > > (With Screens of course) > > With a first-time partner I would guess it is NAT and to play (even if > I tell opps it is "stayman, but I´m not sure") > Indeed Richard, but you are merely criticizing the example, not the principle. I agree that there will be cases where there is genuinely no partnership "prior discussion" and where there is very little common background to be able to fall back on. I am talking of cases where there is such a background, and opponents are less familial with that than the partners are. I believe such is a majority of cases. I agree that when there is a possibility for hedging your bets and catering for both possible meanings of a bid, then it is also best to tell opponents of the same, if only to make clear to them that you are hedging. > > -- 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 Jul 5 21:59:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65BxM027276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 21:59:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g65BxGH27272 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 21:59:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48837.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.197]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g65BjOH18425 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 13:45:24 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D25873A.30102@skynet.be> Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 13:47:06 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] 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 Tim, Tim West-meads wrote: > In-Reply-To: <3D254CDF.70104@skynet.be> > HdW wrote: > > >>No, because they are NOT entitled to know that you are uncertain. >>Neither are they entitled to knowing that you have agreed this >>convention on a wednesday. In your opinion you'd also be lying by >>withholding them that important piece of information. >> > > If an ambiguous bid occurs in one of my auctions there is a chance that > both partner and I will know it is ambiguous - and use this information in > selecting our subsequent calls. Of course opponents are entitled to the > information. If we agreed a convention last Wednesday I will take that > into account when selecting my calls as well. Again I don't see why > opponents aren't entitled to the same information I have myself. > Granted, as long as it is accepted by the TD as such. Which it won't often be, seen as he is guided by the footnote to assume misinformation. > Opponents are not entitled to the information that we are having a > misunderstanding - they are entitled to relevant information about our > agreements that may help them arrive at such a conclusion. > No they are not. Where does it say they are. If I explain a bid, do I have to add ", but that was put into our system notes on 27/4/1987 and we have not encoutered the series since" ? No I don't. > Tim > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > -- 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 Jul 5 22:05:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65C5Ur27292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 22:05:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g65C5PH27288 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 22:05:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48837.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.197]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g65BpW819032 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 13:51:32 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2588AA.3050204@skynet.be> Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 13:53:14 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > In-Reply-To: <3D254FB7.1060804@skynet.be> > HdW wrote: > >>Yet as Director, I >>may choose to rule that since they both understood it in the same >>manner, Stayman is in fact among their agreements. By the same token, >>it would be on the hypothetical print-out of the hypothetical complete >>system. >> > > The hypothetical printout covers their complete agreements - not a > complete system (a very different beast). The printout might read > > 2C is undiscussed. Both players are aware that it could be either natural > or Stayman and are also aware that their partner will know this. David > knows that "systems off" is the US default but doesn't realise that Ed > knows that "systems on" is the practice in Liverpool. > Sorry Tim, but this is wrong. Kaplan's "computer print-out" is hypothetical. It includes the full system, both discussed and undiscussed. It is the theoretical sum of knowledge to which the opponents are entitled. if I, as Director, rule that 2Cl=Stayman, then that is on the print-out. Kaplan's print-out is not a full reference to discussions, but to the system. And I as director will be guided by Ed's hand rather than by David and Ed's uncorroborated self-serving statements. > And now every player at the table can, in full knowledge of what the > agreements are, look at their hands and make their own judgements. > (Ed/David may be operating under constraints imposed by UI). > > 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/ > > > -- 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 Jul 5 22:23:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65CNEr27417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 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 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 g65CN9H27413 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 22:23:09 +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 OAA05145; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 14:06:42 +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 OAA15500; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 14:09:05 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020705140231.00a62d30@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 14:17:13 +0200 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] 1NT overcall is...? In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:03 5/07/2002 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >However, apart from L73B2 violations, is the appropriate > >use of L91A restricted to non-bridge bad behaviour such > >as fisticuffs or drunk and disorderly? > > I do not know - it is probably one of these "I know one when I see one >cases". But I am sure it is not suitable for something happening >frequently. As you say, pure cheating is the right sort of level, or >fisticuffs. But most cases of discipline I think are of that sort. AG : expulsion, or any disciplinary action, is for deliberate acts. The list should never be made exhaustive, since you will never know what people are capable of, but includes cheating, playing in a state of drunkenness, spoiling a result by bidding all deals to 7NT, insulting players or TDs, refusing to comply with the TD's instructions, ... Those who would have taken disciplinary action against East in the case which started this thread think that the use of UI fits within this category. I strongly disagree, because such an use isn't always deliberate, because the laws say that it hasn't to be deliberate to trigger an adjustment, and because even if the player is perfectly aware of the UI, he might in good faith not know what bid would be the most backwards-bending. Except in the rare case where a player or pair seems to use UI purposely, or repeatedly takes the 'suggested' alternative, a score adjustment and slight PP are enough. Here, I feel a weighted score (along the lines of 6C 60%, 7C or 6NT 40%, or anything the AC sees fit) would be OK. Also, you should take into account the added pressure from 'Fert' bids. Their main interest is to create havoc in opponents' bidding, including misunderstandings, so you shouldn't be severe when it happens. In particular, 'convention disruption' should never be invoked here. (Don't think I dislike Ferts up to the point where I want their opponents to be protected. I've played a Fert 1D more than 10 years, before it was banned at the non-expert level. But my experience tells me that misunderstandings by the opponents verge to the unavoidable, thus should not be taken as an offence). 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 Jul 5 22:38:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65CckH27500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 22:38:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g65CceH27496 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 22:38:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g65COmr02145 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 14:24:49 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jul 05 14:20:13 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KJQM1FB8A8000XKI@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 14:24:39 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <3CDN3VV4>; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 14:24:10 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 14:24:29 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Now I am not saying that this is correct, but I am saying that it is > an interpretation, which is not contradictory to anything said or > stated before. Never done before, true, but I doubt if anyone > has ever > stated that > "this sentence (of L70A) DOES explicitly exclude a split decision" This kind of reasoning sounds silly to me. It is like somebody saying that 2 + 2 equals 4.3 , somebody pointing out that the 'rest of the world' considers it to add up to 4, after which the answer is: but the rest of world never explicitly excluded the answer 4.3, so your foult 'rest of the world'. Read the contribution of Jesper on this subject. That is how the rest of the world thinks about this issue, which almost proofs that the possibility of a split score is explicitly excluded. We should not expect from AC's that they ever admit to have made a mistake, so let it be enough when the rest of the world agrees on that mistake. That might close this discussion. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 22:44:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65Ci0a27520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 22:44:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g65ChsH27516 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 22:43:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g65CU3r02906 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 14:30:04 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jul 05 14:25:32 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KJQM7KPYWG000XM9@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 14:29:37 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <3CDN3V86>; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 14:29:07 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 14:29:35 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card To: "'twm@cix.compulink.co.uk'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > David, please don't think I am dismissing your concerns - I > share them. I > just feel that *looking* at different approaches to this issue might > improve the game. > > Tim It does, and it also illustrates how complex this issue is. I have 2 hurrahs for the winning suggestion from this group. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 22:51:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65CpV727532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 22:51:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g65CpQH27528 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 22:51:26 +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 17QSLB-0002nj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 08:37:37 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020705082516.00ab1ef0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 08:38:55 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations In-Reply-To: <002701c2238e$6329b0c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <200207041742.NAA06805@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:09 PM 7/4/02, Sven wrote: >There is obviously a demanding need for clarifications on where we >draw the line between "irrational" and not so irrational plays. I fully agree; Sven's statement seems obvious and unarguable to me. Which is why the WBF interpretation of the footnote is so terribly flawed for real-life application. We cannot attempt to clarify where we draw the line unless we agree that there is a line to be drawn *somewhere*. The WBF tells us that there is no such line -- there are, rather, a near-infinite number of lines, one for every possible "class of player involved". Once we accept that interpretation, we have no choice but to allow each individual TD or AC facing a claim case to put the line wherever they want to, based on their individual judgments of the "class of player" who made the claim. We can argue all we want about whether a given play is "'irrational'" or "not so irrational", but our arguments will be nothing more than meaningless noises unless and until we agree that there us a distinction there to be made, not a moving target that changes from one player to the next. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 23:26:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65DQLp27569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 23:26:21 +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 (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g65DQGH27565 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 23:26:16 +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 PAA16194; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 15:10:01 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id PAA10970; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 15:12:25 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020705150117.00a655e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 15:20:33 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school In-Reply-To: <3D2588AA.3050204@skynet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:53 5/07/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Kaplan's "computer print-out" is hypothetical. It includes the full >system, both discussed and undiscussed. It is the theoretical sum of >knowledge to which the opponents are entitled. if I, as Director, rule >that 2Cl=Stayman, then that is on the print-out. Kaplan's print-out is >not a full reference to discussions, but to the system. AG : I don't feel comfortable with this. The 'undiscussed' part of the system will mainly consist of 'obvious' inferences from bridge logic. Several days ago, after I handed Gilles complete notes on Transfer-Walsh, he brought to my attention the fact that in the following sequence : 1C 1D* * 4+ hearts 1S** 2D*** ** 4 spades, denies 3 hearts unless a maximum 2H *** 4SF 2H couldn't show 3 cards in H, because of the inferences of the 1S bid. I didn't write it down because it was fairly obvious, but Gilles' doctrine is that "what goes without saying should rather be said". If I had alerted and explained the 1S bid, I wouldn't feel compelled to alert the 2H bid as showing only 2 cards. This is but bridge logic. The opponents are not 'entitled' to have their attention drawn to this knowledge (L75C). If this case seems too intricated, consider the case of a pair who plays that 1NT-2C shows at least one 4-card major, and produces the sequence 1NT-2C-2H-3NT. Would you feel compelled to alert 3NT ? Would you have written it down in your system notes ? This is evidence that undiscussed parts of the system will often be the parts that do not need to be explicitly revealed to the opponents. Herman's statement is thus a little bit too severe. I would say that Kaplan's notion of a printout is the total amount of knowledge the opponents are entitled to, but this is less than the full system. BTW, this is one of the strongest arguments for wholly codified systems : there will be *no* undiscussed, non-printed part of the system, thus less room for diverging interpretations. Perhaps less room for MI, too. 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 Jul 5 23:45:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65Dj1q27599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 23:45:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g65DitH27595 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 23:44:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id PAA19666; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 15:28:40 +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 PAA27983; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 15:31:04 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020705152331.00a5f5b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 15:39:10 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020705082516.00ab1ef0@pop.starpower.net> References: <002701c2238e$6329b0c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <200207041742.NAA06805@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 08:38 5/07/2002 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 03:09 PM 7/4/02, Sven wrote: > >>There is obviously a demanding need for clarifications on where we >>draw the line between "irrational" and not so irrational plays. > >I fully agree; Sven's statement seems obvious and unarguable to me. Which >is why the WBF interpretation of the footnote is so terribly flawed for >real-life application. > >We cannot attempt to clarify where we draw the line unless we agree that >there is a line to be drawn *somewhere*. The WBF tells us that there is >no such line -- there are, rather, a near-infinite number of lines, one >for every possible "class of player involved". Once we accept that >interpretation, we have no choice but to allow each individual TD or AC >facing a claim case to put the line wherever they want to, based on their >individual judgments of the "class of player" who made the claim. AG : I'm not quite sure about that interpretation (litotes).The common footnote to L69/70/71 speaks of 'inferior for the class of player involved', and of 'irrational', not of 'irrational for the class of player involved'. There are in fact three types of plays with regard to this distinction : a) normal plays, those which are to be expected of the player when his mind is alert and on the alert (fine antanaclasis, eh ?) ; b) bad plays, obviously inferior, perhaps dominated in the game-theoretical sense, which the player shouldn't do but could possibly do when cows fly by ; c) completely irrational plays. The line between a) and b) is strongly dependent on the class of the player involved. But the line between b) and c) seems to me fairly independent of it : a play which is irrational for one player will be irrational for another of a different level, beginners excepted. Said footnote tells us to include in our inventory of possible lines all of set (a U b) , but not set c. It is my belief that (a U b) can be determined with little concern for the player's ability. Best regards, Alain. >We can argue all we want about whether a given play is "'irrational'" or >"not so irrational", but our arguments will be nothing more than >meaningless noises unless and until we agree that there us a distinction >there to be made, not a moving target that changes from one player to the next. > > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 23:53:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65Dr3427652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 23:53:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g65DqvH27648 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 23:52:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g65Dd7r15270 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 15:39:08 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jul 05 15:34:34 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KJQOM6MG3I000XOM@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 15:38:39 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <3CDN3ZVV>; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 15:38:10 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 15:38:33 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Fw: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations To: "'Eric Landau'" , Bridge Laws Discussion List Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > At 03:09 PM 7/4/02, Sven wrote: > > >There is obviously a demanding need for clarifications on where we > >draw the line between "irrational" and not so irrational plays. > > I fully agree; Sven's statement seems obvious and unarguable to > me. Which is why the WBF interpretation of the footnote is > so terribly > flawed for real-life application. > > We cannot attempt to clarify where we draw the line unless we agree > that there is a line to be drawn *somewhere*. The WBF tells us that > there is no such line -- there are, rather, a near-infinite number of > lines, one for every possible "class of player involved". Once we > accept that interpretation, we have no choice but to allow each > individual TD or AC facing a claim case to put the line wherever they > want to, based on their individual judgments of the "class of player" > who made the claim. > > We can argue all we want about whether a given play is "'irrational'" > or "not so irrational", but our arguments will be nothing more than > meaningless noises unless and until we agree that there us a > distinction there to be made, not a moving target that > changes from one > player to the next. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 This sounds rather punitive towards the WBFLC. And it suggests that our (wrong) interpretation is the cause for all problems related to the standard of play when a claim is involved. Sounds strange to me, since in my jurisdiction it hardly ever is. But let me offer the following: you describe in a way so that TD's can use it uniformly what irratinal play is, and then the drafting committee considers to give irrational an absolute meaning. In a Houston case I just commented on with two tricks to go declarer has a high trump and another with dummy having a high trump with another other (I am not sure about the suits: let us make it hearts trumps, declarer has a diamond and dummy a club) RHO leads a club and declarer, a client with a pro as dummy (it should be in the rules that the pro always is declarer), takes his diamond in such a way that had he been defender it had been a played card. Now dummy says that nothing can go wrong any more and declarer takes the card back, ruffs and makes the last two tricks. The AC, or whatever the ACBL names it, allowed this play, saying that not ruffing would have been irrational. May I say that irrational in my opinion does not include any play that will be considered for the splittest moment by a player? If you accept that statement irrational has no absolute standard. If you accept an absolute standard, you have to deny what happened at this table. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 6 00:14:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65EDx627694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 00:14:00 +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-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 g65EDnH27684 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 00:13:49 +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 17QTcq-0001Tq-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 14:59:59 +0100 Message-ID: <82Qe8rB5ZYJ9Ewgf@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 12:43:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Truth, Justice and Lady Macbeth 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 > >In the thread "claim with ace of trumps and >one other card", David Stevenson asked: > >[snip] > >>>But why should we lose 7 imps for being >>>ethical? Is that what you *really* want >>>from the Law? > >In the thread "Irrational claim", Peter Gill >wrote: > >[snip] > >>the rare kind of player whose bridge record >>might have been more glittering had he been >>less ethical, sad but true to say > >[snip] > >One should not be ethical in the hope or >expectation of a tangible reward of 7 imps. > >One should be ethical for its own sake; as >the cliche states, "Virtue is its own reward." Of course. But that is no reason for the lawmakers to reward poorer ethics. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 6 00:14:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65EE6727696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 00:14:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g65EDmH27683 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 00:13:49 +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 17QTcq-0001Tp-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 14:59:59 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 12:43:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <3D23EE73.1000305@skynet.be> <8P+BTtDhtEJ9EwiO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3D2468D8.3040205@skynet.be> <3D254CDF.70104@skynet.be> In-Reply-To: <3D254CDF.70104@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, please try and understand some simple English. > >David Stevenson wrote: > >>> >>>Nowhere in the Laws it is stated that you should or should not lie to >>>opponents, so please don't drag this in. >>> >> >> So you think we should ignore L75A? >> > > >Does L75A include the word "lying"? >I am saying that opponents should receive the correct information >regarding "agreements". >I, as Director, judge that you have an agreement. You say you don't >have that agreement. In that sense indeed, you should lie to your >opponents. You are telling us the TD should do this when he judges they do *not* have an agreement. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 6 00:14:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65EE0U27695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 00:14:00 +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-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 g65EDmH27682 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 00:13:49 +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 17QTcq-0001To-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 14:59:58 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 12:43:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card References: <000801c221fb$64bb4e60$9d1ae150@dodona> <001c01c22323$77247260$f72be150@dodona> <3D2466CB.4050503@skynet.be> <3D254405.3030902@skynet.be> In-Reply-To: <3D254405.3030902@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: >> Herman De Wael writes >>>David Stevenson wrote: >>>> It sounds illegal to me. OK, so an AC decided to go with fairness >>>>rather than follow the Law: >>>please add to this "the Law as I interpret it to be". >> Why do you assume people do not mean what they say? I mean they >> interpreted them in a way that is different from the decisions in >> Tabiano made with the support of Kooijman, Bavin, Endicott et al. >May I quote from the write-up ? > >The Committee then turned its attention to Law 70A: >In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result of >the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful >points shall be resolved against the claimer. >The Committee considered that this sentence did not explicitly exclude >a split decision. >The Committee then confirmed the following reasoning: >With regards to West, there is doubt as to what line declarer might >take, and so to East/West the equitable result is 9 tricks to North/South. >With regards to North, there is no doubt as to which line he would >take (considering among other things that he actually took it), and so >there are no doubtful points to be ruled on, and so the equitable >result for North/South is 8 tricks. > >Now I am not saying that this is correct, but I am saying that it is >an interpretation, which is not contradictory to anything said or >stated before. Never done before, true, but I doubt if anyone has ever >stated that >"this sentence (of L70A) DOES explicitly exclude a split decision" > >So it is a different interpretation, true, but not necessarily >"against the law". I think the AC was bonkers. Yeah, I know, I should be polite, and I am sorry I am not. I also think the justification for it is about as sensible as giving one side 14 tricks, and the other minus one, which is definitely possible by reading the letter of L63B. But no sensible TD/AC/SO expects this to be given. >>>The AC in Salsomaggiore interpreted the law in some other way. >> Correct: but they should not be making up new interpretations of the >> law in defiance of their SO. >For these purposes, they ARE the SO. And the NBO. And the ZA. Delusions of grandeur? OK, I apologise to all my North American readers. ACBL ACs are not the only ones who think it is their job to make the Laws. Be honest: do you *really* think the correct way to write new Law is for a random AC at an event to see what they think is a problem, produce a new answer, and then say they had the right because they were the Zonal Authority? I suggest that the time has come for the EBL to set up an Applications Committee to decide how the Law should be applied, and then for its decisions to be followed by the TDs and the ACs. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 6 01:51:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65Fook27770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 01:50:50 +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 g65FojH27766 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 01:50:45 +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 LAA02326 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 11:36:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA12559 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 11:36:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 11:36:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200207051536.LAA12559@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > There is obviously a demanding need for clarifications on where we > draw the line between "irrational" and not so irrational plays. At last a statement on which BLML will unanimously agree! :-) The ACBL offers a few specific examples in its "Duplicate Decisions" book and in the "Tech Files" with the ACBLscore program. I don't know whether other NCBO's do the same. There was supposed to be an "approved jurisprudence" developed under the auspices of the WBF(?), but I haven't heard lately how that was progressing. Maybe someone could give us an update. I wouldn't expect, though, that disputed claims would be a large part of this work. Maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps also it might be worth considering rewording of the Laws. For one thing, "normal" and "irrational" are not obvious antonyms of each other. For another, "irrational" does not seem the exact word to describe the lines of play that are excluded. After all, any obviously inferior line is irrational in the dictionary sense, but all of us allow some such lines, as we are instructed to do by L70E among others. What would be a better word? The concept is something like "grossly careless" or "obviously silly on its face." The way I think of it is what would someone do who was called in as a sudden substitute, who hadn't seen any of the previous play and does not know how many tricks are needed for the contract but who knows the rules of play and knows what trumps are. This imaginary substitute doesn't revoke or otherwise play illegally, and he certainly doesn't play suits from the bottom, but he also doesn't know whether an 8-spot is high or low. He also won't find an obscure line of play, even if it is provably superior to an obvious line. Our substitute will, however, notice if someone shows out and take finesses accordingly. If you like the concept above, what is the word to describe lines of play that this substitute player would never take? "Obviously wrong?" "Grossly careless?" "Self-evidently faulty?" "Wrong on its face?" What word could be substituted for 'normal'? "Possible?" "Thinkable?" "Credible?" "Admissible?" For purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, "admissible" includes play that would be normal, careless, or inferior but not play that would be wrong on its face. (I think this excludes "class of player" considerations. If those are considered desirable, add "for the class of player involved" at the end.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 6 02:04:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65G3gb27788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 02:03:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g65G3bH27784 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 02:03:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.64.134.18] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17QVPo-000PWu-00; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 16:54:36 +0100 Message-ID: <001001c2243b$57c824c0$1286403e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <000801c221fb$64bb4e60$9d1ae150@dodona> <001c01c22323$77247260$f72be150@dodona> <3D2466CB.4050503@skynet.be> <3D254405.3030902@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 16:47:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 05 July 2002 12:43 Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card > > >> Why do you assume people do not mean what > >> they say? I mean they interpreted them in a way > >> that is different from the decisions in > >> Tabiano made with the support of Kooijman, Bavin, > >> Endicott et al. > +=+ Was there something relevant in Tabiano? I recall nothing that could be a precedent to this case. +=+ > ------------ \x/ ------------- > > > > I think the AC was bonkers. Yeah, I know, I should be > polite, and I am sorry I am not. > +=+ For history let us list the committee in question:- Bill Pencharz (Chairman), Herman De Wael (Scribe), Grattan Endicott, Maria Erhart, Guido Ferraro, Anton Maas, Jean-Paul Meyer, Steen Moller, with Antonio Riccardi (CTD) also attending. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 6 02:10:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65GACr27804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 02:10:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx10.cluster1.charter.net (dc-mx10.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.8.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g65GA6H27800 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 02:10:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.159.141.95] (HELO abc) by mx10.cluster1.charter.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.9) with SMTP id 34763899; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 11:55:42 -0400 Message-ID: <003a01c2243c$631d56a0$0300a8c0@abc> From: "Al Kimel" To: "Herman De Wael" , References: <3D254FB7.1060804@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 11:55:25 -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: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 3:50 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school > > aha - but you seem to assume that the players themselves have > correctly filled out the computer print-out, and that everything not > on there is not an agreement. The real world does not work like that. > In the case I've been discussing with David and Ed, their 2Cl as > Stayman is not among the things they agreed upon. Yet as Director, I > may choose to rule that since they both understood it in the same > manner, Stayman is in fact among their agreements. By the same token, > it would be on the hypothetical print-out of the hypothetical complete > system. > > Mind you, I am not saying that every auction where they agree on the > meaning is an agreement, only that there are more agreements than > those "agreed upon beforehand". Hi, I thought I would delurk to ask a question. I've been trying to follow this debate the past few months. I admit that I'm still not sure if I understand the arguments and counter-arguments. May I ask one question: Are you stating that, after an honest "No agreement" or "Not discussed" announcement regarding a specific bidding sequence, that a TD may judge that an implicit partnership agreement exists if the partnership ends up successfully fielding the "uncertain" bid. That is to say, if they guess right, then it's likely that an implicit agreement does in fact exist, even if they are not consciously aware of such an agreement. Am I on the right track? Cheers, Al Kimel -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 6 04:02:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65I2FJ27899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 04:02:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g65I28H27895 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 04:02:09 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g65HmIF20000 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 18:48:18 +0100 Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 17:48:17 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g65HmHk15237 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 18:48:17 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 17:48:17 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 SAA09872 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 18:48:17 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id SAA04453 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 18:48:16 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 18:48:16 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200207051748.SAA04453@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 09:00:21 +0200 > From: Herman De Wael > Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card > May I quote from the write-up ? > > The Committee then turned its attention to Law 70A: > In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result of > the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful > points shall be resolved against the claimer. > The Committee considered that this sentence did not explicitly exclude > a split decision. > The Committee then confirmed the following reasoning: > With regards to West, there is doubt as to what line declarer might > take, and so to East/West the equitable result is 9 tricks to North/South. > With regards to North, there is no doubt as to which line he would > take (considering among other things that he actually took it), and so > there are no doubtful points to be ruled on, and so the equitable > result for North/South is 8 tricks. > > Now I am not saying that this is correct, but I am saying that it is > an interpretation, which is not contradictory to anything said or > stated before. Never done before, true, but I doubt if anyone has ever > stated that > "this sentence (of L70A) DOES explicitly exclude a split decision" > > So it is a different interpretation, true, but not necessarily > "against the law". The quote from L70 uses the word "result", not "results" or "score", and the word "result" is used consistently in the laws for the the number of tricks won and lost on the board. A split decision requires the TD to award two scores (or at least two results) on the board, so L70 (in called for THE RESULT) does exclude a split decision. Robin P.S. I start on thread "Split scores for claims" which dies out quite quickly. I start another thread on "claim with ace of trumps and one other card" and it quickly becomes a much longer thread on precisely the ruling in the first thread. (Odd isn't it.) -- 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 Jul 6 04:03:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65I32k27911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 04:03:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.tiscali.nl (rhea.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.178]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g65I2vH27907 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 04:02:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from LNV (xs241-225-124.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.225.124]) by rhea.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id CDB0B4F3A3; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 19:49:06 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000901c2244c$46906da0$7ce1f1c3@LNV> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Grattan Endicott" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3D24169F.6070708@skynet.be> <001501c22351$a2769a00$0f8d403e@pacific> <00d301c2238c$e3530e60$7afef1c3@LNV> <006801c223aa$8b4bac40$2e29e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 09:04:40 +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 > > > > > Pencharz also changed the policy of the EBL AC in one > > > other respect: where pass is an LA and will close > > > the auction no 12C3 ruling to be considered. > > > > Grattan > > > > I don't understand a syllable of this statement. Did Bill > > say that when a player makes a call that could be based > > on UI where he has a LA the TD nor the AC should ever > > decide to make a 12C3 ruling. That makes sense to me. > > And is in accordance with the laws (bad news for Sweden). > > It is a pity that comfort is sought in other areas to use > > 12C3. > > > > > > ton > > > +=+ If the auction does not close (i.e. partner > of the offender still has a turn after the LA is > enforced) a 12C3 ruling is still possible on the > basis of what the partner may do since he does > not have UI and is free to bid as he judges. > . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > This doesn't clarify the previous statement. Why to use 12C3 when somebody makes a legal call? The issue here, and I did hear Bill's reaction when he was told about the use of 12C3 after having 'used' UI in Ostende, is that the AC should not be based on part of an unauthorized call and part of LA. And yes if continuing from such LA the auction may go different ways 12C3 may be used again. But that is not the main issue here, nor restricting this opinion to cases where pass is a LA. It might be a good idea to let Bill clarify his opinion himself. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 6 04:07:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65I6xb27932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 04:06:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.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 g65I6pH27925 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 04:06:52 +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 g65Hr0p01917 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 13:53:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 13:32:58 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <017d01c223a6$a7643220$91e6c418@charter.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 7/4/02, Bill Bickford wrote: >I believe we should be subject to a "higher" law; it's called the Ten >Commandments. Maybe so. But... There is no commandment against lying, except when the lie constitutes "false witness against thy neighbor". An action may violate a "higher" law, but if it doesn't violate the laws of bridge, there is no way any TD or AC has any authority to penalize 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 Jul 6 04:07:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65I6v527931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 04:06:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.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 g65I6nH27922 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 04:06:50 +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 g65Hqvp01837 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 13:52:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 13:46:31 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3D254405.3030902@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 7/5/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >May I quote from the write-up ? > >The Committee then turned its attention to Law 70A: >In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result of >the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful >points shall be resolved against the claimer. >The Committee considered that this sentence did not explicitly exclude >a split decision. >The Committee then confirmed the following reasoning: >With regards to West, there is doubt as to what line declarer might >take, and so to East/West the equitable result is 9 tricks to North/South. >With regards to North, there is no doubt as to which line he would >take (considering among other things that he actually took it), and so >there are no doubtful points to be ruled on, and so the equitable >result for North/South is 8 tricks. > >Now I am not saying that this is correct, but I am saying that it is >an interpretation, which is not contradictory to anything said or >stated before. Never done before, true, but I doubt if anyone has ever >stated that >"this sentence (of L70A) DOES explicitly exclude a split decision" > >So it is a different interpretation, true, but not necessarily >"against the law". I see a problem here. It's true that the law in question does not explicitly exclude a split decision. It doesn't explicitly allow one, either. And what of the implicit? Somebody (I'm too lazy to go back and find who, sorry) provided an analysis regarding the idea that the claim laws deal with how to distribute the 13 tricks in the hand, and that since there are *only* 13 tricks in a hand, a split score is not possible. IOW, it's *implicit* in law 70 that a split score is "against the law." I see no viable counter argument. 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 Jul 6 04:36:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65Ia4L27994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 04:36:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g65IZwH27989 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 04:35:58 +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 g65IM7p04728 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 14:22:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 14:07:25 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3D2588AA.3050204@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 7/5/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >if I, as Director, rule that 2Cl=Stayman, then that is on the >print-out. I am reminded of Galileo Galilei's difficulties with the Curia. 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 Jul 6 04:36:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65Ia1c27993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 04:36:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g65IZtH27984 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 04:35:56 +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 g65IM5p04694 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 14:22:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 14:21:24 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] Alerting later bids [was The Edgar Kaplan school] To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020705150117.00a655e0@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 7/5/02, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >If I had alerted and explained the 1S bid, I wouldn't feel compelled to >alert the 2H bid as showing only 2 cards. This is but bridge logic. The >opponents are not 'entitled' to have their attention drawn to this >knowledge (L75C). This brings to mind something I've puzzled over from time to time, but never really resolved. Suppose you're playing a forcing club system, and the auction goes 1C!-1D!-1NT. Now, in the ACBL at least, the alert regulations require that a 1NT rebid by opener which shows a strong NT is alertable. But if you have alerted 1C, and explained that it can't have less than 16 points, or whatever, is an alert of 1NT really necessary? Shouldn't the opponents be aware enough of what's going on to realize that 1NT *can't* be the expected 12-14 if we had been playing Standard American? Personally, I don't see any such qualification in the alert regs - the bid is alertable, what has gone before is irrelevant. But I wonder. I suppose the choice was, or at least was perceived to be, between alerting once in a round and alerting every time, and the latter was chosen. So I alert it, on the grounds that at least it can't hurt (except for the inevitable UI to partner). But I don't know. It seems silly, at best, and perhaps somewhat insulting to opponents at worst. 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 Jul 6 07:28:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65LRcg28129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 07:27:38 +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 g65LRXH28125 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 07:27:33 +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 17QaOd-0001B5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 17:13:43 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020705164403.00ab7250@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 17:15:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <3D258549.4000701@skynet.be> References: <3D23EE73.1000305@skynet.be> <8P+BTtDhtEJ9EwiO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3D2468D8.3040205@skynet.be> <3D254CDF.70104@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 07:38 AM 7/5/02, Herman wrote: >Indeed a minor point, Brian, but a good one. > >All your point adds is to turn it into a better example. > >Brian Meadows wrote: > >>On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 09:38:07 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>Just a minor point, Herman.... >> >>>Don't you agree that if one player bids 2Cl with 4-4 in the majors, >>>and the other responds 2He with a minimum, 4He and 4Cl, that this >>>sounds like Stayman? Would you, as Director, not also rule that >>>"Stayman" is the only correct explanation? Would you not also feel >>>that even if you believe the pair saying they never played together, >>>that the opponents were entitled to the knowledge that 2Cl asked for >>>the majors? >>I think if you have 4 hearts and 4 clubs, then responding 2H if >>you *genuinely* don't know whether 2C is Stayman or natural is >>only sensible, because with your 4 card support if partner's 2C >>turns out to be natural, you're probably not going to meet up >>with a total disaster if partner returns to 3C. The same can't be >>said for passing 2C if partner holds the classic weak runout, >>4-4-5-0. The 4C & 4H holding gives you the perfect opportunity to >>hedge your bets. >>I think you'd make a far better case to support your views if you >>gave the responder 4 hearts and only *two* clubs, assuming that >>two clubs is the minimum that (presumably) opener can hold. I don't think it is a minor point at all; I think it is a crucial weakness in the "De Wael school" view. As I understand Herman's position, he argues that when, say, you don't know from your agreements whether 2C is natural or Stayman, you must make a decision as to how you will treat it before you take your next call (based on whatever information you might have about other things, or, if necessary, on a pure guess), and you consequently represent your "agreement" to your opponents as being in accord with that decision, leaving you open to an MI adjustment if the decision you (were forced to take and) took was wrong. In real life, however, you often find that you are not forced to make such a decision at all. Instead, you are able to find a call that caters to both possibilities, so you make that call (which may be the call you would make if you know it were one possibility, or the other, but may also be a third call which is neither) and hope to survive the subsequent rounds of bidding if there are any. ISTM that the De Wael school, which prohibits expressing uncertainty about the meaning of partner's call, leaves you no way to describe your agreements without, in effect, ruling out (in the minds of your opponents) the possibility of your having taken that third call, leaving the opponents no possible basis on which to figure out what your call might mean, and making the transmission of MI (as the De Wael school defines MI) unavoidable. Example: 1C-1NT-P-2H-P-? You haven't discussed whether you play "system on", in which case 2H would be a transfer to S, or "system off", in which case 2H is to play. If you were confident it was a transfer, you'd bid 3S, super-accept, and, since the context here is "De Wael school", you would tell the opponents that your "agreement" is transfer. If you were confident it was to play, you would pass, and tell them that your agreement is that it's to play. (In either case, if you guess wrong you might get an adjusted score for MI, as the De Wael school context requires; so far no problem.) But knowing that you don't know which it is, you actually bid 2S, your best chance to avoid the total disaster that would come from misguessing -- if it's a transfer, you've made a simple accept when you're worth a super-accept, which might work out fine, whereas if it's to play, you've shown a maximum with H support and S cards, which might work out fine. Then what do you tell your opponents when they want to know your "agreement"? You can't say "transfer", because if it were a transfer you'd have bid 3S with your hand, and you can't say "to play", because if it were to play you'd have passed with your hand. You can't say you don't know, and you can't stay silent. Anything you do is an infraction, regardless of what partner intended his call to mean, or holds. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 6 07:54:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65LsSO28149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 07:54:28 +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 g65LsNH28145 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 07:54:24 +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 17Qaoc-0004MR-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 17:40:34 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020705172449.00a99a00@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 17:41:53 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: Fw: [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 09:38 AM 7/5/02, Kooijman wrote: > > We cannot attempt to clarify where we draw the line unless we agree > > that there is a line to be drawn *somewhere*. The WBF tells us that > > there is no such line -- there are, rather, a near-infinite number of > > lines, one for every possible "class of player involved". Once we > > accept that interpretation, we have no choice but to allow each > > individual TD or AC facing a claim case to put the line wherever they > > want to, based on their individual judgments of the "class of player" > > who made the claim. > > > > We can argue all we want about whether a given play is "'irrational'" > > or "not so irrational", but our arguments will be nothing more than > > meaningless noises unless and until we agree that there us a > > distinction there to be made, not a moving target that > > changes from one > > player to the next. > >This sounds rather punitive towards the WBFLC. And it suggests that our >(wrong) interpretation is the cause for all problems related to the >standard >of play when a claim is involved. Sounds strange to me, since in my >jurisdiction it hardly ever is. But let me offer the following: you >describe >in a way so that TD's can use it uniformly what irratinal play is, and >then >the drafting committee considers to give irrational an absolute meaning. > >In a Houston case I just commented on with two tricks to go declarer has a >high trump and another with dummy having a high trump with another >other (I >am not sure about the suits: let us make it hearts trumps, declarer has a >diamond and dummy a club) RHO leads a club and declarer, a client with >a pro >as dummy (it should be in the rules that the pro always is declarer), >takes >his diamond in such a way that had he been defender it had been a played >card. Now dummy says that nothing can go wrong any more and declarer takes >the card back, ruffs and makes the last two tricks. The AC, or >whatever the >ACBL names it, allowed this play, saying that not ruffing would have been >irrational. May I say that irrational in my opinion does not include any >play that will be considered for the splittest moment by a player? >If you accept that statement irrational has no absolute standard. If you >accept an absolute standard, you have to deny what happened at this >table. I do not accept that any play that will be considered for the splittest moment is necessarily rational. Rather, I accept that irrational plays happen, but don't see that as a reason to assume that they will (presumptively) happen after a player claims -- that would lead, as others have pointed out, to permitting revokes to be included in the adjudication on the grounds that if the claimer had played on, he might have revoked (because we've seen him revoke in the past). But what in h--l is Ton's example about? Declarer was attempting to play on, admittedly irrationally, when *dummy* claimed, and the AC decided that *dummy's* claim curtailed *declarer's* play (of his diamond) prior to his completing it, so that it was "undone" in the claim adjudication? What? I don't deny that it happened, but I certainly deny that it had any basis in either law or rationality. Declarer's failure to ruff that club wasn't half as irrational as that AC decision. Declarer pitched (or tried to); he didn't ruff, and he didn't claim -- his dummy did. The claims laws don't allow dummy to claim on declarer's behalf, and don't permit ACs to reverse irrational plays that were actually made, whether the player making the play subsequently claimed 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 Sat Jul 6 09:27:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g65NQk628202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 09:26:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g65NQeH28198 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 09:26:41 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g65NCnV26722 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 00:12:49 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 00:12 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] 1NT overcall is...? 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: <5.1.0.14.0.20020705140231.00a62d30@pop.ulb.ac.be> Alain wrote: > are capable of, but includes cheating, playing in a state of > drunkenness God I hope not. The first is, without question, obscene. The latter is pretty much inevitable if playing Brighton at "A pint a match" through both sessions and the speedball. Sure if drunks get rowdy/abusive they should be expelled but merely being drunk should not be considered a crime at the bridge table. 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 Jul 6 10:28:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g660Rg028243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 10:27:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g660RWH28229 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 10:27:33 +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 17QdCm-0008lb-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 06 Jul 2002 01:13:41 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 20:26:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations References: <002701c2238e$6329b0c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <200207041742.NAA06805@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20020705082516.00ab1ef0@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020705152331.00a5f5b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020705152331.00a5f5b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 08:38 5/07/2002 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >>>There is obviously a demanding need for clarifications on where we >>>draw the line between "irrational" and not so irrational plays. I do not think so. We have lots of theoretical arguments here, but actually the vast majority of claim rulings are easy enough, and I think people here are too worried about difficulties which rarely exist. >>I fully agree; Sven's statement seems obvious and unarguable to me. Which >>is why the WBF interpretation of the footnote is so terribly flawed for >>real-life application. It may seem unarguable, but really there are no more difficulties than in deciding LAs after a UI is available. >>We cannot attempt to clarify where we draw the line unless we agree that >>there is a line to be drawn *somewhere*. The WBF tells us that there is >>no such line -- there are, rather, a near-infinite number of lines, one >>for every possible "class of player involved". Once we accept that >>interpretation, we have no choice but to allow each individual TD or AC >>facing a claim case to put the line wherever they want to, based on their >>individual judgments of the "class of player" who made the claim. It does not tell us precisely where the line is between an LA and one that is not, either, but we survive. >AG : I'm not quite sure about that interpretation (litotes).The common >footnote to L69/70/71 speaks of 'inferior for the class of player >involved', and of 'irrational', not of 'irrational for the class of player >involved'. The WBFLC has changed this. >There are in fact three types of plays with regard to this distinction : > >a) normal plays, those which are to be expected of the player when his mind >is alert and on the alert (fine antanaclasis, eh ?) ; >b) bad plays, obviously inferior, perhaps dominated in the game-theoretical >sense, which the player shouldn't do but could possibly do when cows fly by ; >c) completely irrational plays. > >The line between a) and b) is strongly dependent on the class of the player >involved. >But the line between b) and c) seems to me fairly independent of it : a >play which is irrational for one player will be irrational for another of a >different level, beginners excepted. The moment you say "beginners excepted" you have admitted that there is a difference base don the class of players. >>We can argue all we want about whether a given play is "'irrational'" or >>"not so irrational", but our arguments will be nothing more than >>meaningless noises unless and until we agree that there us a distinction >>there to be made, not a moving target that changes from one player to the next. The distinction is not difficult in practice, despite suggestions that it is. And TDs and ACs are making lots of bridge judgements so why should this be 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 Sat Jul 6 10:28:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g660Rkd28245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 10:27:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g660RaH28236 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 10:27:37 +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 17QdCn-0008le-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 06 Jul 2002 01:13:46 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 20:41:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Cats! References: <7AEOXgA13B34EwXz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk List of cats Mark Abraham Kittini Michael Albert Bob, Icky Picky RB Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley Dave Armstrong Cookie Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Frits, Gussy Brian Baresch Lao, Gaea Olivier Beauvillain Dode Adam Beneschan Mango MIA Matthias Berghaus Lester RB David Blizzard Herbie, Mittens Mike Bolster Jess Vitold Brushtunov Chia Everett Boyer Amber Art Brodsky Ralph Pur Byantara Begung Wayne Burrows Fritzi, Nico Konrad Ciborowski Kocurzak Miauczurny Mary Crenshaw Dickens, Cecil Ray Crowe * Mo RB, Vegas, Aspen Claude Dadoun Moustique Hirsch Davis Shadow, Smokey RB, Loki, Snaggs, Rufus Mike Dennis Casino Laval Du Breuil Picatou Simon Edler Incy Michael Farebrother Shadow EL, Tipsy EL Wally Farley Andrew RB, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy, Panda RB, Shaure, Edmund Eric Favager Poppy, Daisy, Smiffie, Ollie, Monty, Fluffy Walt Flory Punkin, Sami Marv French Mozart Anna Gudge EMale, Bear RB, Taggie, Joss EL Dany Haimovici Shobo, Rosario, Shemaya, Hershey, Spotty, Shuri, Dossie, Kippy, Pushpush, Hershon RB Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Bridget, Depo RB Robert Harris Paws RB, Monte MIA, Conrad RB, Babe RB, Betty RB, Bobbsie RB, Caruso EL Damian Hassan Bast, Katie, Tepsi, Baroo, Scrap, +1 Craig Hemphill Spook, Snuffy, Snuggles, Squeak, Cub Scout Richard Hull Endora, Putty Tat, Bill Bailey Sergey Kapustin Liza Laurie Kelso Bugs, Sheba MIA Irv Kostal Albert, Abby, Truman, Tuppence, Bill RB, Cleo EL, Sabrina RB Jack Kryst Bentley, Ava John Kuchenbrod RaRe, Leo Patrick Laborde Romeo Eric Landau Glorianna, Wesley, Shadow, Query Paul Lippens Rakker, Tijger, Sloeber Albert Lochli Killer Demeter Manning Nikolai, Zonker Rui Marques Bibi, Kenji, Satann John McIlrath Garfield, Mischief Brian Meadows Katy Ted Merrette * Zippy Bruce Moore Sabrena Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin Sue O'Donnell Yazzer-Cat RB, Casey RB Henk Pieters Jip, Janneke, Ketie Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Ed Reppert Ayesha, Gracie, The Sarge, Buzz Jack Rhind TC (the cat) Tommy Sandsmark Lillepus, Bittepus, Snoppen Michael Schmahl Sophie Norman Scorbie Starsky RB, Hutch Bob Scruton Squeeky Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey Flemming B-Soerensen Flora, Rose RB Ian Spoors Zeus WV Grant Sterling * Big Mac RB, Flash David Stevenson Quango RB, Nanki Poo, Ting RB, Pish RB, Tush RB, Tao MIA, Suk RB, Sophie EL Helen Thompson Tom, Tabby, Bubba Les West T.C., Trudy Anton Witzen Beer, Miepje Tom Wood Nikolai, Zonker plus, of course Selassie RB is a cat waiting at Rainbow Bridge, MIA is a cat missing in action, EL is a cat on extended leave [ie staying with someone else known] and WV is a welcome visitor [ie lives elsewhere but visits on a regular basis]. Anyone who wishes to see the story of Rainbow Bridge can ask David for a copy, or look at the article on his Catpage at http://blakjak.com/rbridge.htm The story and a picture of Selassie is at http://blakjak.com/slssie.htm Additions and amendments to this list should be sent to Nanki Poo at . Amended entries are marked *. Schrodinger's cat does not appear, but it has been suggested that if Schrodinger's cat is not on the list then that means that Schrodinger's cat is on the list ... Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! Mrow *NP* -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 6 10:28:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g660RiC28244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 10:27:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g660RYH28232 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 10:27:35 +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 17QdCm-0008lc-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 06 Jul 2002 01:13:44 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 20:27:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations References: <200207051536.LAA12559@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200207051536.LAA12559@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: "Sven Pran" >> There is obviously a demanding need for clarifications on where we >> draw the line between "irrational" and not so irrational plays. > >At last a statement on which BLML will unanimously agree! :-) Puh-lease! Of course there is no such need. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 6 13:44:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g663i0U28357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 13:44:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g663hsH28353 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 13:43:55 +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 g663Wgx01108 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 04:32:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 04:28:44 +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 , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020705140231.00a62d30@pop.ulb.ac.be> >Alain wrote: > >> are capable of, but includes cheating, playing in a state of >> drunkenness > >God I hope not. The first is, without question, obscene. The latter is >pretty much inevitable if playing Brighton at "A pint a match" through >both sessions and the speedball. Sure if drunks get rowdy/abusive they >should be expelled but merely being drunk should not be considered a crime >at the bridge table. > >Tim > Tim, Giovanni and myself would have been thrown out times without number cheers john >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 6 14:03:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6643TV28374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 14:03:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6643NH28370 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 14:03:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g663qCx01139 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 04:52:12 +0100 Message-ID: <8LF+O5ABimJ9EwjP@asimere.com> Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 04:48:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >DWS wrote: > >> Let us just see what you want. We play a match, and reach a situation >> where 60% of people would bid game, but we know that is correct because >> of UI. Because you and I know L73C, we pass as the Law requires. > >60% doesn't come in to L73c at all. But yes we make a pass under L73c >when it seems right so to do. > >> In the other room they bid game despite a similar UI position. Quite >> possibly they just misjudged that it was a 60% action: their ethics are >> irrelevant. If we follow your line then you and I have just lost 7 imps >> for being ethical. > >Firstly 60% wasn't what I had in mind as "very close to 70%". I am >interested here in cases that are right on the borderline. I could live >with a formula like "maximum weighting for inclusion = 55-(5 x (70- >estimated %age)). Which would restrict our loss to 1 IMP. > >We could also tackle how we expect players to handle "close 73c >decisions". If you consider the decision on whether a call "carefully >avoids taking advantage" to be close then you should always call the TD at >the end of the hand. > >> But why should we lose 7 imps for being ethical. Is that what you >> *really* want from the Law? > >Of course not. But I know that ethical players lose out under the current >laws. Ethical players don't want risk a ruling and set their "personal" >threshold beyond the standards required in law (ask JP how he and I went >out of the Nicko because of such ethics - I agree with what he did, but >am not so comfortable with the law that made him do it). this was a very interesting case. Tim made his usual inferior bid (he signed off in game in a constructive auction taking as long as team- mates would need for a complete pivot at Chicago). I thought I was around 75% to bid, and so chose to pass, which is our club's expected standard of ethic. The kibitzing host (remember it's a Hi-stake rubber bridge club) of the evening commented, after the opening lead and my Trick 1 claim for 12 tricks, that he'd have allowed me to bid on. Lose by 9. In an EBU event when not representing this club I'd have bid and got it past the TD and AC. Trust me, I would have. cheers john > I am pretty sure >I am not the only person who doesn't call the TD in borderline cases by >opponents because I believe a ruling would not give a fair score. > >Perhaps the facility to request a "partial adjustment" would increase the >comfort with which rulings can be requested by NOS and reduce the >temptation of OS to persuade themselves that an action is completely >justified. > >David, please don't think I am dismissing your concerns - I share them. I >just feel that *looking* at different approaches to this issue might >improve the game. > Concur. JP >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 Sat Jul 6 14:16:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g664GFe28394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 14:16:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g664G9H28390 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 14:16:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g6644wx01167 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 05:04:58 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 05:00:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school References: <3D254FB7.1060804@skynet.be> <003a01c2243c$631d56a0$0300a8c0@abc> In-Reply-To: <003a01c2243c$631d56a0$0300a8c0@abc> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <003a01c2243c$631d56a0$0300a8c0@abc>, Al Kimel writes > > >Hi, I thought I would delurk to ask a question. I've been trying to >follow this debate the past few months. I admit that I'm still not sure >if I understand the arguments and counter-arguments. May I ask one >question: Are you stating that, after an honest "No agreement" or "Not >discussed" announcement regarding a specific bidding sequence, that a TD >may judge that an implicit partnership agreement exists if the >partnership ends up successfully fielding the "uncertain" bid. That is >to say, if they guess right, then it's likely that an implicit agreement >does in fact exist, even if they are not consciously aware of such an >agreement. Am I on the right track? > Yes. and it is up to me, as TD, to form an opinion whether such an implicit agreement *does* exist. Now: and this is tough; to form such an opinion I shall ask you a fair number of probably almost disassociated questions. "Do you play better minor?" "Do you open 'major first' with 4-4" (a 4cM question) "Do you overcall heavy or light?" "Do you play at the same club?" "Do you ......... " Anyway, there will be some method in my insanity, and once I've made my ruling I will explain to you, and the appeals committee if necessary, why I've so ruled. >Cheers, >Al Kimel > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Jul 6 14:21:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g664KxR28406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 14:20:59 +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 g664KrH28402 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 14:20:53 +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 g6649gx01171 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 05:09:42 +0100 Message-ID: <2Lh8OQBRymJ9EwjR@asimere.com> Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 05:05:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school References: <3D2588AA.3050204@skynet.be> In-Reply-To: <3D2588AA.3050204@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 <3D2588AA.3050204@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Tim West-meads wrote: > >> In-Reply-To: <3D254FB7.1060804@skynet.be> >> HdW wrote: >> >>>Yet as Director, I >>>may choose to rule that since they both understood it in the same >>>manner, Stayman is in fact among their agreements. By the same token, >>>it would be on the hypothetical print-out of the hypothetical complete >>>system. >>> >> >> The hypothetical printout covers their complete agreements - not a >> complete system (a very different beast). The printout might read >> >> 2C is undiscussed. Both players are aware that it could be either natural >> or Stayman and are also aware that their partner will know this. David >> knows that "systems off" is the US default but doesn't realise that Ed >> knows that "systems on" is the practice in Liverpool. >> > > >Sorry Tim, but this is wrong. > >Kaplan's "computer print-out" is hypothetical. It includes the full >system, both discussed and undiscussed. It is the theoretical sum of >knowledge to which the opponents are entitled. if I, as Director, >rule that 2Cl=Stayman, then that is on the print-out. Kaplan's >print-out is not a full reference to discussions, but to the system. > >And I as director will be guided by Ed's hand rather than by David and >Ed's uncorroborated self-serving statements. Herman, you lost me there. The hands have as much to do with it as the Baboon in Antwerp Zoo knows how to play bridge. Form an opinion on the agreement *YES*. Look at the hands? Feed the gibbon a banana. The two previous sentences are just as logical sequiturs as your position. cheers john > > >> And now every player at the table can, in full knowledge of what the >> agreements are, look at their hands and make their own judgements. >> (Ed/David may be operating under constraints imposed by UI). >> >> Tim West-Meads >> >> >> >> -- >> ======================================================================== >> (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >> "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >> A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ >> >> >> > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 6 14:21:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g664LdJ28418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 14:21:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g664LXH28414 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 14:21:34 +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 g664AMx01175 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 05:10:23 +0100 Message-ID: <0LE8edBFzmJ9EwCR@asimere.com> Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 05:06:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school References: <3D2588AA.3050204@skynet.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 In article , Ed Reppert writes >On 7/5/02, Herman De Wael wrote: > >>if I, as Director, rule that 2Cl=Stayman, then that is on the >>print-out. > >I am reminded of Galileo Galilei's difficulties with the Curia. > The earth is flat, isn't it? cheers john > >Regards, > >Ed > >mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com >pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or >http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site -- 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 Jul 6 19:43:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g669fY328551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 19:41:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g669fTH28547 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 19:41:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48613.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.61.229]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g669RYZ25728 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 11:27:34 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D26B871.8050807@skynet.be> Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 11:29:21 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <3D23EE73.1000305@skynet.be> <8P+BTtDhtEJ9EwiO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3D2468D8.3040205@skynet.be> <3D254CDF.70104@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020705164403.00ab7250@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Yes Eric, Eric Landau wrote: > > In real life, however, you often find that you are not forced to make > such a decision at all. Instead, you are able to find a call that > caters to both possibilities, so you make that call (which may be the > call you would make if you know it were one possibility, or the other, > but may also be a third call which is neither) and hope to survive the > subsequent rounds of bidding if there are any. ISTM that the De Wael > school, which prohibits expressing uncertainty about the meaning of > partner's call, leaves you no way to describe your agreements without, > in effect, ruling out (in the minds of your opponents) the possibility > of your having taken that third call, leaving the opponents no possible > basis on which to figure out what your call might mean, and making the > transmission of MI (as the De Wael school defines MI) unavoidable. > > Example: 1C-1NT-P-2H-P-? You haven't discussed whether you play > "system on", in which case 2H would be a transfer to S, or "system off", > in which case 2H is to play. If you were confident it was a transfer, > you'd bid 3S, super-accept, and, since the context here is "De Wael > school", you would tell the opponents that your "agreement" is > transfer. If you were confident it was to play, you would pass, and > tell them that your agreement is that it's to play. (In either case, if > you guess wrong you might get an adjusted score for MI, as the De Wael > school context requires; so far no problem.) But knowing that you don't > know which it is, you actually bid 2S, your best chance to avoid the > total disaster that would come from misguessing -- if it's a transfer, > you've made a simple accept when you're worth a super-accept, which > might work out fine, whereas if it's to play, you've shown a maximum > with H support and S cards, which might work out fine. Then what do you > tell your opponents when they want to know your "agreement"? You can't > say "transfer", because if it were a transfer you'd have bid 3S with > your hand, and you can't say "to play", because if it were to play you'd > have passed with your hand. You can't say you don't know, and you can't > stay silent. Anything you do is an infraction, regardless of what > partner intended his call to mean, or holds. > Very good example, and accepted as an exception to my argumentation. I maintain however that this is a minority position. And while we may disagree about the relative frequency of the two cases, what do you suggest doing in the other case? The case in which you do finally decide what it should be, and where you make your next bid catering for just one of the two cases. Is it fair to leave your opponents in the dark in that case? When, if you have indeed gotten it right, you know beforehand that there will be absolutely no way of proving to the director that you did not in fact have the agreement that is so blatently obvious from both your actions ? I don't believe that is fair. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Jul 6 19:46:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g669kA628563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 19:46:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g669k4H28559 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 19:46:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48613.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.61.229]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g669W7H04621 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 11:32:08 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D26B982.10409@skynet.be> Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 11:33:54 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school References: <3D254FB7.1060804@skynet.be> <003a01c2243c$631d56a0$0300a8c0@abc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Al, tell us a bit more about yourself some time will you As in, where are you from, and (very important to some members if not me:) do you have any cats and dogs ? Al Kimel wrote: > > > Hi, I thought I would delurk to ask a question. I've been trying to > follow this debate the past few months. I admit that I'm still not sure > if I understand the arguments and counter-arguments. May I ask one > question: Are you stating that, after an honest "No agreement" or "Not > discussed" announcement regarding a specific bidding sequence, that a TD > may judge that an implicit partnership agreement exists if the > partnership ends up successfully fielding the "uncertain" bid. That is > to say, if they guess right, then it's likely that an implicit agreement > does in fact exist, even if they are not consciously aware of such an > agreement. Am I on the right track? > I believe that it is very well possible that I as director will both: - believe you when you say you have not actively discussed the particular auction, and - rule against you as misinformation. You see, you cannot provide evidence of this non-discussion, and there is strong evidence that there exists some common background that enabled the both of you to arrive at the same meaning for the bid that was made. At the very least, that common background has to be disclosed. But it is my contention that it is far more helpful and in your best interest to simply disclose the meaning that you arrive at - whether by deduction, guesswork or feeling. > Cheers, > Al Kimel > > > > > -- 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 Jul 6 19:54:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g669sc128578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 19:54:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g669sWH28574 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 19:54:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48613.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.61.229]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g669eS900077 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 11:40:28 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D26BB76.3090701@skynet.be> Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 11:42:14 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020705150117.00a655e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 13:53 5/07/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > AG : I don't feel comfortable with this. The 'undiscussed' part of the > system will mainly consist of 'obvious' inferences from bridge logic. > Several days ago, after I handed Gilles complete notes on > Transfer-Walsh, he brought to my attention the fact that in the > following sequence : > 1C 1D* * 4+ hearts > 1S** 2D*** ** 4 spades, denies 3 hearts unless a maximum > 2H *** 4SF > 2H couldn't show 3 cards in H, because of the inferences of the 1S bid. > I didn't write it down because it was fairly obvious, but Gilles' > doctrine is that "what goes without saying should rather be said". > > If I had alerted and explained the 1S bid, I wouldn't feel compelled to > alert the 2H bid as showing only 2 cards. This is but bridge logic. The > opponents are not 'entitled' to have their attention drawn to this > knowledge (L75C). > They are entitled to the knowledge though. I agree that if you had correctly explained the 1S bid, an explanation of 2He falls under "reasonably be expected to know". But suppose you alert 1Sp and they don't ask, don't you feel obliged to now alert 2He and when asked say something like "there are some inferences from 1Sp that might be of interest to you". Or simply say that it's a 2-card suit ? > If this case seems too intricated, consider the case of a pair who plays > that 1NT-2C shows at least one 4-card major, and produces the sequence > 1NT-2C-2H-3NT. Would you feel compelled to alert 3NT ? Would you have > written it down in your system notes ? > No, but that does not make it any less part of the "system". > This is evidence that undiscussed parts of the system will often be the > parts that do not need to be explicitly revealed to the opponents. > Not explicitely, no, but they ARE entitled to the knowledge ! And when playing against beginners, or against me, you would probably reveal it as well. > Herman's statement is thus a little bit too severe. I would say that > Kaplan's notion of a printout is the total amount of knowledge the > opponents are entitled to, but this is less than the full system. That is not the way I understand Kaplan's idea of a full printout. But since Kaplan is not around to tell us what he meant, this discussion is fruitless. > BTW, this is one of the strongest arguments for wholly codified systems > : there will be *no* undiscussed, non-printed part of the system, thus > less room for diverging interpretations. Perhaps less room for MI, too. > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > > -- 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 Jul 6 21:16:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g66BG9B28665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 21:16:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rebecca.tiscali.nl (rebecca.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.181]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g66BG3H28661 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 21:16:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from LNV (xs241-223-144.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.223.144]) by rebecca.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B69844936D; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 13:02:10 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <00d301c224dc$9805b0b0$90dff1c3@LNV> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020705172449.00a99a00@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 12:11:36 +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 I wrote: > >In a Houston case I just commented on with two tricks to go declarer has a > >high trump and another with dummy having a high trump with another > >other (I > >am not sure about the suits: let us make it hearts trumps, declarer has a > >diamond and dummy a club) RHO leads a club and declarer, a client with > >a pro > >as dummy (it should be in the rules that the pro always is declarer), > >takes > >his diamond in such a way that had he been defender it had been a played > >card. Now dummy says that nothing can go wrong any more and declarer takes > >the card back, ruffs and makes the last two tricks. The AC, or > >whatever the > >ACBL names it, allowed this play, saying that not ruffing would have been > >irrational. May I say that irrational in my opinion does not include any > >play that will be considered for the splittest moment by a player? > >If you accept that statement irrational has no absolute standard. If you > >accept an absolute standard, you have to deny what happened at this > >table. > > I do not accept that any play that will be considered for the splittest > moment is necessarily rational. That is a pity, because I feel that we should try to find the solution in that direction. I read in this thread from someone that he wants 'to give 'irrational' an absolute weight except for beginners. Which in my opinion shows that he does not give an absolute weight. He just transforms the problem to the defintion of what a beginner is. What I wanted to demonstrate with the above example is that 'irrational' as we want to use it can't have an absolute weight. With this holding you don't need to give an explanation when you claim the last two tricks. May be I should say that from a certain level on the opponents probably show amusement or become angry when declarer starts telling: 'I will ruff your club in hand and then ruff my diamond in dummy.' LHO might call the TD accusing declarer of making a fool of him. While on a low level declarer will not claim even. After some consideration he will ruff in hand and only then he will claim the last trick, at that moment realising he has them all. With yet other words: Assume in this situation an unknown declarer claiming without explaining anything and a good player defender now calling the TD telling him that declarer didn't clarify his play in the last two tricks. What would you do? I would certainly reprimand the defender telling him that I don't accept this kind of intimidation. What I think is that this discussion, which we have every year, has to do with semantics. If 'irrational' is absolute, we have chosen a wrong word and should find another. > Rather, I accept that irrational plays > happen, but don't see that as a reason to assume that they will > (presumptively) happen after a player claims -- that would lead, as > others have pointed out, to permitting revokes to be included in the > adjudication on the grounds that if the claimer had played on, he might > have revoked (because we've seen him revoke in the past). But what in > h--l is Ton's example about? Declarer was attempting to play on, > admittedly irrationally There we go, to uphold your view that irrational has an absolute meaning you have to call this play irrational. It was not for this class of player. Is 'unthinkable' not coming close to 'irrational' and if so do we agree that declarer thought of playing the diamond here? Let me admit another deviation from the official laws written in the English/American language we have made in the Dutch translation. 'irrational' for which we have a good 'translation', being 'irrationeel' (you know that Dutch is the motherlanguage), is translated in 'dwaas' which translates in 'foolish' in the English language. and we think that the class of player should be considered when deciding whether a play is foolish or not. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 6 22:34:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g66CXuL28698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 22:33:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r06.mx.aol.com (imo-r06.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g66CXpH28694 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 22:33:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.21.) id c.53.18ff53ea (4587); Sat, 6 Jul 2002 08:19:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <53.18ff53ea.2a583a48@aol.com> Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 08:19:20 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] claim with ace of trumps and one other card To: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl, cyaxares@lineone.net, gester@lineone.net, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_53.18ff53ea.2a583a48_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_53.18ff53ea.2a583a48_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/5/02 1:49:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes: > It might be a good idea to let Bill clarify his opinion himself. > > ton > > What a novel approach! --part1_53.18ff53ea.2a583a48_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/5/02 1:49:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes:


It might be a good idea to let Bill clarify his opinion himself.

ton



What a novel approach! --part1_53.18ff53ea.2a583a48_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 7 00:15:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g66EF2R28871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 00:15:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g66EEuH28866 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 00:14:56 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g66E13D13075 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 15:01:03 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 15:01 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school 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: <3D2588AA.3050204@skynet.be> > > The hypothetical printout covers their complete agreements - not a > > complete system (a very different beast). The printout might read > > > > 2C is undiscussed. Both players are aware that it could be either > > natural or Stayman and are also aware that their partner will know > > this. David knows that "systems off" is the US default but doesn't > > realise that Ed knows that "systems on" is the practice in Liverpool. > > > > > Sorry Tim, but this is wrong. > > Kaplan's "computer print-out" is hypothetical. It includes the full > system, both discussed and undiscussed. It is the theoretical sum of > knowledge to which the opponents are entitled. if I, as Director, > rule that 2Cl=Stayman, then that is on the print-out. Of course. But if, in the above scenario, you do so rule then the ruling is incorrect. You will have evidence from the testimony of both players of the exact state of affairs and you can only rule "Stayman" if you disregard such evidence. The footnote you quote so often does not permit you to disregard evidence. >Kaplan's > print-out is not a full reference to discussions, but to the system. And ambiguity is part of every system. To a lesser extent for Meckwell, to a much greater extent for two players from different parts of the world sitting down for the first time on-line. 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 Jul 7 04:45:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g66IiFm29313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 04:44:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g66Ii9H29309 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 04:44:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.152.255]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020706183016.BMHL16050.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 19:30:16 +0100 Message-ID: <00e901c2251b$365351d0$ff9868d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 19:30:30 +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 Nigel: >But simpler and fairer would be to scrap the daft law >and give back to the claimer only tricks that he >could not lose by any legal line of play (e.g. the >ace of trumps). Richard Hill: This idea (previously advocated by David Burn) is definitely "simpler". But "fairer"? It is true that such a changed Law would be easier to apply uniformly, so it would therefore be "fairer" in the sense of "unbiased". However, it would increase "unfairness" by giving a claimer's opponents more unearned tricks. The "simpler and fairer" Law change would also have the undesirable effect of deterring claims, rendering events longer and more tedious than they have to be. Nigel: At bridge there are many rules whose main purpose appears to be to provide TDs with a chance to exercise judgement. Others, like those on alerting (especially in America), seem to be a bizarre exercise in rule-making for its own sake -- disadvantaging those they should help -- namely beginners and outsiders unfamiliar with local idiosyncracies. Many experts realise that the complexity and subjectivity of the current laws can be harnessed to give them an extra edge.David Stevenson disagrees but, IMO, most of the laws that take the player's skill into account, including those on claims, favour experienced players. Experienced players often bamboozle beginners with spurious claims and use their superior knowledge of the law to dispute claims by beginners. In one respect, the law on claims could be augmented: to define common defaults (about drawing trumps, entries, unblocks and finesses), but otherwise it should confer no more advantage on the claimer than ordinary play. The more obscure the law on claims, the more time claims waste. Some non bridge-lawyers regard claims appeals as more tedious than actual play. IMO, there are many ordinary players who would prefer fewer, simpler, more objective laws that they can understand. Bridge is a game so they would be happy to sacrifice some "fairness" for massive simplification. I don't think it is TD calls in themselves that deter would-be players - it is the fact that ordinary players cannot understand what some laws mean, why they are so complex, or how they can be interpreted so differently by different TDs. :(The downside is BLML would be left with little to debate): -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 7 05:31:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g66JV5v29366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 05:31:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g66JV0H29362 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 05:31:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1899.bb.online.no [80.212.215.107]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA27695 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 21:17:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001101c22521$b559b9a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" References: <00e901c2251b$365351d0$ff9868d5@SCRAP> Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 21:17:02 +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: "Nigel Guthrie" > Nigel: > >But simpler and fairer would be to scrap the daft law > >and give back to the claimer only tricks that he > >could not lose by any legal line of play (e.g. the > >ace of trumps). > > Richard Hill: > This idea (previously advocated by David Burn) is > definitely "simpler". > > But "fairer"? It is true that such a changed Law would be > easier to apply uniformly, so it would therefore be "fairer" in > the sense of "unbiased". However, it would increase "unfairness" > by giving a claimer's opponents more unearned tricks. > > The "simpler and fairer" Law change would also have the > undesirable effect of deterring claims, rendering events > longer and more tedious than they have to be. I must strongly disagree: "Correct" claims save time, no discussion. "Incorrect" claims waste time in that more time is needed to clarify issues that were not specified immediately with the claim. Usually this takes more time than it would have taken to just play the cards out with no claim at all. So if we can discourage "incorrect" claims we shall in the long run save time. The easiest way to encourage "correct" claims" and to discourage "incorrect" claims is to strictly enforce the once applicable rule that any play not specified by the claimer at the time of his claim shall be settled according to opponents choice after all cards are shown. I shall consider the present laws acceptable if we limit "irrational" play to play that is insane based upon what the claimer can see when he has a choice and assuming that he has no knowledge whatsoever of the still hidden cards except what he made clear with his claim statement. (Including the possibility that he has lost count of the cards). This means that it will still be irrational not to cover a King from the second hand with the Ace when playing towards an Ace-Queen tenace, but it will not be irrational to concede a trick to a single offside King, because he will be assumed not to know that the King must be single unless he made such knowledge clear with the claim. It will also be irrational not to overruff a defenders (unexpected) ruff when given the opportunity, but it will not be irrational to ruff with his smallest trump only to be overruffed by the next player when roles are reversed. And what is "fair"? Nobody (I hope) will ever dream of taking an "unearned" top away from a pair whose opponents perform an insane play? So please explain to me (and others) why it is unfair to get a top from an incorrect claim. And while we are at this question: Why is it fair that I get a clear bottom because my opponents by their own efforts only make a clear top? I could not do anything with that board? If we shall take unearned tops away from some pairs then I shall with equity as reason demand that unearned bottoms be taken away from me whenever I get one without having had any possibility to prevent it. (Equity works both ways!) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 7 07:14:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g66LB3k29418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 07:11:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g66LAwH29410 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 07:10:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g66Kv6K25007 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 13:57:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001201c2252f$95b430e0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020705172449.00a99a00@pop.starpower.net> <00d301c224dc$9805b0b0$90dff1c3@LNV> Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 13:51:36 -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: "Ton Kooijman" > Let me admit another deviation from the official laws written in the > English/American language we have made in the Dutch translation. > 'irrational' for which we have a good 'translation', being 'irrationeel' > (you know that Dutch is the motherlanguage), is translated in 'dwaas' which > translates in 'foolish' in the English language. and we think that the class > of player should be considered when deciding whether a play is foolish or > not. And how to measure the class of a player one doesn't know well? My suggestion is to assume that everyone in a competing field is in a class typical for players in that event. Identical situations would then produce identical rulings, as is appropriate and fair. I would be shocked to find that an expert's deficient claim would be allowed, while an identical claim by me, same event, same board, would not be allowed. As a refinement of that idea, in our Stratified Pairs, which include A, B, and C players (ranked separately), all those in each stratum would be considered to be of a player class typical of those in the stratum. A step toward achieving this goal is for TDs to present cases for peer review without divulging the identity of the player(s) involved. 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 Jul 7 10:48:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g670j0k29507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 10:45:00 +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-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 g670isH29503 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 10:44:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.64.131.178] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17Qzwd-000Cai-00; Sun, 07 Jul 2002 01:30:31 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c2254d$f0de3880$b283403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ton Kooijman" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020705172449.00a99a00@pop.starpower.net> <00d301c224dc$9805b0b0$90dff1c3@LNV> Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 00:56:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" ; "Eric Landau" Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 11:11 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations > > What I think is that this discussion, which we have every > year, has to do with semantics. If 'irrational' is absolute, > we have chosen a wrong word and should find another. > +=+ With its dictionary meaning 'irrational' is certainly absolute: not in accordance with reason or logic as a matter of scientific evaluation. In our (revised) footnote to Law 69 we have attached its meaning to the level of competence of the individual player concerned, as a device to modify the meaning and to enable the Director to make distinctions between players in assessing their respective levels of insight. If the view is taken that such distinctions should be maintained it may be that we will have difficulty in finding a single word to express the intention (but we can get round this by providing a definition). I do have a gleam dancing about my head that, if the lawmakers do not favour the absolute interpretation, might illuminate a possible reversal of approach - so that a player is deemed to follow the optimum bridge line unless the Director is of the opinion that the player lacks [? may lack] the expertise to visualize and execute the play. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 7 23:47:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g67DhIc29937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 23:43:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g67Dh9H29929 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 23:43:10 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g67DTD801516 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 14:29:13 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 14:29 +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: <001101c22521$b559b9a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> > "Correct" claims save time, no discussion. In most cases, yes. But very occasionally one has to call the TD before a correct claim is upheld. This generally occurs when declarer has misjudged the ability of opponents to understand the stated line. > "Incorrect" claims waste time in that more time is needed > to clarify issues that were not specified immediately with > the claim. Usually this takes more time than it would have > taken to just play the cards out with no claim at all. This is far from my experience. Most "incorrect" claims take no longer than correct ones - the players will all agree the score (although not the score claimed) because the claim is obviously flawed and the tricks to be taken can be easily seen. The TD is almost never called in such cases (OK so this is technically illegal but it really shouldn't be). Only a tiny fraction of claims actually need the TD - it is, of course, exactly these claims that come to the attention of BLML. 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 Jul 7 23:47:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g67DhLe29938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 23:43:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g67Dh9H29930 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 23:43:10 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g67DTEq01524 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 14:29:14 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 14:29 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Fw: [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: <001201c2252f$95b430e0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > And how to measure the class of a player one doesn't know well? My > suggestion is to assume that everyone in a competing field is in a class > typical for players in that event. My suggestion is to ask. Most players will be open about their perception of their own standard and TDs should be capable of forming an opinion based on very few questions. 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 Jul 8 01:05:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g67F28N00005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 01:02:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g67F22H29997 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 01:02:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1246.bb.online.no [80.212.212.222]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA27190 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 16:48:03 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006a01c225c5$4c1dc680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 16:48:03 +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: "Tim West-meads" > > "Correct" claims save time, no discussion. > > In most cases, yes. But very occasionally one has to call the TD before a > correct claim is upheld. This generally occurs when declarer has > misjudged the ability of opponents to understand the stated line. Exactly, but of course also when the claimer has simply miscounted cards or made some other error which makes the claim questionable. Now to an example - a famous board which I first saw described in a bridge story from the forties: A K 3 2 A K Q J 2 A 4 3 2 - Q 6 5 4 5 4 3 K Q 6 5 A K 7NT is cold regardless of the opening lead! (Cash all four Aces and the King of Spades. If the same player holds both spades and Hearts he is squeezed when declarer cashes QS KD QD and KC discarding 3S. If spades and hearts are split between defenders neither of them can hold diamonds without giving up either the last spade or the last heart when declarer cashes QS KC KH QH and JH discarding 2D and 6S.) But is a claim already in trick one "correct"? Definitely not. Such a claim is only a show-off and has no other purpose than telling "how brilliant I am". A "correct" claim is immediately obvious to all four players after hearing a brief explanation from the claimer. Such a claim saves time and causes no problem at all. > > > "Incorrect" claims waste time in that more time is needed > > to clarify issues that were not specified immediately with > > the claim. Usually this takes more time than it would have > > taken to just play the cards out with no claim at all. > > This is far from my experience. Most "incorrect" claims take no longer > than correct ones - the players will all agree the score (although not the > score claimed) because the claim is obviously flawed and the tricks to be > taken can be easily seen. The TD is almost never called in such cases (OK > so this is technically illegal but it really shouldn't be). And would not a simple play of the remaining cards have taken at a maximum the same time now consumed by discussing and agreeing upon the actual result to be noted on that board? My experience is that the moment a claim is questioned time runs away almost no matter how easy it is to see what is the correct result. > > Only a tiny fraction of claims actually need the TD - it is, of course, > exactly these claims that come to the attention of BLML. And those are the ones we discuss. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 8 02:52:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g67Gn0R00223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 02:49:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g67GmsH00219 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 02:48:55 +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 g67GYmp23473; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 12:34:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 12:04:59 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations To: Sven Pran cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <006a01c225c5$4c1dc680$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 7/7/02, Sven Pran wrote: >A "correct" claim is immediately obvious to all four players >after hearing a brief explanation from the claimer. Such a >claim saves time and causes no problem at all. Apparently not. The other day, holding S xx H 10 D xx C KQ in dummy and S xx H x D KQx C x in hand (spades trumps) I claimed on a diamond lead from LHO with the line of play "I have the top 2 diamonds and the top two clubs, the 10 of hearts is good, and the trumps are drawn". As I did this, I laid down on the table from my hand the diamond KQ, then the small diamond and the club, the heart, and the trumps. LHO sat looking at the table for several seconds. "Is there a problem?" I asked. LHO says "I'm trying to see where you're going to put your losing diamond." RHO, who is very nearly blind (he can barely see the cards on the table, can't see what they are), says "Ed, how many clubs in your hand?" "One," I say. To his partner, RHO says "the diamond goes on the club Queen." "Oh. Okay." Now, these are good players, and I figured they'd understand the claim. Granted, it might have been better had I explicitly stated "pitching these two small cards on the diamonds", but given the statement I did make, and the way I laid down the cards, I would have expected LHO, at least, to have no problem. Yet it was RHO, who, as I realized after the fact, couldn't *see* what I laid down as I mentioned the two top diamonds, who was right on top of it. Either way, are you gonna tell me this was not a "correct" claim? If so, then please explain to me how *anyone* is supposed to know whether his claim is "correct" or not, until he makes 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 Mon Jul 8 03:03:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g67H0Ip00253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 03:00:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g67H0CH00248 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 03:00:13 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g67GkJS29057 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 17:46:19 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 17:46 +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: <006a01c225c5$4c1dc680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sven wrote: > > In most cases, yes. But very occasionally one has to call the TD > > before a correct claim is upheld. This generally occurs when declarer > > has misjudged the ability of opponents to understand the stated line. > Exactly, but of course also when the claimer has simply miscounted > cards or made some other error which makes the claim questionable. Well yes, but then those wouldn't be correct claims (and even then if declarer claims with "5 diamond tricks" and requires a non 4-0 break there is no quibble if they split). > Now to an example - a famous board which I first saw described in > a bridge story from the forties: > > A K 3 2 > A K Q J 2 > A 4 3 2 > - > > Q 6 5 4 > 5 4 3 > K Q 6 5 > A K > > 7NT is cold regardless of the opening lead! > But is a claim already in trick one "correct"? Absolutely - and if a line is stated the TD is duty bound to uphold it. As to whether the claim is "appropriate" - that varies. Such a claim against known novices would come close to getting a PP from me (along with the 13 tricks) but that's a measure to be taken under L74a2 when the TD considers a claim grossly inappropriate. On the other hand there are a few players where I (or they) could claim at trick one saying "if nothing breaks it makes on a squeeze" and 97% of the time we get the hands back in the board in 2 seconds. The other 3% (when nothing does break) it will take a little longer but still be sorted without the TD and quicker than playing it out. It's not showing off. It just says "look, I know you are good players - you know that my squeeze play is pretty good - let's get onto the next hand". > A "correct" claim is immediately obvious to all four players > after hearing a brief explanation from the claimer. Such a > claim saves time and causes no problem at all. The above definition is for an "appropriate" claim. Any claim - no matter how complex - is legally correct if it gives the stated number of tricks by following an explicit line. > > This is far from my experience. Most "incorrect" claims take no > > longer than correct ones - the players will all agree the score > > (although not the score claimed) because the claim is obviously flawed > > and the tricks to be taken can be easily seen. The TD is almost never > > called in such cases (OK so this is technically illegal but it really > > shouldn't be). > > And would not a simple play of the remaining cards have taken at a > maximum the same time now consumed by discussing and agreeing > upon the actual result to be noted on that board? Sometimes. But very often the key defender will, for example, work out their discards a damn site quicker than they would at the table. > My experience is > that the moment a claim is questioned time runs away almost no > matter how easy it is to see what is the correct result. Our experiences differ. Thus so do our conclusions. To my mind the best way to address claims is: 1) Treat "irrational as a fairly broad, rather than very narrow, category and be tolerant of imperfect statements of good claims. 2) Educate claimers about trying make claims "appropriate" 3) Educate players in general about actually listening to statements and considering what is said before raising objections. 4) Cut 1 min a hand off the time allocated to play. 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 Jul 8 03:04:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g67H1vY00259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 03:01:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g67H1pH00255 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 03:01:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1246.bb.online.no [80.212.212.222]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA04691 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 18:47:53 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <009001c225d6$097225e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 18:47:52 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > On 7/7/02, Sven Pran wrote: > > >A "correct" claim is immediately obvious to all four players > >after hearing a brief explanation from the claimer. Such a > >claim saves time and causes no problem at all. > > Apparently not. The other day, holding > > S xx > H 10 > D xx > C KQ > > in dummy and > > S xx > H x > D KQx > C x > > in hand (spades trumps) I claimed on a diamond lead from LHO with the > line of play "I have the top 2 diamonds and the top two clubs, the 10 of > hearts is good, and the trumps are drawn". As I did this, I laid down on > the table from my hand the diamond KQ, then the small diamond and the > club, the heart, and the trumps. LHO sat looking at the table for > several seconds. "Is there a problem?" I asked. LHO says "I'm trying to > see where you're going to put your losing diamond." RHO, who is very > nearly blind (he can barely see the cards on the table, can't see what > they are), says "Ed, how many clubs in your hand?" "One," I say. To his > partner, RHO says "the diamond goes on the club Queen." "Oh. Okay." Now, > these are good players, and I figured they'd understand the claim. > Granted, it might have been better had I explicitly stated "pitching > these two small cards on the diamonds", but given the statement I did > make, and the way I laid down the cards, I would have expected LHO, at > least, to have no problem. Yet it was RHO, who, as I realized after the > fact, couldn't *see* what I laid down as I mentioned the two top > diamonds, who was right on top of it. Either way, are you gonna tell me > this was not a "correct" claim? If so, then please explain to me how > *anyone* is supposed to know whether his claim is "correct" or not, > until he makes it. > > Regards, > > Ed When you demonstrate with 7 cards left that you hold 7 "Aces" and have no communication problem nor any outstanding trumps I consider the claim to be obvious and as such "correct". In this case with a temporary LHO bridge blindness (that can happen to all of us!) it takes just the additional clarifying statement (politely) "it disappears on a club, look I have seven winners for the remaining seven tricks, OK?". 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 Jul 8 03:45:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g67HgUk00324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 03:42:30 +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 g67HgPH00320 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 03:42:25 +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 NAA00072 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 13:28:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA09467 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 13:28:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 13:28:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200207071728.NAA09467@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: "Sven Pran" > So if we can discourage "incorrect" claims we shall in the > long run save time. Provided, of course, we can avoid discouraging "correct" claims. > I shall consider the present laws acceptable if we limit > "irrational" play to play that is insane based upon what > the claimer can see when he has a choice and assuming > that he has no knowledge whatsoever of the still hidden > cards except what he made clear with his claim statement. Although this is not my personal preference, it is at least a clear and workable standard. Maybe no simple standard is better. The phrase "insane based upon what the claimer can see" is clear but a bit long. Perhaps "absurd" or "absurd on its face" would be equivalent and suitably terse. (from Ton:) > > What I think is that this discussion, which we have every > > year, has to do with semantics. If 'irrational' is absolute, > > we have chosen a wrong word and should find another. Whether the standard is absolute or not, I think "irrational" is the wrong word. It suggests a defect in reasoning, but what is really meant is a defect in carefulness. The classic example is the ACBL's ATxx opposite KQ9xx. It is certainly irrational to play the ace first, but the ACBL tells us to allow that a claimer might do so. I know "irrational" has a long history, but there still may be some merit in considering other words. > From: "Grattan Endicott" > If the view is taken that such > distinctions should be maintained it may be that we will > have difficulty in finding a single word to express the > intention (but we can get round this by providing a > definition). I think all you have to do is apply "class of player" to whatever word is chosen: "absurd for the class of player involved," for example. I really hope the drafters will stick with an absolute standard. > I do have a gleam dancing about my head that, if > the lawmakers do not favour the absolute interpretation, > might illuminate a possible reversal of approach - so > that a player is deemed to follow the optimum bridge > line unless the Director is of the opinion that the player > lacks [? may lack] the expertise to visualize and execute > the play. While (as BLML knows) I am inclined to be lenient on claims, "optimum bridge line" seems too favorable (aside from calling for a possibly difficult TD judgment). > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > Only a tiny fraction of claims actually need the TD - it is, of course, > exactly these claims that come to the attention of BLML. Indeed. That's why I suggested having SO guidelines. Instead of requiring the TD to review the entire play and perhaps make difficult judgments, why not have simple rules that are easy to apply? Then only a tiny fraction of the tiny fraction would occasion any difficulty. One thing to keep in mind is that for all rulings, a player who is ruled against can very reasonably ask "What can I do next time to prevent this from happening?" If the TD can answer "Follow suit," or "State that you are drawing trumps when your claim depends on doing so," most players will be satisfied. A less satisfying answer is "Become a better player so I will rule that you know enough to find the correct 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 Mon Jul 8 12:49:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g682mZi00542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 12:48:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g682mTH00538 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 12:48:29 +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 MAA11042 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 12:49:29 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 08 Jul 2002 12:30:15 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Truth, Justice and Lady Macbeth To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 12:22:41 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 08/07/2002 12:29:56 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] >>In the thread "Irrational claim", Peter Gill >>wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>>the rare kind of player whose bridge record >>>might have been more glittering had he been >>>less ethical, sad but true to say >> >>[snip] >> >>One should not be ethical in the hope or >>expectation of a tangible reward of 7 imps. >> >>One should be ethical for its own sake; as >>the cliche states, "Virtue is its own reward." > > Of course. But that is no reason for the >lawmakers to reward poorer ethics. > >-- >David Stevenson What bridge administrators should reward, and what they do reward, are two separate things. A prominent Australian bridge player enhanced his results by habitually violating L74C5. Did the ABF discipline the prominent Australian bridge player? No, the ABF rewarded his violations of L74C5 with multiple international selection as a "worthy" representative of Australia. The prominent Australian bridge player also served as a role model. A former partner of mine thought that if such a prominent Australian bridge player could habitually violate L74C5, it must be all right for my former partner to habitually violate L74C5 also. 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 Jul 8 13:40:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g683eUW00572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:40:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g683eQH00568 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:40:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA19046 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:41:30 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 08 Jul 2002 13:22:18 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:26:09 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 08/07/2002 01:21:59 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: [big snip] >Experienced players often bamboozle beginners >with spurious claims and use their superior >knowledge of the law to dispute claims by >beginners. [big snip] Change "experienced players often" to "unethical and experienced players often". Deliberately spurious claims (as distinct from merely erroneous claims) are a hen's teeth rarity in Canberra. I know of only one experienced (but non-expert) Canberra player who has a habit of claiming unearned tricks - and as a result of her poor ethics, she has been barred from one of Canberra's bridge clubs. For the second point, there is nothing legally or ethically wrong in using "superior knowledge of the law" to question an *invalid* claim. However, some years ago I was chair of an AC which overruled a TD decision that a beginner's claim was invalid. The TD ruled that it was careless or inferior for the beginner to lock herself in the wrong hand, as she had not specifically mentioned in her claim that she would finish drawing trumps in the right hand to cash her winners. My AC ruled that the class of player of the beginner was a particularly clever class of beginner, and locking herself in the wrong hand would have been irrational. Therefore, I agree that experienced players should not dispute *valid*, but poorly worded, claims by beginners. 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 Jul 8 13:44:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g683i1600591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:44:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from redsunsz ([202.105.131.114]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g683htH00587 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:43:56 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200207080343.g683htH00587@rgb.anu.edu.au> From: "CEO" Subject: [BLML] =?GB2312?B?LsT6usM=?= To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain;charset="GB2312"; Reply-To: kdevelop-devel@barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 11:30:32 +0800 X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ¹«Ë¾¸Å¿ö/¼ò½é ÉîÛÚÊкìÌ«Ñô¿Æ¼¼¿ª·¢¹«Ë¾ÊÇÍâÉÌͶ×ʵĸ߿Ƽ¼ÆóÒµ¡£ ¹«Ë¾ÒÔÊÀ½çÖøÃûµÄÈÕ±¾JVC¼¼ÊõΪºó¶Ü£¬Æ¾½èÍêÉƵÄÓªÏúÀíÄîΪÏȾöÌõ¼þ£¬×¨Òµ´ÓÊÂÏÖ´ú»¯½ÌÓý×°±¸¡¢¼ÆËã»ú¾ÖÓòÍø¼°»áÒéϵͳ¹¤³ÌµÄ¾­Óª¡¢¿ª·¢¡¢°²×°¡¢µ÷ÊÔ¡¢Î¬»¤¡¢ÒÔ¼°×âÁÞ¡¢Ïà¹Ø²úÆ·ÍƹãÏúÊÛ¡£²¢ÔÚÒýÁì½ÌѧÒÇÆ÷É豸¡¢ÍøÂç¿Æ¼¼³±Á÷µÄͬʱ£¬½¨Á¢Á˳ÉÊìµÄÊг¡ÓªÏúµÄÍøÂç¡£ Ëæ׏ú¼ÒÐÅÏ¢»¯½ÌÓýÊÂÒµµÄ·¢Õ¹ÓëÖйú¼ÓÈëWTOµÄÁÙ½ü£¬¹«Ë¾¼Ó¿ìÁ˽¨ÉèµÄ²½·¥¡£ÔÚÈÕ±¾JVC¹«Ë¾µÄ´óÁ¦Ð­×÷Ï£¬Òý½øÏȽøµÄ¼¼Êõ£¬Éú²ú¿ª·¢Á˶àÖÖÐͺż°¶à¹¦ÄÜÊÓƵµÄչʾ̨¡£²¢³É¹¦»ñµÃÈÕ±¾"EIKI"¡¢"SONY"¡¢"EPSON"¡¢"BAY"¡¢"IBM"¡¢"IBDN"¡¢"ʵ´ï"µÈ¶àÆ·ÅÆÒº¾§Í¶Ó°»úÖйúÇøÓòºËÐÄ´úÀí¡£ ±¾¹«Ë¾³«µ¼¿Æ¼¼ÐËÆó£¬ÒÔÈËΪ±¾µÄÀíÄã¡ÊØÓû§ÖÁÉÏ¡¢ÐÅÓþµÚÒ»µÄ×ÚÖ¼£¬¼°Ê±Îª¹ã´óÓû§ÌṩÓŻݡ¢ÓÅÖʵĸ÷Àà¼ÆËã»ú¾ÖÓòÍø¡¢»áÒéϵͳ¡¢µç½ÌÉ豸¡£²¢ÈȳÀ»¶Ó­¹úÄÚÍâ¿ÍÉÌÇ°À´Ç¢Ì¸ÒµÎñ¡£ ÉîÛÚÊкìÌ«Ñô¿Æ¼¼¿ª·¢ÓÐÏÞ¹«Ë¾ÏÖÓвúÆ·£º ÊÓƵÑÝʾÒÇ¡¢ ͶӰĻ¡¢Í¶Ó°»ú¡¢µçÄÔ\ÒôÏìµÈ³ö×âÒµÎñ. ¶àýÌåÍøÂç½ÌÊÒ,¶àýÌå»áÒéÊÒ¡¢µçÊӵ绰»áÒé. ½»»»»ú¡¢Íø¿¨¡¢ÖÕ¶Ë,¼ÆËã»úÍøÂ繤³Ì¡¢ ¹«Ë¾ÁªÏµ·½Ê½£º µç»°£º86 755 25884249 25884247 25884258£¨ÎåÏߣ© ´«Õ棺86 755 25884258 MOBILE£º13828833340 WWW.REDSUNSZ.COM Email: ceo@redsunsz.com/ceoredsunsz@163.net Óʱࣺ518029 ¹«Ë¾µØÖ·£ºÉîÛÚÊаËØÔ·ÖÚöοƼ¼´óÏÃÆßÂ¥ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 8 15:40:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g685eJI00784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:40:19 +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 g685eFH00780 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:40:15 +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 PAA09675 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:41:19 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 08 Jul 2002 15:22:06 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:24:07 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 08/07/2002 03:21:47 PM 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] >>Kaplan's "computer print-out" is hypothetical. >>It includes the full system, both discussed >>and undiscussed. No, it includes only explicit and implicit *agreements*. It is impossible for a set of explicit and implicit *agreements* to be a *full system*, given the extremely large number of possible auctions. >>It is the theoretical sum of knowledge to >>which the opponents are entitled. If I, as >>Director, rule that 2Cl=Stayman, then that is >>on the print-out. Partnership agreements are made by agreements of the partnership, not by a director's ruling. >>Kaplan's print-out is not a full reference to >>discussions, but to the system. Yes and no. Explicit agreements have been discussed. Implicit agreements have not been discussed. Both explicit and implicit agreements are on Kaplan's print-out. *But*, non-discussed calls which are also non- agreements are *not* on Kaplan's print-out. >>And I as director will be guided by Ed's hand >>rather than by David and Ed's uncorroborated >>self-serving statements. John (MadDog) Probst replied: >Herman, you lost me there. The hands have as >much to do with it as the Baboon in Antwerp >Zoo knows how to play bridge. Form an opinion >on the agreement *YES*. Look at the hands? >Feed the gibbon a banana. The two previous >sentences are just as logical sequiturs as your >position. [snip] The Lawful basis for the De Wael School is the footnote to L75 which states, inter alia: "...the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." Where the De Wael School differs from the Edgar Kaplan/John Probst school is that it seems that the De Wael School cannot conceive that any evidence can exist that "Undiscussed" is a correct explanation. As John Probst notes, this is a non-sequitur. A De Wael School corollary is that if pard's hand contains "X" strength & distribution, and if you explain pard's hand as containing "X" strength & distribution, then you have not given MI. Again, as John Probst notes, this is also a non-sequitur. If your *agreement* is that pard's hand contains "Y" strength & distribution, but you explain pard's hand as containing "X" strength & distribution, then you have given MI about your *agreement*. You have still given MI about your *agreement*, even if pard's coincidental misbid with hand "X" now means that pard's hand is consistent with your misexplanation of hand "X". 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 Jul 8 17:21:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g687LEi00859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 17:21:14 +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 g687L9H00855 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 17:21:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA26971 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 17:22:13 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 08 Jul 2002 17:03:00 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Alerting later bids [was The Edgar Kaplan school] To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 17:06:52 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 08/07/2002 05:02:41 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >If I had alerted and explained the 1S bid, I >wouldn't feel compelled to alert the 2H bid as >showing only 2 cards. This is but bridge logic. >The opponents are not 'entitled' to have their >attention drawn to this knowledge (L75C). I disagree with Alain's interpretation of L75. I do not believe that opponents should be required to apply mental effort on the "bridge logic" inferences of your system, which is unfamiliar to them. My Symmetric Relay system is unfamiliar to most opponents, so I make a habit of minutely describing the positive and negative inferences of calls to the opponents. I scrupulously detail even those inferences which an opponent could deduce by "bridge logic" with some mental effort. My view of L75 is that the opponents are *entitled* to be explicitly informed of your agreement about the current call you have made. Bridge is not a cryptic crossword, where clues from the previous bidding mean that you do not have to explain and/or alert your current 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 Mon Jul 8 17:36:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g687ZnZ00875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 17:35:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g687ZhH00871 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 17:35:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-46975.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.55.127]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g687LeZ11641 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 09:21:40 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D293DF1.6040008@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 09:23:29 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school 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 Richard, quite a helpful post, this one. Allow me to react in the appropriate places. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > > [snip] > > >>>Kaplan's "computer print-out" is hypothetical. >>>It includes the full system, both discussed >>>and undiscussed. >>> > > No, it includes only explicit and implicit > *agreements*. It is impossible for a set of > explicit and implicit *agreements* to be a > *full system*, given the extremely large > number of possible auctions. > I doubt if it is helpful to discuss what is on a hypothetical list. Kaplan wanted to show that it is not the telling that is important, but the "knowing" by opponents. How they get there is not important. Which is why he created the concept of a full list. Of course that full list contains everything that the opponents are entitled to. Now it is not useful for us to discuss what is and what is not on that list, if then we are going to draw conclusions from it about what is entitled and what isn't. That's circular reasoning. So let's stop the discussions about Kaplan's print-out. > >>>It is the theoretical sum of knowledge to >>>which the opponents are entitled. If I, as >>>Director, rule that 2Cl=Stayman, then that is >>>on the print-out. >>> > > Partnership agreements are made by agreements of > the partnership, not by a director's ruling. > I agree. But ruling about what are partnership agreements and what are not are made by the Director, regardless of whether there has been partnership discussion or not. What I am saying is that even if I haven't literally and with present partner agreed transfers over 1NT (as I often don't, even with pick-up partners, because it's the national standard over here), that does not mean I won't be ruled as having transfers among my agreements. So when I know that the TD will rule it as agreement, is it not safer for me to also inform opponents that it is? > >>>Kaplan's print-out is not a full reference to >>>discussions, but to the system. >>> > > Yes and no. Explicit agreements have been > discussed. Implicit agreements have not been > discussed. Both explicit and implicit > agreements are on Kaplan's print-out. > > *But*, non-discussed calls which are also non- > agreements are *not* on Kaplan's print-out. > This all depends on what we mean by non-discussed. My non-discussed transfer is clearly an agreement. Not because it is implicit, but because it is a standard that we both know. It's as if we just said "Flemish standard". Now if by non-discussed you mean neither discussed, nor part of standard, nor implicit, I may grant you that you have a point. But I believe that such calls are very small in number. > >>>And I as director will be guided by Ed's hand >>>rather than by David and Ed's uncorroborated >>>self-serving statements. >>> > > John (MadDog) Probst replied: > > >>Herman, you lost me there. The hands have as >>much to do with it as the Baboon in Antwerp >>Zoo knows how to play bridge. Form an opinion >>on the agreement *YES*. Look at the hands? >>Feed the gibbon a banana. The two previous >>sentences are just as logical sequiturs as your >>position. >> > > [snip] > > The Lawful basis for the De Wael School is the > footnote to L75 which states, inter alia: > > "...the Director is to presume Mistaken > Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the > absence of evidence to the contrary." > Indeed I should be looking a bit more at the "mistaken bid" category. > Where the De Wael School differs from the > Edgar Kaplan/John Probst school is that it > seems that the De Wael School cannot conceive > that any evidence can exist that "Undiscussed" > is a correct explanation. As John Probst > notes, this is a non-sequitur. > Well, of course there cannot be evidence for non-discussed. I realize that this is a logical impossibility and therefore should not use that as a basis for my argumentation, and I won't. What I do mean however is that there is first-hand evidence that a particular call has a particular meaning. When someone bids 2Cl over 1NT with a 4-4-3-2, that is evidence to it being Stayman. Coupled with rather poor evidence "we did not discuss this" I tend to rule that this is enough to call it systemically Stayman. > A De Wael School corollary is that if pard's > hand contains "X" strength & distribution, and > if you explain pard's hand as containing "X" > strength & distribution, then you have not > given MI. Again, as John Probst notes, this is > also a non-sequitur. > > If your *agreement* is that pard's hand contains > "Y" strength & distribution, but you explain > pard's hand as containing "X" strength & > distribution, then you have given MI about your > *agreement*. You have still given MI about your > *agreement*, even if pard's coincidental misbid > with hand "X" now means that pard's hand is > consistent with your misexplanation of hand "X". > Of course, but all that argument starts with knowing what the agreement actually is. Absent evidence to the contrary, I rule that the agreement is the one that most closely fits the hand with which it was bid. I really believe that this is how most directors rule. Then why not follow the corollary which is basically the De Wael school. > 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 Mon Jul 8 19:31:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g689UUr00939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 19:30:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g689UOH00935 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 19:30:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g689GSY06587 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 10:16:28 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 10:16 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school 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: <3D293DF1.6040008@skynet.be> HdW wrote: > I agree. But ruling about what are partnership agreements and what > are not are made by the Director, regardless of whether there has been > partnership discussion or not. > What I am saying is that even if I haven't literally and with present > partner agreed transfers over 1NT (as I often don't, even with pick-up > partners, because it's the national standard over here), that does not > mean I won't be ruled as having transfers among my agreements. So when > I know that the TD will rule it as agreement, is it not safer for me > to also inform opponents that it is? Of course it is safer. 80%+ of the time you remove any ambiguity from the auction by giving partner UI that is basically undetectable by opponents. If playing with people from the same locale you can answer "Undiscussed - should be club standard" or, if opponents are strangers, "undiscussed but it's a transfer according to the national standard". If I am your pick-up partner you can say "Undiscussed but we have agreed Acol" and if you happen to know that transfers are not part of Acol you can add that information too. > Now if by non-discussed you mean neither discussed, nor part of > standard, nor implicit, I may grant you that you have a point. > But I believe that such calls are very small in number. This depends, to an extent, on where you play. I play a fair amount on-line using both "Acol" and "SAYC" and averaging about 4 partners a day. With many of these partners I may play 6 hands and then another 6 two months later. It is my experience that only a few of these players actually know either system well (I hardly know SAYC at all but do not see that as a reason not to agree to play it. Most players actually agree SAYC when they mean SA, weak twos, transfers to majors and are even less familiar with SAYC than I am). It is totally ridiculous to expect unambiguous answers in this environment. Even a basic question like what is the minimum requirement for a 1 level suit opening/overcall will be unanswerable (there isn't a "standard" answer in Acol or SA). Of course if I am playing against you and your regular partner and I get an answer of "undiscussed" and no more I will certainly call the TD and expect him to deal with you severely - it is impossible for a regular partnership of competent players not to have a reasonable understanding of such issues. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 8 20:05:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g68A5Cv00969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 20:05:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g68A57H00965 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 20:05:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-95944.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.246.200]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g689p3818164 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 11:51:03 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2960F3.2030400@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 11:52:51 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school 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 Tim, another one I fully agree with. Tim West-meads wrote: > In-Reply-To: <3D293DF1.6040008@skynet.be> > HdW wrote: > >>I agree. But ruling about what are partnership agreements and what >>are not are made by the Director, regardless of whether there has been >>partnership discussion or not. >>What I am saying is that even if I haven't literally and with present >>partner agreed transfers over 1NT (as I often don't, even with pick-up >>partners, because it's the national standard over here), that does not >>mean I won't be ruled as having transfers among my agreements. So when >>I know that the TD will rule it as agreement, is it not safer for me >>to also inform opponents that it is? >> > > Of course it is safer. 80%+ of the time you remove any ambiguity from the > auction by giving partner UI that is basically undetectable by opponents. > If playing with people from the same locale you can answer "Undiscussed - > should be club standard" or, if opponents are strangers, "undiscussed but > it's a transfer according to the national standard". If I am your pick-up > partner you can say "Undiscussed but we have agreed Acol" and if you > happen to know that transfers are not part of Acol you can add that > information too. > That is correct, and a very important part of the De Wael School as well. Remember that, in the basic example that lead to the naming of a DwS, the main point was that I want to be allowed to avoid giving UI to partner. So indeed a player should be allowed to answer "undiscussed, assuming club standard" in order to minimize UI to partner. But that is not the discussion here. The discussion here is about what the opponents are entitled to. If they also know what "club standard" means, they are not misinformed. But if they don't know what the standard is, they must be allowed to ask further and be answered. > >>Now if by non-discussed you mean neither discussed, nor part of >>standard, nor implicit, I may grant you that you have a point. >>But I believe that such calls are very small in number. >> > > This depends, to an extent, on where you play. I play a fair amount > on-line using both "Acol" and "SAYC" and averaging about 4 partners a day. > With many of these partners I may play 6 hands and then another 6 two > months later. It is my experience that only a few of these players > actually know either system well (I hardly know SAYC at all but do not see > that as a reason not to agree to play it. Most players actually agree > SAYC when they mean SA, weak twos, transfers to majors and are even less > familiar with SAYC than I am). It is totally ridiculous to expect > unambiguous answers in this environment. Even a basic question like what > is the minimum requirement for a 1 level suit opening/overcall will be > unanswerable (there isn't a "standard" answer in Acol or SA). > > Of course if I am playing against you and your regular partner and I get > an answer of "undiscussed" and no more I will certainly call the TD and > expect him to deal with you severely - it is impossible for a regular > partnership of competent players not to have a reasonable understanding of > such issues. > No disagreement here at all. > 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/ > > > -- 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 Jul 8 22:50:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g68Cnak01252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 22:49:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g68CnRH01248 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 22:49:28 +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 17RXjo-0006Tx-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 08 Jul 2002 08:35:32 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020708082038.00b4c990@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 08:36:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <3D26B871.8050807@skynet.be> References: <3D23EE73.1000305@skynet.be> <8P+BTtDhtEJ9EwiO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3D2468D8.3040205@skynet.be> <3D254CDF.70104@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020705164403.00ab7250@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 05:29 AM 7/6/02, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>Example: 1C-1NT-P-2H-P-? You haven't discussed whether you play >>"system on", in which case 2H would be a transfer to S, or "system >>off", in which case 2H is to play. If you were confident it was a >>transfer, you'd bid 3S, super-accept, and, since the context here is >>"De Wael school", you would tell the opponents that your "agreement" >>is transfer. If you were confident it was to play, you would pass, >>and tell them that your agreement is that it's to play. (In either >>case, if you guess wrong you might get an adjusted score for MI, as >>the De Wael school context requires; so far no problem.) But knowing >>that you don't know which it is, you actually bid 2S, your best >>chance to avoid the total disaster that would come from misguessing >>-- if it's a transfer, you've made a simple accept when you're worth >>a super-accept, which might work out fine, whereas if it's to play, >>you've shown a maximum with H support and S cards, which might work >>out fine. Then what do you tell your opponents when they want to >>know your "agreement"? You can't say "transfer", because if it were >>a transfer you'd have bid 3S with your hand, and you can't say "to >>play", because if it were to play you'd have passed with your >>hand. You can't say you don't know, and you can't stay >>silent. Anything you do is an infraction, regardless of what partner >>intended his call to mean, or holds. >Very good example, and accepted as an exception to my argumentation. > >I maintain however that this is a minority position. > >And while we may disagree about the relative frequency of the two >cases, what do you suggest doing in the other case? > >The case in which you do finally decide what it should be, and where >you make your next bid catering for just one of the two cases. >Is it fair to leave your opponents in the dark in that case? >When, if you have indeed gotten it right, you know beforehand that >there will be absolutely no way of proving to the director that you >did not in fact have the agreement that is so blatently obvious from >both your actions ? > >I don't believe that is fair. If I were to decide to continue the auction on the assumption that, say, 2H was a transfer (I bid 3S), I would have a reason for doing so; perhaps I have agreements about other situations that I think should generalize to this one, perhaps I noted what partner bid, or how he interpreted one of my bids, in a somewhat similar but different situation previously, or whatever. And while I will indeed tell my opponents that I have no specific agreement about the auction at hand, I will also reveal to them whatever facts I considered in coming to the conclusion that it was a transfer. They will know about those other agreements, or what partner did that led me to the conclusion that this was probably a transfer, or whatever. IOW, they will get the full and complete disclosure of whatever I know that might be relevant (and no, I don't consider the day of the week on which we discussed the possibly related auction to be relevant) to which the laws entitle them. And if the TD decides that I was lying, that I really had a "blatantly obvious" agreement with my partner that this particular 2H bid was a transfer, and that all that stuff about related situations and prior bids and all that was just made up to try to convince my opponents that I really didn't have such an agreement, then he shall rule against me. But he will be wrong in his judgment. And he will be wrong in his reading of the law if he says he believes every word I say, but L75 requires him to rule against me anyhow. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 8 23:03:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g68D3fb01269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 23:03:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g68D3XH01265 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 23:03:33 +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 17RXxS-0000y4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 08 Jul 2002 08:49:38 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020708084047.00b47930@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 08:50:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations In-Reply-To: <00d301c224dc$9805b0b0$90dff1c3@LNV> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020705172449.00a99a00@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:11 AM 7/6/02, Ton wrote: >Let me admit another deviation from the official laws written in the >English/American language we have made in the Dutch translation. >'irrational' for which we have a good 'translation', being 'irrationeel' >(you know that Dutch is the motherlanguage), is translated in 'dwaas' >which >translates in 'foolish' in the English language. and we think that the >class >of player should be considered when deciding whether a play is foolish or >not. That sounds like a significant mistranslation, and one that forces the law to be read as the WBF now interprets it. Of course the class of player must be considered to decide if an action is dwaas, whether or not you would believe that the class of player must be considered to decide if an action is irrationeel. But if "dwass" translates into English as "foolish", ISTM that it comes much closer to the English "careless or inferior" than to the English "irrational". If there is a moving line between "'normal'" and inferior, then for any class of player there is an action which is only marginally "careless or inferior", almost but not quite "irrational". The footnote says explicitly, whether you believe in "class of player" or not, that a "careless or inferior" action cannot be considered "irrational". So the WBF interpretation means that if that marginally "careless or inferior" action were just a bit more careless, or just a bit more inferior, it would then cease to be a "careless or inferior" action. That does violence to the language, whether the language in question is English or Dutch. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 8 23:09:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g68D8oF01281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 23:08:50 +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-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 g68D8eH01277 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 23:08:41 +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 17RY2M-00004Y-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 08 Jul 2002 13:54:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 11:06:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Truth, Justice and Lady Macbeth 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 the thread "Irrational claim", Peter Gill >>>wrote: >>> >>>[snip] >>> >>>>the rare kind of player whose bridge record >>>>might have been more glittering had he been >>>>less ethical, sad but true to say >>> >>>[snip] >>> >>>One should not be ethical in the hope or >>>expectation of a tangible reward of 7 imps. >>> >>>One should be ethical for its own sake; as >>>the cliche states, "Virtue is its own reward." >> >> Of course. But that is no reason for the >>lawmakers to reward poorer ethics. >What bridge administrators should reward, and >what they do reward, are two separate things. > >A prominent Australian bridge player enhanced >his results by habitually violating L74C5. > >Did the ABF discipline the prominent Australian >bridge player? No, the ABF rewarded his >violations of L74C5 with multiple international >selection as a "worthy" representative of >Australia. > >The prominent Australian bridge player also >served as a role model. A former partner of >mine thought that if such a prominent Australian >bridge player could habitually violate L74C5, it >must be all right for my former partner to >habitually violate L74C5 also. I was talking about lawmakers, not people who administer the Laws. It is helpful to the game if the Laws do not reward unethical players. Certainly it is *also* useful if TDs, ACs and others then apply the laws right. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 8 23:24:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g68DOVC01305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 23:24:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g68DONH01301 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 23:24:23 +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 17RYHc-0004l0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 08 Jul 2002 09:10:28 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020708090131.00b48a50@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 09:11:54 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Behavioral Obligations In-Reply-To: <001101c22521$b559b9a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <00e901c2251b$365351d0$ff9868d5@SCRAP> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:17 PM 7/6/02, Sven wrote: >I shall consider the present laws acceptable if we limit >"irrational" play to play that is insane based upon what >the claimer can see when he has a choice and assuming >that he has no knowledge whatsoever of the still hidden >cards except what he made clear with his claim statement. >(Including the possibility that he has lost count of the cards). > >This means that it will still be irrational not to cover a King >from the second hand with the Ace when playing towards >an Ace-Queen tenace, but it will not be irrational to concede >a trick to a single offside King, because he will be assumed >not to know that the King must be single unless he made >such knowledge clear with the claim. It will also be irrational >not to overruff a defenders (unexpected) ruff when given the >opportunity, but it will not be irrational to ruff with his smallest >trump only to be overruffed by the next player when roles are >reversed. I think Sven's suggestions are quite reasonable, and they are exactly the kinds of guidelines which this thread has, IMO, made it obvious that we need if we are to rule on claims other than totally individually and idiosyncratically. You may or may not agree with Sven's particular suggestions, but the point is that such statements -- "it [is] irrational not to cover a king from the second hand with the ace when playing towards an ace-queen tenace", "it [is] not irrational to concede a trick to a single offside king", "it [is] irrational not to overruff a defender's ruff when given the opportunity", "it [is] not irrational to ruff with his smallest trump only to be overruffed" -- can only be meaningful if they are absolute. Sven doesn't mention "class of player" in any of the above, for a very good reason: his suggested guidelines would be rendered meaningless if he did. "It is irrational not to cover a king from the second hand with the ace when playing towards the ace-queen combination unless you belong to a class of player that might not cover the king with the ace" 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 Tue Jul 9 00:04:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g68E3Ok01340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 00:03:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g68E3GH01336 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 00:03:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-95944.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.246.200]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g68Dn7H07520 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:49:07 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2998BF.4060807@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 15:50:55 +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: <3D23EE73.1000305@skynet.be> <8P+BTtDhtEJ9EwiO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3D2468D8.3040205@skynet.be> <3D254CDF.70104@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020705164403.00ab7250@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020708082038.00b4c990@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 05:29 AM 7/6/02, Herman wrote: > >> >> The case in which you do finally decide what it should be, and where >> you make your next bid catering for just one of the two cases. >> Is it fair to leave your opponents in the dark in that case? >> When, if you have indeed gotten it right, you know beforehand that >> there will be absolutely no way of proving to the director that you >> did not in fact have the agreement that is so blatently obvious from >> both your actions ? >> >> I don't believe that is fair. > > > If I were to decide to continue the auction on the assumption that, say, > 2H was a transfer (I bid 3S), I would have a reason for doing so; > perhaps I have agreements about other situations that I think should > generalize to this one, perhaps I noted what partner bid, or how he > interpreted one of my bids, in a somewhat similar but different > situation previously, or whatever. > > And while I will indeed tell my opponents that I have no specific > agreement about the auction at hand, I will also reveal to them whatever > facts I considered in coming to the conclusion that it was a transfer. > They will know about those other agreements, or what partner did that > led me to the conclusion that this was probably a transfer, or whatever. > > IOW, they will get the full and complete disclosure of whatever I know > that might be relevant (and no, I don't consider the day of the week on > which we discussed the possibly related auction to be relevant) to which > the laws entitle them. > > And if the TD decides that I was lying, that I really had a "blatantly > obvious" agreement with my partner that this particular 2H bid was a > transfer, and that all that stuff about related situations and prior > bids and all that was just made up to try to convince my opponents that > I really didn't have such an agreement, then he shall rule against me. > But he will be wrong in his judgment. And he will be wrong in his > reading of the law if he says he believes every word I say, but L75 > requires him to rule against me anyhow. > Basically Eric, you suggest giving an answer to opponents of 100 words long, ending in "transfer". I suggest giving an answer in one word "transfer". Which is where we came in. I believe that both these answers are equal with regards to the legal aspects of the case. I believe your answer is more helpful to opponents in that they know more than they are entitled to, but also less helpful in that they are forced to listen to 99 words of drabble. I suggest to players who ask me for advice that my answer is the one they should be giving. You may suggest otherwise. Now I am not saying that you are wrong. Are you still saying that I am? > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Jul 9 02:20:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g68GKFH01404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 02:20:16 +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 g68GKAH01400 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 02:20:11 +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 17Rb1j-0001qy-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 08 Jul 2002 12:06:15 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020708120019.00b50ae0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 12:07:41 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis In-Reply-To: <3D2998BF.4060807@skynet.be> References: <3D23EE73.1000305@skynet.be> <8P+BTtDhtEJ9EwiO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3D2468D8.3040205@skynet.be> <3D254CDF.70104@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020705164403.00ab7250@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020708082038.00b4c990@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:50 AM 7/8/02, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> >>If I were to decide to continue the auction on the assumption that, >>say, 2H was a transfer (I bid 3S), I would have a reason for doing >>so; perhaps I have agreements about other situations that I think >>should generalize to this one, perhaps I noted what partner bid, or >>how he interpreted one of my bids, in a somewhat similar but >>different situation previously, or whatever. >>And while I will indeed tell my opponents that I have no specific >>agreement about the auction at hand, I will also reveal to them >>whatever facts I considered in coming to the conclusion that it was a >>transfer. >>They will know about those other agreements, or what partner did that >>led me to the conclusion that this was probably a transfer, or whatever. >>IOW, they will get the full and complete disclosure of whatever I >>know that might be relevant (and no, I don't consider the day of the >>week on which we discussed the possibly related auction to be >>relevant) to which the laws entitle them. >>And if the TD decides that I was lying, that I really had a >>"blatantly obvious" agreement with my partner that this particular 2H >>bid was a transfer, and that all that stuff about related situations >>and prior bids and all that was just made up to try to convince my >>opponents that I really didn't have such an agreement, then he shall >>rule against me. >>But he will be wrong in his judgment. And he will be wrong in his >>reading of the law if he says he believes every word I say, but L75 >>requires him to rule against me anyhow. >Basically Eric, you suggest giving an answer to opponents of 100 words >long, ending in "transfer". >I suggest giving an answer in one word "transfer". > >Which is where we came in. > >I believe that both these answers are equal with regards to the legal >aspects of the case. > >I believe your answer is more helpful to opponents in that they know >more than they are entitled to, but also less helpful in that they are >forced to listen to 99 words of drabble. >I suggest to players who ask me for advice that my answer is the one >they should be giving. > >You may suggest otherwise. > >Now I am not saying that you are wrong. Are you still saying that I am? I am. I do understand the argument, but I am convinced that in the context of full disclosure under the laws, saying "transfer" is making a definitive statement that is absolutely equivalent to "we have an (explicit or implicit) agreement that it is a transfer". And I cannot bring myself to accept that I am required by law to make a definitive statement to the opponents that is factually untrue. Nor can I accept that if I do not have an agreement, and the TD nevertheless rules that I do have an agreement, that that means that I somehow, legally, do have an agreement, rather than that the TD simply made a factually incorrect finding. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 9 08:46:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g68MjG801782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 08:45:16 +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 g68MjBH01778 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 08:45:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA23820 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 08:46:15 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 09 Jul 2002 08:27:00 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 08:30:55 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 09/07/2002 08:26:41 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: [snip] >What I do mean however is that there is first- >hand evidence that a particular call has a >particular meaning. When someone bids 2Cl over >1NT with a 4-4-3-2, that is evidence to it >being Stayman. Coupled with rather poor >evidence "we did not discuss this" I tend to >rule that this is enough to call it >systemically Stayman. [snip] Bidding 2C with 4-4-3-2 is merely evidence that the caller *intended* 2C as Stayman. The actual cards are irrelevant when determining whether *both* partners have an *agreement* that 2C is Stayman. 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 Jul 9 09:26:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g68NQMA01814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 09:26:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g68NQGH01810 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 09:26:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-70234.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.146.90]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g68NCI806143 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 01:12:18 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2A1CBC.4040506@skynet.be> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 01:14:04 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Steps in an appeal analysis References: <3D23EE73.1000305@skynet.be> <8P+BTtDhtEJ9EwiO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3D2468D8.3040205@skynet.be> <3D254CDF.70104@skynet.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020705164403.00ab7250@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020708082038.00b4c990@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020708120019.00b50ae0@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: >> >> Now I am not saying that you are wrong. Are you still saying that I am? > > > I am. I do understand the argument, but I am convinced that in the > context of full disclosure under the laws, saying "transfer" is making a > definitive statement that is absolutely equivalent to "we have an > (explicit or implicit) agreement that it is a transfer". And I cannot > bring myself to accept that I am required by law to make a definitive > statement to the opponents that is factually untrue. Nor can I accept > that if I do not have an agreement, and the TD nevertheless rules that I > do have an agreement, that that means that I somehow, legally, do have > an agreement, rather than that the TD simply made a factually incorrect > finding. > But Eric, what are you trying to do ? Secure your place in heaven by not lying ? Or trying to win a bridge tournament ? My objective is not to correctly inform my opponents, who are far more interested in my response "stayman" than in your retoric anyway. My objective is to get through the tournament without my opponents having to resort to a director in order to get what they think they deserve. And if that means that I am telling them I have an agreement when I haven't really discussed it, so what ? > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Jul 9 18:00:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g697vPL01983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 17:57:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail49.fg.online.no (mail49-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.49]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g697vJH01979 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 17:57:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0335.bb.online.no [80.212.209.79]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA15130 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 09:43:16 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000901c2271c$49e35d00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 09:43:16 +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: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > [snip] > > >What I do mean however is that there is first- > >hand evidence that a particular call has a > >particular meaning. When someone bids 2Cl over > >1NT with a 4-4-3-2, that is evidence to it > >being Stayman. Coupled with rather poor > >evidence "we did not discuss this" I tend to > >rule that this is enough to call it > >systemically Stayman. > > [snip] > > Bidding 2C with 4-4-3-2 is merely evidence that > the caller *intended* 2C as Stayman. The > actual cards are irrelevant when determining > whether *both* partners have an *agreement* that > 2C is Stayman. > > Best wishes > > Richard Quite correct. Except that unless the players can show some evidence of the contrary the Director will in a case like this take the actual cards as evidence that they have in fact an agreement (expressed or implied) of using Stayman. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 9 18:21:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g698IEl02004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 18:18:14 +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 g698I8H02000 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 18:18:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-70204.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.146.60]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6983t823492 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 10:03:55 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2A9958.6040504@skynet.be> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 10:05:44 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk No Richard, they are relevant. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > > [snip] > > >>What I do mean however is that there is first- >>hand evidence that a particular call has a >>particular meaning. When someone bids 2Cl over >>1NT with a 4-4-3-2, that is evidence to it >>being Stayman. Coupled with rather poor >>evidence "we did not discuss this" I tend to >>rule that this is enough to call it >>systemically Stayman. >> > > [snip] > > Bidding 2C with 4-4-3-2 is merely evidence that > the caller *intended* 2C as Stayman. The > actual cards are irrelevant when determining > whether *both* partners have an *agreement* that > 2C is Stayman. > There is a very serious problem here. Native english speakers are at a disadvantage. To them, agreement seems to mean that partners have agreed on something. To non-english sepakers that relationship is less strict. Oh I know that it is the same in other languages. In dutch the word is "Afspraak" which is also related to "afspreken" = "to agree". But when I write on blm about agreements, I see "agreement" more as a synonym to "system". Which means that to me, it does not matter whether or not someone has agreed something in order to make it an agreement. If I sit down with a pick-up partner, I don't have to agree on transfers to know that I am playing them. To say afterwards that there is no agreement on transfers is rhetoric (see Kojak, I know how to spell it now). Now if someone bids 2He with a hand containing spades, what else but his hand are you going to use as evidence that his "agreement" was transfers ? So please don't argue with me, if all you're going to be saying is some clever piece of bridge-lawyering saying "the fact that I have spades may be evidence that I intended 2He as transfer, but it is not evidence that we agreed that we played transfers". If you try such an argument, I might even add a PP. > 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 Tue Jul 9 19:49:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g699nIB02104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 19:49:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g699nCH02100 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 19:49:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (hbge-216-37-227-55.dsl.hbge.epix.net [216.37.227.55]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g699ZF3f000788 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 05:35:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 05:35:14 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: <4r9liu0jq360js9oj8g6ar91mkodfi6kcm@4ax.com> References: <3D2A9958.6040504@skynet.be> In-Reply-To: <3D2A9958.6040504@skynet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 09 Jul 2002 10:05:44 +0200, Herman wrote: > >So please don't argue with me, if all you're going to be saying is >some clever piece of bridge-lawyering saying "the fact that I have >spades may be evidence that I intended 2He as transfer, but it is not >evidence that we agreed that we played transfers". > >If you try such an argument, I might even add a PP. > > Then I'm afraid you are missing something in basic logic, Herman. No doubt you will treat this as yet another exception, but let me give you a scenario, albeit with a contrived hand to make the point. You're playing on OKBridge. Now, it is a requirement (i.e. stated by OKBridge) that when you sit down in a pickup partnership, you agree the basic system, start play, and refine things as you go along. So, you sit down with an unknown pickup partner who shows SAYC in his stats, plus a couple of (not relevant) gadgets. If you want an indication of partner's strength, let's say he shows int++/adv as his level. First hand you pick up something like my usual rubber bridge collection S 32 H 65432 D 432 C 432 The bidding goes 1C on your left (opps are also playing SAYC), 1NT from your partner, double on your right, your bid. Now, you have not agreed whether system is on or off in this situation - and believe me, there are sizeable numbers on OKB who play each of the alternatives, I couldn't tell you which is the majority. The OKBridge SAYC notes do *not* cover this sequence (I"ll be happy to forward you a copy if you want to see them for yourself). You have to bid, and obviously you want to work out how to get your partner to play 2H. Now, I maintain that it's a pure guess. So I flip a mental coin and bid 2D, hoping pard is one of those who plays "system on", and my RHO asks me (or asks partner, if partner alerts make you happier) what 2D means. >From my hand, it is quite clear that I intended 2D as transfer. It also seems equally clear to me, given the circumstances, that we do *not* have an agreement that 2D is a transfer. I'm simply taking a guess and hoping, I'm compelled to make a call, and pass is not a realistic option. Now, if you were called as TD, and told me the fact that I obviously meant 2D as transfer means that we had an agreement, then you are simply wrong. We *didn't* have an agreement, I just had to guess, one way or the other. Impose a PP when I point this out to you if you wish, but doing so *doesn't* make you right. We had no agreement, and all you're doing is penalising us because I had to guess. Partner may not even have had to guess to get it right - what if he'd held 4-2-4-3 shape? His hand is AI to him, doesn't that shape make it a significantly better bet to take the 2D bid as transfer? And that's still without an agreement... And before you ask, if we are playing self-alerts, and opp asks me to explain my bid, no, I am *not* going to tell him that we've agreed transfers. Firstly because it's untrue, and secondly because I think it's absolutely fundamental to the game that if my partner has to guess, opps should also have to guess whether we're going to land on our feet or not. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 9 21:25:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g69BOx302341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 21:24:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g69BOsH02337 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 21:24:54 +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 NAA13335; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 13:08:31 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA15461; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 13:10:55 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020709125217.00a67e80@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 13:19:09 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school In-Reply-To: <3D293DF1.6040008@skynet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:23 8/07/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >This all depends on what we mean by non-discussed. My non-discussed >transfer is clearly an agreement. Not because it is implicit, but because >it is a standard that we both know. It's as if we just said "Flemish >standard". AG : this goes quite far. Two members of the BCOB may sit together for the first time, and agree a whole system under the name "Standard BCOB". By this sole word, they will have agreements like Jacoby 2NT, 4-suit transfers, Namyats, Drury raise, Michaels, support doubles and snapdragon, unusual vs unusual ... Those agreements are not written. However, they are not implicit agreements. They are part of a package of explicit agreements which both players know are explicit. >Now if by non-discussed you mean neither discussed, nor part of standard, >nor implicit, I may grant you that you have a point. >But I believe that such calls are very small in number. AG : I remember you that my initial position in this thread is that it is possible that you don't have any agreements and still understand the (quite specific and non-standard) meaning of a bid. The question, then, was : what do you explain ? Please don't tell me it can't happen. It happens to me. >Of course, but all that argument starts with knowing what the agreement >actually is. Absent evidence to the contrary, I rule that the agreement >is the one that most closely fits the hand with which it was bid. AG : this is dangerous. The proximity is difficult to quantify. If you open a 12-count 5314 with 2S and if in your area (flemish Brabant) there are two common standards : - 14-16 with 5+ spades - 6-10 with 5S/4M which is the closest ? 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 Jul 9 21:52:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g69BqLS02364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 21:52:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g69BqBH02360 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 21:52:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-70204.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.146.60]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g69BcB803578 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 13:38:11 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2ACB8F.2070509@skynet.be> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 13:39:59 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school References: <3D2A9958.6040504@skynet.be> <4r9liu0jq360js9oj8g6ar91mkodfi6kcm@4ax.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This post clearly shows the limitations of blml. Here we are, discussing things about Meckwell, or even Ed playing with David in Liverpool, and Brian drags in a first hand with an unknown partner on OKb. Yes Brian, you are absolutely correct in your story. And "no agreement" is the right answer. And no Brian, this does not help the discussion one iota. We are not talking about someone who genuinely does not know. We are talking of someone who has bases for correct guessing, and whose partner has the same bases, also guesses correctly, yet maintains that "no agreement" is a correct explanation of this situation. It is not. And if you agree with that, why then are we having this discussion in the first place ? But see below. Brian Meadows wrote: > On Tue, 09 Jul 2002 10:05:44 +0200, Herman wrote: > > >>So please don't argue with me, if all you're going to be saying is >>some clever piece of bridge-lawyering saying "the fact that I have >>spades may be evidence that I intended 2He as transfer, but it is not >>evidence that we agreed that we played transfers". >> >>If you try such an argument, I might even add a PP. >> >> >> > > Then I'm afraid you are missing something in basic logic, Herman. > No doubt you will treat this as yet another exception, but let me > give you a scenario, albeit with a contrived hand to make the > point. You're playing on OKBridge. > > Now, it is a requirement (i.e. stated by OKBridge) that when you > sit down in a pickup partnership, you agree the basic system, > start play, and refine things as you go along. So, you sit down > with an unknown pickup partner who shows SAYC in his stats, plus > a couple of (not relevant) gadgets. If you want an indication of > partner's strength, let's say he shows int++/adv as his level. > First hand you pick up something like my usual rubber bridge > collection > > S 32 > H 65432 > D 432 > C 432 > > The bidding goes 1C on your left (opps are also playing SAYC), > 1NT from your partner, double on your right, your bid. > > Now, you have not agreed whether system is on or off in this > situation - and believe me, there are sizeable numbers on OKB who > play each of the alternatives, I couldn't tell you which is the > majority. The OKBridge SAYC notes do *not* cover this sequence > (I"ll be happy to forward you a copy if you want to see them for > yourself). > > You have to bid, and obviously you want to work out how to get > your partner to play 2H. Now, I maintain that it's a pure guess. > So I flip a mental coin and bid 2D, hoping pard is one of those > who plays "system on", and my RHO asks me (or asks partner, if > partner alerts make you happier) what 2D means. > >>From my hand, it is quite clear that I intended 2D as transfer. > It also seems equally clear to me, given the circumstances, that > we do *not* have an agreement that 2D is a transfer. I'm simply > taking a guess and hoping, I'm compelled to make a call, and pass > is not a realistic option. > > Now, if you were called as TD, and told me the fact that I > obviously meant 2D as transfer means that we had an agreement, > then you are simply wrong. We *didn't* have an agreement, I just > had to guess, one way or the other. Impose a PP when I point this > out to you if you wish, but doing so *doesn't* make you right. We > had no agreement, and all you're doing is penalising us because I > had to guess. Partner may not even have had to guess to get it > right - what if he'd held 4-2-4-3 shape? His hand is AI to him, > doesn't that shape make it a significantly better bet to take the > 2D bid as transfer? And that's still without an agreement... > > And before you ask, if we are playing self-alerts, and opp asks > me to explain my bid, no, I am *not* going to tell him that we've > agreed transfers. Firstly because it's untrue, and secondly > because I think it's absolutely fundamental to the game that if > my partner has to guess, opps should also have to guess whether > we're going to land on our feet or not. > > I actually think that is NOT fair. If you guess incorrectly - you are penalized by that fact. But if you guess correctly - not only are you not penalized, you are now actually doing better than average, since you have left your opponents in the dark. I do not believe that this is fair. After all, you have landed yourself in the mess by not being able to find a common ground for every situation. You should be worse off than average, but you are justifying accepting a benefit as compensation for a bad score. You should not get away with it. > Brian. > > -- 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 Jul 9 22:47:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g69Ckqb02588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 22:46:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g69CklH02584 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 22:46:47 +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 17RuAk-0002M4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 09 Jul 2002 08:32:50 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020709082236.00a95960@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 08:32:54 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school In-Reply-To: <3D2ACB8F.2070509@skynet.be> References: <3D2A9958.6040504@skynet.be> <4r9liu0jq360js9oj8g6ar91mkodfi6kcm@4ax.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:39 AM 7/9/02, Herman wrote: >We are not talking about someone who genuinely does not know. We are >talking of someone who has bases for correct guessing, "Bases for correct guessing" is self-contradictory. We call a "basis for correct guessing" an implicit agreement. We are talking of someone who has a basis for *probably correct* guessing. There is a fundmental difference. >and whose partner has the same bases, also guesses correctly, yet >maintains that "no agreement" is a correct explanation of this >situation. It is not. Of course not; nobody here maintains that "no agreement" per se is proper disclosure. Proper disclosure requires revealing that you do not have a specific agreement, *along with* revealing what your "bases for [what you hope is] correct guessing" are. Opponents are 100% entitled to consider your "bases for guessing" themselves, and to decide for themselves, if they choose, to back a different guess from yours. Sometimes they'll even be right. If you offer them your presumptive guess as a definitive explanation, you deprive them of this right. *That* is 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 Tue Jul 9 23:25:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g69DOiV02754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 23:24:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g69DOZH02744 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 23:24:35 +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 g69DAcp20510 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 09:10:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 08:55:01 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3D2A9958.6040504@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 7/9/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >So please don't argue with me, if all you're going to be saying is >some clever piece of bridge-lawyering saying "the fact that I have >spades may be evidence that I intended 2He as transfer, but it is not >evidence that we agreed that we played transfers". > >If you try such an argument, I might even add a PP. The laws were written in English. If the writers didn't intend "agreement" to mean "agreement" I suspect they'd have used some other word. I think you're both correct, up to a point. The cards in one's hand are evidence - but they are circumstantial, not conclusive. And giving someone a procedural penalty for giving evidence (a player's statement as to the partnership agreements is also evidence) is, well, hardly the way to encourage trust in the TD's objectivity and fairness. I also think your example is a bad one. It's difficult for me to conceive of a situation in which responder to 1NT has spades, but bids hearts, and his partner, having no particular reason to do so, corrects to spades, wherein there isn't a good probability they *do* have an agreement it's a transfer (at least in opener's mind). I'm no good at thinking up examples, especially at this hour of the morning, but surely there's a better example, where the circumstantial evidence is less, um, compelling. 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 Jul 9 23:25:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g69DOiG02753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 23:24:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g69DOZH02743 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 23:24:35 +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 g69DAbp20484 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 09:10:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 09:01:38 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3D2ACB8F.2070509@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 7/9/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >If you guess incorrectly - you are penalized by that fact. >But if you guess correctly - not only are you not penalized, you are >now actually doing better than average, since you have left your >opponents in the dark. I do not believe that this is fair. > >After all, you have landed yourself in the mess by not being able to >find a common ground for every situation. You should be worse off >than average, but you are justifying accepting a benefit as >compensation for a bad score. You should not get away with it. Pfui. You are applying a general principle to a specific hand. It's true that over several hands where this situation applies, you should do worse than average. That does *not* mean that you should do worse than average on *every* hand. And if the opponents *also* guess correctly, what of your "advantage" then? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 00:00:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g69DxdT02806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 23:59:40 +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 g69DxYH02802 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 23:59:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-70204.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.146.60]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g69DjNZ08487 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 15:45:23 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2AE95F.2040909@skynet.be> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 15:47:11 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school References: <3D2A9958.6040504@skynet.be> <4r9liu0jq360js9oj8g6ar91mkodfi6kcm@4ax.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020709082236.00a95960@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 07:39 AM 7/9/02, Herman wrote: > >> We are not talking about someone who genuinely does not know. We are >> talking of someone who has bases for correct guessing, > > > "Bases for correct guessing" is self-contradictory. We call a "basis > for correct guessing" an implicit agreement. We are talking of someone > who has a basis for *probably correct* guessing. There is a fundmental > difference. > Call it what you want Eric, we are not in agreement here. We might have some bases for correct guessing though. >> and whose partner has the same bases, also guesses correctly, yet >> maintains that "no agreement" is a correct explanation of this >> situation. It is not. > > > Of course not; nobody here maintains that "no agreement" per se is > proper disclosure. Proper disclosure requires revealing that you do not > have a specific agreement, *along with* revealing what your "bases for > [what you hope is] correct guessing" are. Opponents are 100% entitled > to consider your "bases for guessing" themselves, and to decide for > themselves, if they choose, to back a different guess from yours. > Sometimes they'll even be right. If you offer them your presumptive > guess as a definitive explanation, you deprive them of this right. > *That* is misinformation. > Presumed exchange in an AC room. ACC : "So East told you he was guessing 2He was a transfer, right?" N : "yes, so he did" ACC : "and you chose not to believe him, did you?" N : "yes, I held so many spades I could not believe E was transferring to spades" ACC : "and so you took an action based on E showing hearts" N : "yes, wouldn't you?" ACC : "which turned out wrong?" N : "yes, because E did have spades." ACC : "and your reason for complaining is?" N : "if I had known E held spades, I would have given partner a ruff" ACC : "but W told you E had spades, did he not?" N : "yes, but he added he was uncertain !" OK Eric, I think you understand me. What is the difference between "I think he has spades" and "he has spades". Or rather, what is the legal difference between the two ? I am not stating that the first is illegal or anything, just that the second is equal to it, and should not be illegal. I really don't understand why you keep on insisting I am doing something wrong. Want another one ? ACC : "please tell us why you are appealing" N : "W told me E had spades" ACC : "I see the hand here - E did have spades" N : "yes, but after the hand, E told to W that he had luckily guessed right" ACC : "so he has" N : "but E did not tell me he was guessing" ACC : "so?" N : "so E misinformed me". ACC : "and what would you ahve done if he had told you he was guessing" N : "I would have doubled the final contract" Are you really suggesting this "misinformation" will be punished ? > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Jul 10 00:04:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g69E4Ax02822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:04:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bean.epix.net (bean.epix.net [199.224.64.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g69E44H02818 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:04:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (hbge-216-37-227-55.dsl.hbge.epix.net [216.37.227.55]) by bean.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g69Do6Zf011003 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 09:50:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 09:50:06 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <3D2A9958.6040504@skynet.be> <4r9liu0jq360js9oj8g6ar91mkodfi6kcm@4ax.com> <3D2ACB8F.2070509@skynet.be> In-Reply-To: <3D2ACB8F.2070509@skynet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 09 Jul 2002 13:39:59 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >This post clearly shows the limitations of blml. > >Here we are, discussing things about Meckwell, or even Ed playing with >David in Liverpool, and Brian drags in a first hand with an unknown >partner on OKb. > I had assumed that your arguments were meant to apply generally, since the message to which I replied was actually addressed to Richard Hills, who (AFAIK) lives quite some distance from Liverpool - the English one, at any rate! >> >> And before you ask, if we are playing self-alerts, and opp asks >> me to explain my bid, no, I am *not* going to tell him that we've >> agreed transfers. Firstly because it's untrue, and secondly >> because I think it's absolutely fundamental to the game that if >> my partner has to guess, opps should also have to guess whether >> we're going to land on our feet or not. >> >> > > >I actually think that is NOT fair. > >If you guess incorrectly - you are penalized by that fact. >But if you guess correctly - not only are you not penalized, you are >now actually doing better than average, since you have left your >opponents in the dark. I do not believe that this is fair. > No more in the dark than my partner was. Seems perfectly fair to me. >After all, you have landed yourself in the mess by not being able to >find a common ground for every situation. You should be worse off >than average, but you are justifying accepting a benefit as >compensation for a bad score. You should not get away with it. > Firstly, the playing conditions imposed by OKBridge are such that you have absolutely zero justification for suggesting that a player in the situation I described has "landed himself in the mess". Secondly, it's my view that any slight disadvantage that accrues to the opps when they aren't certain that it's a transfer until my partner has guessed that it is and bid accordingly is more than cancelled out by the fact that they know we are not on firm ground, and are much more likely to be able to double us if it appears from their hand that partner has guessed wrongly. There is such a thing as "rub of the green", I don't see any difference between partner having to guess here and partner passing a forcing bid because he didn't know it was forcing, and finding that the forcing bid was also the last makeable contract. However, I have an idea. Given the situation I have described, maybe when opps ask me for an explanation, I should tell them that our system is that 2D is either a weak takeout in diamonds or a transfer to hearts? Such a system is perfectly legal under OKB's system rules, and they now have *exactly* the same information as my partner. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 00:34:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g69EYF402852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:34:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (radio.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g69EYAH02848 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:34:10 +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 QAA03279; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:18:16 +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 QAA09598; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:20:09 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020709134328.00a66cc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 16:28:19 +0200 To: Ed Reppert , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Alerting later bids [was The Edgar Kaplan school] In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020705150117.00a655e0@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 14:21 5/07/2002 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 7/5/02, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >If I had alerted and explained the 1S bid, I wouldn't feel compelled to > >alert the 2H bid as showing only 2 cards. This is but bridge logic. The > >opponents are not 'entitled' to have their attention drawn to this > >knowledge (L75C). > >This brings to mind something I've puzzled over from time to time, but >never really resolved. Suppose you're playing a forcing club system, and >the auction goes 1C!-1D!-1NT. Now, in the ACBL at least, the alert >regulations require that a 1NT rebid by opener which shows a strong NT >is alertable. But if you have alerted 1C, and explained that it can't >have less than 16 points, or whatever, is an alert of 1NT really >necessary? Shouldn't the opponents be aware enough of what's going on to >realize that 1NT *can't* be the expected 12-14 if we had been playing >Standard American? Personally, I don't see any such qualification in the >alert regs - the bid is alertable, what has gone before is irrelevant. >But I wonder. I suppose the choice was, or at least was perceived to be, >between alerting once in a round and alerting every time, and the latter >was chosen. So I alert it, on the grounds that at least it can't hurt >(except for the inevitable UI to partner). But I don't know. It seems >silly, at best, and perhaps somewhat insulting to opponents at worst. AG : plus, it incites opponents into asking, with the following possible effects : - losing time - breaking the rhythm - transmitting UI, for example by (incorrectly) asking "I suppose it's such-and-such" - and, above all, the 'shouting wolf' effect : after you've alerted ten non-interesting inferences and opponent asked ten times, and recieved ten non-interesting (often expected) answers, when you alert the 11th bid, quite unexpected this time, he won't ask any more. This goes exactly the opposite way of what the Alert regulation should do. There are mainly two solutions to this : 1) lowering the demands for alerting, and asking every player to pretend he's misinformed only when he was and it was of some importance, in short imposing good faith ; this is, in the present state of mind which prevails at the table, an impossible task ; 2) creating two levels of alert : a) the low alert, for bids which are natural in essence, but differ from standards. This would be subject to SO regulation, but might include bids that show another range (the strong NT rebid mentioned by Ed, out-of-range jump overcalls), show extra length (1H-1S in a Flannery context), are unexpectedly forcing (forcing NT over major) or unexpectedly nonfircing (nonforcing competitive free bids, WJR), inclusive or exclusive inferences (Walsh responses)... This would include all bids that were pre-alerted. b) the high alert, for _unexpected_ bids (1C!-1D!-1NT showing *hearts*, as I played it). I've occasionally alerted, then, as the opponent declined to ask, insisted that he should better have an explanation. I know this is incorrect procedure, but it was the only way to protect them. One example is : 1D 1H 1S! Most Belgian players use this to show a 5-card suit. This is alertable (a low alert in my classification). Thus, when I alert, most assume it shows 5-cards and don't bother to ask. When they do ask, the conversation usually goes as this : - yes please ? - denies a 4-card spade suit - yeah, I know, it should be 5-card long - no, sir, it denies 4cards, and also denies 5, or 6, or 13. [which is the standard meaning for "denies 4 cards"] (and if it goes like that, they're lucky ; they could well assume "denies 4" means "shows more than 4", which is wrong, but fits with their thought pattern). A "high alert", in whatever form, would directly tell the opponents something very strange happens. BTW, I play a strong Diamond system (18+), we pre-alert the 1C (catchall) and 1D openings, and no one player, strong or weak, has ever objected that he didn't understand that the 1NT, 2H, 2S rebids by the opener (which we don't alert) were strong. Once, I encountered an experienced pair which insisted that explaining my partner held 4H+6C wasn't enough, that I should have specified that the hand might contain a singleton. An expert was called (no TD for Belgian team matches, remember), and his response was scathing. They felt ridiculed, and that was that. 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 Jul 10 01:04:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g69F3sN02877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 01:03:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g69F3mH02873 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 01:03:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from central-city-carrier-station.mit.edu (CENTRAL-CITY-CARRIER-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.7.72]) by pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id KAA07811 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 10:49:51 -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 KAA17234 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 10:41:23 -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 KAA24203 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 10:41:23 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "richard willey" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 10:41:24 -0400 Organization: mit Message-ID: <001801c22756$b32d8210$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: <3D2ACB8F.2070509@skynet.be> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Here we are, discussing things about Meckwell, or even Ed playing with >David in Liverpool, and Brian drags in a first hand with an unknown >partner on OKb. >Yes Brian, you are absolutely correct in your story. And "no >agreement" is the right answer. >And no Brian, this does not help the discussion one iota. >We are not talking about someone who genuinely does not know. We are >talking of someone who has bases for correct guessing, and whose >partner has the same bases, also guesses correctly, yet maintains that >"no agreement" is a correct explanation of this situation. It is not. >From my perspective, this seems to be a key point in the entire argument. The DwS differentiates between experienced and unexperienced partnerships. An "unexperienced" partnership would appear to be treated identically under either the DwS school or the "standard" school. However, once the partnership has graduated some higher level, they are automatically assumed to have either an agreement or a meta-agreement to cover every possible bidding sequence, regardless of whether or not the sequence has been explictly discussed. I think Herman's most telling comment is "We are not talking about someone who genuinely does not know" On a practical level, there is NO DIFFERENCE between the two schools. The only difference would appear to be that Herman is more cynical regarding the existence of conceal partnership understanding. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 01:13:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g69FCnC02894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 01:12:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g69FCiH02890 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 01:12:45 +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 17RwRz-00070d-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 09 Jul 2002 10:58:47 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020709104853.00b557f0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 11:00:15 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school In-Reply-To: <3D2AE95F.2040909@skynet.be> References: <3D2A9958.6040504@skynet.be> <4r9liu0jq360js9oj8g6ar91mkodfi6kcm@4ax.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020709082236.00a95960@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 09:47 AM 7/9/02, Herman wrote: Presumed exchange in an AC room. >ACC : "So East told you he was guessing 2He was a transfer, right?" >N : "yes, so he did" >ACC : "and you chose not to believe him, did you?" >N : "yes, I held so many spades I could not believe E was transferring >to spades" >ACC : "and so you took an action based on E showing hearts" >N : "yes, wouldn't you?" >ACC : "which turned out wrong?" >N : "yes, because E did have spades." >ACC : "and your reason for complaining is?" >N : "if I had known E held spades, I would have given partner a ruff" >ACC : "but W told you E had spades, did he not?" This ACC doesn't know the law. He should have said, "You aren't entitled to know what E held; you are only entitled to know the E-W agreements." >N : "yes, but he added he was uncertain !" > >OK Eric, I think you understand me. What is the difference between "I >think he has spades" and "he has spades". "I think he has spades" means "I think he has spades" (and is not required disclosure, although the reasons for thinking he has spades are). "He has spades" means "I know he has spades, because that's our agreement" (and is required disclosure). >Or rather, what is the legal difference between the two ? They mean different things. Whichever is true is valid disclosure; whichever is not true is not. >I am not stating that the first is illegal or anything, just that the >second is equal to it, and should not be illegal. > >I really don't understand why you keep on insisting I am doing >something wrong. > >Want another one ? > >ACC : "please tell us why you are appealing" >N : "W told me E had spades" >ACC : "I see the hand here - E did have spades" >N : "yes, but after the hand, E told to W that he had luckily guessed >right" >ACC : "so he has" >N : "but E did not tell me he was guessing" >ACC : "so?" >N : "so E misinformed me". >ACC : "and what would you ahve done if he had told you he was guessing" >N : "I would have doubled the final contract" > >Are you really suggesting this "misinformation" will be punished ? No. But... ACC: "Please tell us why you are appealing." N: "W told me E had spades." ACC: "I see the hand here -- E actually had hearts." N: "Yes, and after the hand, E told to W that he had unluckily guessed wrong." ACC: "So he has." N: "But E did not tell me he was guessing." ACC: "And what would you have done if he had told you he was guessing?" N: "I would have doubled the final contract." ACC: "We find E guilty of giving misinformation and adjust to the score that would have resulted had N doubled." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 01:22:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g69FLnY02954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 01:21:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g69FLhH02950 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 01:21:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet10.carleton.ca (freenet10 [134.117.136.30]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6/NCF_f1_v3.03) with ESMTP id g69F7gV12068 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 11:07:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6/NCF_smarthost_v1.01) id g69F7ft17658; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 11:07:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 11:07:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200207091507.g69F7ft17658@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] The timing of 25(b)2(b)1 Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk How do you handle the timing of a 25(b) request? You get called to the table, and a player asks to change a call (LHO has not yet taken a call). The player has not as yet named a substitute call. After you have read everyone the Law, the player decides not to make a substitute call; do you treat this as UI, or do you apply Law25(b)2(b)1? I think it should be treated as UI, but a very experienced TD recently told me that (b)2(b)1 was correct. Thanks! 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 Wed Jul 10 01:50:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g69Foca03094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 01:50:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g69FoWH03090 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 01:50:33 +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 RAA03083; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 17:34:11 +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 RAA09750; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 17:36:33 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020709173337.00a66890@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 17:44:47 +0200 To: Ed Reppert , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school In-Reply-To: References: <3D2A9958.6040504@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 08:55 9/07/2002 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 7/9/02, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >So please don't argue with me, if all you're going to be saying is > >some clever piece of bridge-lawyering saying "the fact that I have > >spades may be evidence that I intended 2He as transfer, but it is not > >evidence that we agreed that we played transfers". > > > >If you try such an argument, I might even add a PP. > >The laws were written in English. If the writers didn't intend >"agreement" to mean "agreement" I suspect they'd have used some other >word. > >I think you're both correct, up to a point. The cards in one's hand are >evidence - but they are circumstantial, not conclusive. And giving >someone a procedural penalty for giving evidence (a player's statement >as to the partnership agreements is also evidence) is, well, hardly the >way to encourage trust in the TD's objectivity and fairness. > >I also think your example is a bad one. It's difficult for me to >conceive of a situation in which responder to 1NT has spades, but bids >hearts, and his partner, having no particular reason to do so, corrects >to spades, wherein there isn't a good probability they *do* have an >agreement it's a transfer (at least in opener's mind). I'm no good at >thinking up examples, especially at this hour of the morning, but surely >there's a better example, where the circumstantial evidence is less, um, >compelling. AG : here is the example you needed. xx xxxxxx AKxx xx Kxx xxxx AKxx x EW play transfers over 1NT. When bypassing the completion of the transfer, they show their unguarded doubleton if there is one, else 2NT (a common treatment in France). The bidding would have been 1NT-2D-2S, but South interferes : 1NT X 2H p 2S East thinks he's playing "system on" over the double. West doesn't think so ; however, his hand is exceptionally well-fitted for partner's (supposed) hearts, and he bids his weak doubleton in spades, as he would have done, absent the double, over a transfer 2D. Clearly, they are not on the same wavelength ; their egreement is most probably "no agreement". The fact that West bid 2S over 2H is no evidence that he understood the bid as a Transfer. Any TD who, after hearing West's explanations about why he bid 2S, would decide that EW had "Transfer" as an agreement would be plainly wrong. WTH, it is quite possible that West doesn't know, explains as no agreement, then bids 2S because he realizes that it is the correct bid were 2H a transfer or not. Why should he have to explain which guess he took, since he didn't take any ? 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 Jul 10 02:20:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g69GK6i03124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:20:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g69GK0H03120 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:20:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-80630.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.186.246]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g69G5vZ10901 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 18:05:57 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2B0A51.4080805@skynet.be> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 18:07:45 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school References: <3D2A9958.6040504@skynet.be> <4r9liu0jq360js9oj8g6ar91mkodfi6kcm@4ax.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020709082236.00a95960@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020709104853.00b557f0@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry Eric, you are beginning to bore me with your non-answers. Eric Landau wrote: >> >> OK Eric, I think you understand me. What is the difference between "I >> think he has spades" and "he has spades". > > > "I think he has spades" means "I think he has spades" (and is not > required disclosure, although the reasons for thinking he has spades > are). "He has spades" means "I know he has spades, because that's our > agreement" (and is required disclosure). > >> Or rather, what is the legal difference between the two ? > > > They mean different things. Whichever is true is valid disclosure; > whichever is not true is not. > I am asking you to tell me what the legal difference is. You repeat they are not the same. Please tell me what the difference is. I know they are not the same, but how do you treat them as being not the same. You say that either statement, the one being untrue, is not valid disclosure. Please tell me now in what way you are going to rule against that misinformation. I say there IS NO DIFFERENCE in ruling. You just repeat that there is. Please tell me what it is. I repeat, we are not trying to get into heaven by not lying, we are merely playing bridge in such a manner as to minimize director calls. Tell me what the director does towards the non-true version of either explanation above. >> >> Are you really suggesting this "misinformation" will be punished ? > > > No. > OK. That's what I mean. > But... > ACC: "Please tell us why you are appealing." > N: "W told me E had spades." > ACC: "I see the hand here -- E actually had hearts." > N: "Yes, and after the hand, E told to W that he had unluckily guessed > wrong." > ACC: "So he has." > N: "But E did not tell me he was guessing." > ACC: "And what would you have done if he had told you he was guessing?" > N: "I would have doubled the final contract." > > ACC: "We find E guilty of giving misinformation and adjust to the score > that would have resulted had N doubled." > Sorry, you cannot have it both ways. Either the information that he is guessing is entitled, and then you must adjust in both cases, or it is not, and then you cannot adjust in either case. Now in the second case, maybe the information that he has hearts instead of spades is sufficient reason for redress. But not the "I'm guessing" part. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Jul 10 03:16:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g69HEtD03242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 03:14:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g69HEoH03238 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 03:14:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-80630.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.186.246]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g69H0o901025 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 19:00:51 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2B172E.70402@skynet.be> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 19:02:38 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school References: <3D2A9958.6040504@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020709173337.00a66890@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 Yes Alain, good example, but not of what I am trying to convey. Your example merely shows that it is not sufficient to look at the cards to find out the intention of the bidder. Very often though, it is. Anyway, my point was not really that the cards show the agreement, but rather that the cards show the intention, and that absent other evidence, the intention IS the agreement. And of course in your example, the intention is ambivalent, so the system is ambivalent as well. But that is only because West does not know what the system is to begin with. East's cards will give a clue as to what system East thinks he's playing. Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 08:55 9/07/2002 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> On 7/9/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> >So please don't argue with me, if all you're going to be saying is >> >some clever piece of bridge-lawyering saying "the fact that I have >> >spades may be evidence that I intended 2He as transfer, but it is not >> >evidence that we agreed that we played transfers". >> > >> >If you try such an argument, I might even add a PP. >> >> The laws were written in English. If the writers didn't intend >> "agreement" to mean "agreement" I suspect they'd have used some other >> word. >> >> I think you're both correct, up to a point. The cards in one's hand are >> evidence - but they are circumstantial, not conclusive. And giving >> someone a procedural penalty for giving evidence (a player's statement >> as to the partnership agreements is also evidence) is, well, hardly the >> way to encourage trust in the TD's objectivity and fairness. >> >> I also think your example is a bad one. It's difficult for me to >> conceive of a situation in which responder to 1NT has spades, but bids >> hearts, and his partner, having no particular reason to do so, corrects >> to spades, wherein there isn't a good probability they *do* have an >> agreement it's a transfer (at least in opener's mind). I'm no good at >> thinking up examples, especially at this hour of the morning, but surely >> there's a better example, where the circumstantial evidence is less, um, >> compelling. > > > AG : here is the example you needed. > > xx xxxxxx > AKxx xx > Kxx xxxx > AKxx x > > EW play transfers over 1NT. When bypassing the completion of the > transfer, they show their unguarded doubleton if there is one, else 2NT > (a common treatment in France). > > The bidding would have been 1NT-2D-2S, but South interferes : > > 1NT X 2H p > 2S > > East thinks he's playing "system on" over the double. > West doesn't think so ; however, his hand is exceptionally well-fitted > for partner's (supposed) hearts, and he bids his weak doubleton in > spades, as he would have done, absent the double, over a transfer 2D. > Clearly, they are not on the same wavelength ; their egreement is most > probably "no agreement". The fact that West bid 2S over 2H is no > evidence that he understood the bid as a Transfer. > Any TD who, after hearing West's explanations about why he bid 2S, would > decide that EW had "Transfer" as an agreement would be plainly wrong. > > WTH, it is quite possible that West doesn't know, explains as no > agreement, then bids 2S because he realizes that it is the correct bid > were 2H a transfer or not. Why should he have to explain which guess he > took, since he didn't take any ? > > 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/ > > -- 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 Jul 10 03:43:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g69Hg4E03266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 03:42:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g69HfxH03262 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 03:42:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.149.90]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020709172800.IZGL23840.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 18:28:00 +0100 Message-ID: <005801c2276d$fa5ad310$ee9968d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 18:28:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert: The laws were written in English. If the writers didn't intend "agreement" to mean "agreement" I suspect they'd have used some other word. Nigel Guthrie: Do the Bridge laws properly distinguish "agreed" "discussed" and "(mutually) understood"? Given human fallibility, you can never be certain of your partnership understandings, especially those based on general rules, experience, and negative inferences; so should you.. (1) Say "It means...[my best guess]" (2) Say "I am (50%, 80%, 99.9%) certain it means..." (3) Answer "no agreement" unless you are certain. If you are sure, however, then admit to understandings even those not explictly discussed. (4) Admit only to explicitly discussed specific agreements, about which you are absolutely certain. I would prefer the laws to dictate (1); with or without Standard System defaults; but I would settle for (2). Others seem to prefer (3) or (4) and differ only as to whether they are prepared to divulge any more, under cross-examination. These latter interpretations are becoming increasingly popular with tournament players, with the implicit support of directors. For example, suppose I partner David Stevenson. Even had I never played with or against David Stevenson before and were we forbidden to discuss any methods, I would still guess that he is likely to assume that we are playing an Acol-like 2C system, strong 2D/H/S, 1N=12-14 flat, 2N=20-22 flat, 3C...= weak pre-empts, gambling 3N, 4 card majors, Stayman, Sputnik, Gerber, RKCB, GSF, 4SF, UNT, Michaels, cue-bids, trial bids, splinters, and so on. (I would make quite different assumtions with an unknown French or Polish partner e.g 5 card majors) To begin with, I might get things wrong. e.g. I would assume "no transfers" but bitter experience (still without discussion) would clarify many such issues. Hence a foreign opponent, a tyro opponent, or ANY opponent who does not know us, our background, or level of expertise, is likely to be at a relative disadvantage in the auction. Thus, "undiscussed", "no agreement" and so on -- without further elucidation unless pressed -- even if literally true -- seems to me the crudest prevarication. All this is like disputing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The law should make an unequivocal directive -- preferably short and simple. When navigating our current over-complex laws, BLML legal experts have difficulty keeping their heads above water, so pity the poor punter drowning in the mire. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 01/07/2002 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 04:08:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g69I8Ja03286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 04:08:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g69I8DH03282 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 04:08:13 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g69Hs8N29045 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 13:54:08 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200207091754.g69Hs8N29045@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 13:54:08 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Herman De Wael" at Jul 09, 2002 07:02:38 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I apologize if I have this wrong. I have only partially been following this thread, but I thought I might inject an example that might be what Herman is looking for? Assume East holds Ax / QJx / xxxx / AKQ Assume West holds QTxxx / AKxx / Kx / xx The auction: East West 1NT 2C 2D 3H (1) (1) no alert, but intended as Smolen 4H PP East didn't realize they were playing Smolen, west thought they had agreed to play "Lawrence 2/1" and thought that was a standard part of the agreement. East raises to 4H thinking they're playing standard with 5H and 4S. The cards would clearly show that West thought they were playing Smolen and that it was his/her intent to show Smolen, but and gives circumstantial evidence to that fact. It does not give actual evident of an agreement or lack of agreement (although the CC might give that if correctly filled out). Does this fit what you were trying to convey, Herman? -Ted. > Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 19:02:38 +0200 > From: Herman De Wael > > Yes Alain, > > good example, but not of what I am trying to convey. > > Your example merely shows that it is not sufficient to look at the > cards to find out the intention of the bidder. Very often though, it is. > > Anyway, my point was not really that the cards show the agreement, but > rather that the cards show the intention, and that absent other > evidence, the intention IS the agreement. > > And of course in your example, the intention is ambivalent, so the > system is ambivalent as well. But that is only because West does not > know what the system is to begin with. East's cards will give a clue > as to what system East thinks he's playing. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 04:14:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g69IEUY03303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 04:14:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eomer.vianetworks.nl (eomer.vianetworks.nl [212.61.15.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g69IEPH03299 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 04:14:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d420.iae.nl [212.61.5.166]) by eomer.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id D9447213A1 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 20:00:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <00ee01c22772$32d0e0a0$1f053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <200207091507.g69F7ft17658@freenet10.carleton.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] The timing of 25(b)2(b)1 Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 19:54:59 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Please read Law 25B2b1. ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. L. Edwards" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 5:07 PM Subject: [BLML] The timing of 25(b)2(b)1 > How do you handle the timing of a 25(b) request? You get called to the > table, and a player asks to change a call (LHO has not yet taken a call). > The player has not as yet named a substitute call. > After you have read everyone the Law, the player decides not to > make a substitute call; do you treat this as UI, or do you apply > Law25(b)2(b)1? > I think it should be treated as UI, but a very experienced TD > recently told me that (b)2(b)1 was correct. > Thanks! > Tony (aka ac342) > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 04:48:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g69Ilgm03446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 04:47:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g69IlWH03437 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 04:47:33 +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 g69IXVL21232; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:33:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:26:16 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school To: Herman De Wael cc: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3D2B172E.70402@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 7/9/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >absent other evidence, the intention IS the agreement. "[T]he Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." -- footnote to Law 75. I don't think this is quite the same thing as what you say above. The other day, partner and I bid a hand this way; I was dealer: P-(1D)-1S-(4H)-4NT-(P)-5H-(P)-6C-(P)-6S-(P)-P-(P) I *knew* we had no agreement about 4NT in this sequence - we had not discussed "meta agreements" about either Blackwood or Unusual NT. I had 11 cards in the minors, and few points, and I could not believe that partner would think I was asking for aces after having passed as dealer. Nonetheless, that's what she thought. My intention in bidding 4NT was that it be UNT, hers in bidding 5H was to show her two aces. Which intention "is" the agreement? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 04:48:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g69Ilgd03445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 04:47:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g69IlWH03436 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 04:47:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g69IXUL21194; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:33:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:10:11 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school To: Alain Gottcheiner cc: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020709173337.00a66890@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 7/9/02, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >here is the example you needed. Thanks, Alain, that's perfect. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 04:48:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g69IlYm03438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 04:47:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g69IlSH03430 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 04:47:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g69IXSL21163 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:33:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:27:02 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school 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 7/9/02, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >All this is like disputing how many angels can dance > on the head of a pin. > BLML is like that sometimes. I've wished before that people would keep "this is what the laws ought to say" separate from "this is what the laws say", but it ain't gonna happen. Humans are too rowdy. IAC, I'm generally much more interested in how to apply the laws as they currently exist than I am in how they should be changed - and I think a lot of the "dancing on a pin" stuff comes because people are arguing the latter even while they appear to be answering the former. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 05:12:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g69JBxm03515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 05:11:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g69JBtH03511 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 05:11:55 +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 17S0BR-0000Sv-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 09 Jul 2002 14:57:57 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020709144104.00abb610@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 14:59:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school In-Reply-To: <005801c2276d$fa5ad310$ee9968d5@SCRAP> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:28 PM 7/9/02, Nigel wrote: >Nigel Guthrie: > Do the Bridge laws properly distinguish > "agreed" "discussed" and "(mutually) understood"? No. Because "agreement" covers both explicit and implicit agreement, thus all of the above. > Given human fallibility, you can never be certain > of your partnership understandings, especially those > based on general rules, experience, and negative > inferences; so should you.. > (1) Say "It means...[my best guess]" > (2) Say "I am (50%, 80%, 99.9%) certain it means..." > (3) Answer "no agreement" unless you are certain. > If you are sure, however, then admit to understandings > even those not explictly discussed. > (4) Admit only to explicitly discussed specific > agreements, about which you are absolutely certain. None of the above. You should say, "We don't have a specific agreement, but we do have agreements about... [whatever you know that is relevant, i.e. whatever knowledge you might yourself use to try to decide the meaning]." > I would prefer the laws to dictate (1); with or without > Standard System defaults; but I would settle for (2). > Others seem to prefer (3) or (4) and differ only as to > whether they are prepared to divulge any more, under > cross-examination. > These latter interpretations are becoming increasingly > popular with tournament players, with the implicit > support of directors. None of these would be correct in the ACBL, which has interpreted the disclosure laws to say that (a) you must disclose your agreements, but need not disclose whatever inferences you may derive from them (so (1) and (2) are inappropriately irrelevant; they do not satisfy discloure, but are not illegal per se when accompanying proper disclosure), and (b) *any* request for disclosure of your agreement should trigger disclosure of *all* relevant information (so (3) and (4) are illegal -- you may not withhold whatever it is that belongs in the brackets above, even if you are not specifically asked for it). It is my view that the ACBL has interpreted the Law correctly in this case. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 05:34:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g69JYAn03595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 05:34:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g69JY3H03590 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 05:34:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g69JK3b15245; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 20:20:03 +0100 Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Tue, 09 Jul 2002 19:20:03 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g69JK3M12358; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 20:20:03 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 09 Jul 2002 19:20:03 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA22491; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 20:10:54 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id UAA09538; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 20:10:54 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 20:10:54 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200207091910.UAA09538@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, B.Schelen@iae.nl Subject: Re: [BLML] The timing of 25(b)2(b)1 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Ben Schelen" > To: "bridge-laws" > Subject: Re: [BLML] The timing of 25(b)2(b)1 > Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 19:54:59 +0200 > Please read Law 25B2b1. And deduce what? If we have reached L25B2b1 then we should apply it. But L25B starts "Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when Section A does not apply:". A call has not been substituted, so none of L25B (in particular L25B2b1) applies. Robin > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "A. L. Edwards" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 5:07 PM > Subject: [BLML] The timing of 25(b)2(b)1 > > > > How do you handle the timing of a 25(b) request? You get called to the > > table, and a player asks to change a call (LHO has not yet taken a call). > > The player has not as yet named a substitute call. > > After you have read everyone the Law, the player decides not to > > make a substitute call; do you treat this as UI, or do you apply > > Law25(b)2(b)1? > > I think it should be treated as UI, but a very experienced TD > > recently told me that (b)2(b)1 was correct. > > Thanks! > > Tony (aka ac342) > > -- -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 07:22:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g69LLEw03654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 07:21:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g69LL9H03650 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 07:21:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.153.40]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020709210710.NCJQ4119.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 22:07:10 +0100 Message-ID: <005b01c2278c$98d6e4c0$289968d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Re: Wish list Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 22:06:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Bridge Laws seem favour the experienced player who knows how to take advantage, especially in the area of claims; but there are many other common scenarios.... Generic example 1. At GA, with East dealer, you hold as West Qxxx xx xxx xxxx The auction (opponents bids in brackets) proceeds: 1S(P)2S(4H); 4S(5H)? Some experienced Wests will now hesitate for two or three seconds before passing, in the hope that partner will pass; according to some lawyers, partner may seethe inwardly but should not take other action unless clear-cut. I suppose this sort of thing is against the law but it is common in the top flight of big congresses. If any TD has recently been called to adjudicate such an occurrence, please tell us about it. Generic example 2. You North, are in contention for a place in the last session of a big pairs event. Opponents are newcomers who are doing badly. You play in 2S and notice that according to trick orientation, You and LHO show the contract as made, while Dummy and RHO show it as one down. Some experienced players will enter a score of +110 without further ado, assuming that most demoralised opponents will not bother to check or protest. With no personal interest, why should opponents call the director, when the TD is all too likely to recite the mad mantra "Let the field protect itself." If, having studied the facts, the TD decides to rule in favour of the experienced players, the players, not in contention, are unlikely to appeal. Even if in contention, the less experienced player is less likely to appeal. Generic example 3. RHO asks you the meaning of partner's undiscussed bid. Given your other agreements, there are some things it cannot mean and other things it is more or less likely to mean. Many experienced players answer "no agreement" which usually ends interrogation. Ultra-suspicious opponents may insist on a cross- examination; but some experienced players will stick to their guns. In the subsequent auction, the "no- agreement" partners usually guess better than opponents. Again if any TD has recently been called to adjudicate such an occurrence, please tell us about it. Even if the TD is called, BLML experts would not all agree on his correct ruling. The extent of such problems (assuming that you agree that such actions are unlawful) is underestimated because most players believe it futile to call the TD for them. These examples provide more fuel for the argument in favour of law simplification and rationalisation. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 01/07/2002 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 10:01:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6A00V003797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:00:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6A00PH03793 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:00:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA06991 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:01:21 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:42:06 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Wish list To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:45:58 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 10/07/2002 09:41:45 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: >Bridge Laws seem favour the experienced player >who knows how to take advantage, especially in the >area of claims; but there are many other common >scenarios.... > >Generic example 1. >At GA, with East dealer, you hold as West >Qxxx >xx >xxx >xxxx >The auction (opponents bids in brackets) proceeds: >1S(P)2S(4H); 4S(5H)? >Some experienced Wests will now hesitate for two >or three seconds before passing, in the hope that >partner will pass; according to some lawyers, partner >may seethe inwardly but should not take other action >unless clear-cut. Deliberately hesitating so as to bar an ethical partner from bidding again works *once* - the ethical partner then finds a new partner. >I suppose this sort of thing is against the law but >it is common in the top flight of big congresses. >If any TD has recently been called to adjudicate such >an occurrence, please tell us about it. As Edgar Kaplan pointed out, ordinary use of UI merely gets you an adjusted score. Using reverse hesitations leads to a much more severe disciplinary penalty under L73B2 or L73F2. >Generic example 2. >You North, are in contention for a place in the last >session of a big pairs event. Opponents are newcomers >who are doing badly. You play in 2S and notice that >according to trick orientation, >You and LHO show the contract as made, while >Dummy and RHO show it as one down. >Some experienced players will enter a score of +110 >without further ado, assuming that most demoralised >opponents will not bother to check or protest. >With no personal interest, why should opponents call >the director, when the TD is all too likely to recite >the mad mantra "Let the field protect itself." >If, having studied the facts, the TD decides to >rule in favour of the experienced players, the >players, not in contention, are unlikely to appeal. >Even if in contention, the less experienced player >is less likely to appeal. Counter-example. In the New Zealand Pairs Championship a few years ago, the directors made an error in tabulating the score, giving Pair A a score of +120 instead of -120. Pair A therefore narrowly won ahead of Pair B. After the correction period had expired, so that the score could not be legally changed, the directors discovered their error. Pair A, the legal winners, refused to accept first place under the circumstances, so were declared joint winners with Pair B. [snip] >The extent of such problems (assuming that you agree >that such actions are unlawful) is underestimated because >most players believe it futile to call the TD for them. An argument in favour of the Recorder system. >These examples provide more fuel for the argument in >favour of law simplification and rationalisation. No, merely an argument in favour of vigorous enforcement of the Laws we already have. After collecting the evidence, any self-respecting Conduct & Ethics committee will suspend the players involved in Generic Example 1 or Generic Example 2. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 10:03:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6A03qX03809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:03:52 +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-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 g6A03kH03805 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:03:47 +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 17S4jp-000L43-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:49:47 +0100 Message-ID: <+$5OuhCTpxK9Ewp5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 18:16:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Let's try a ruling MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk B32 3 W N E S E/W A97643 1NT 2H 2S Dbl D:W J84 Rdl 3H P 4H K74 AP 54 JT862 Q2 [] KT Lead: SJ KQT95 63 Result: 4H-1 AQ96 JT52 AKQ97 1NT = 12-14 Swiss J85 Pairs A72 83 The double was not alerted, but asked about anyway, and described as showing spades and values in response to the question "Is it for penalties?". The redouble was not alerted, and East assumed it was to play. West meant it as takeout, which would be alertable. North said he was damaged, since he said he would not have bid 3H if he had known the redouble was for takeout. He did not ask its meaning, merely trusted the failure to alert. East-West do play a takeout redouble in certain sequences, but are not really sure which. There is nowhere really suitable on the CC for this sequence, and nothing relevant on the CC. The following additional information may, or may not be of relevance! This was Wales, where L12C3 is enabled for TDs and ACs. Your ruling will not be taken to appeal. Players here do not have an agreement for this sequence [in fact I do not have with my most scientific partners]. North would have made 4H if he had drawn trumps. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 10:38:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6A0cAb03827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:38:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6A0c5H03823 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:38:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA14089 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:39:08 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:19:53 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Latest Decalogue To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:23:43 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 10/07/2002 10:19:32 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] >>we are not trying to get into heaven by not lying, we are >>merely playing bridge in such a manner as to minimize >>director calls. [snip] >>it does not matter whether or not someone has agreed >>something in order to make it an agreement. [snip] >>My objective is not to correctly inform my opponents, [snip] The above quotes are reminiscent of the poem, The Latest Decalogue, written by Arthur Hugh Clough (1819-1861): >Thou shalt have one God only; who >Would be at the expense of two? >No graven images may be >Worshipped, except the currency. >Swear not at all; for, for thy curse >Thine enemy is none the worse. >At church on Sunday to attend >Will serve to keep the world thy friend. >Honor thy parents; that is, all >From whom advancement may befall. >Thou shalt not kill; but need'st not strive >Officiously to keep alive. >Do not adultery commit; >Advantage rarely comes of it. >Thou shalt not steal; an empty feat, >When it's so lucrative to cheat. >Bear not false witness; let the lie >Have time on its own wings to fly. >Thou shalt not covet, but tradition >Approves all forms of competition. 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 Jul 10 11:42:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6A1g8Q03865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:42:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6A1g3H03861 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:42:03 +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 LAA27061 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:43:05 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:23:48 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:27:40 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 10/07/2002 11:23:27 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: [snip] > The redouble was not alerted, and East assumed it was to >play. West meant it as takeout, which would be alertable. >North said he was damaged, since he said he would not have >bid 3H if he had known the redouble was for takeout. He did >not ask its meaning, merely trusted the failure to alert. > > East-West do play a takeout redouble in certain sequences, >but are not really sure which. There is nowhere really >suitable on the CC for this sequence, and nothing relevant on >the CC. [snip] I would rule that EW did not have an agreement about the meaning of this particular redouble. Does Wales require redoubles which have no agreed meaning to be alerted? If so, I would rule that there has been MI. If, on the other hand, the Welsh regulation is that only redoubles *agreed* to be non-natural should be alerted, then there there has been no MI and therefore no adjusted score. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 12:37:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6A2ajp03888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:36:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6A2aeH03884 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:36:41 +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 MAA07584 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:37:44 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:18:27 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:22:21 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 10/07/2002 12:18:07 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] Herman De Wael: >>I actually think that is NOT fair. >> >>If you guess incorrectly - you are penalized by >>that fact. But if you guess correctly - not only >>are you not penalized, you are now actually doing >>better than average, since you have left your >>opponents in the dark. I do not believe that this >>is fair. Brian Meadows: >No more in the dark than my partner was. Seems >perfectly fair to me. Herman De Wael: >>After all, you have landed yourself in the mess by >>not being able to find a common ground for every >>situation. You should be worse off than average, >>but you are justifying accepting a benefit as >>compensation for a bad score. You should not get >>away with it. Brian Meadows: [snip] >However, I have an idea. Given the situation I have >described, maybe when opps ask me for an explanation, >I should tell them that our system is that 2D is >either a weak takeout in diamonds or a transfer to >hearts? Such a system is perfectly legal under OKB's >system rules, and they now have *exactly* the same >information as my partner. The B.J. Becker - Jeff Rubens partnership had an agreement that in certain auctions a Double was *systemically* two-way; either takeout or penalties. Partner was supposed to guess which by looking at their own cards. Was this "NOT fair"? Should Becker-Rubens "be worse off than average"? A reductio ad absurdum of the De Wael School is that Rubens would not be allowed to explain a two-way Double by Becker to the opponents as "either takeout or penalties, according to our written system notes, which we happen to have here as evidence". If Rubens dared give that explanation, the De Wael School would hit Rubens with a PP. Instead, if Rubens guessed the Double was penalties, the De Wael School would require Rubens to explain the Double as "unequivocally penalties". Then the De Wael School would hit Rubens with a MI penalty if Rubens had misguessed when the Double was actually takeout. 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 Jul 10 13:50:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6A3o5F03927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:50:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6A3o0H03923 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:50:00 +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 NAA19412 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:51:04 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:31:48 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Truth, Justice and Lady Macbeth To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:35:41 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 10/07/2002 01:31:27 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: [snip] >>>One should not be ethical in the hope or >>>expectation of a tangible reward of 7 imps. >>> >>>One should be ethical for its own sake; as >>>the cliche states, "Virtue is its own reward." [snip] David Stevenson replied: >> Of course. But that is no reason for the >>lawmakers to reward poorer ethics. However, in the thread, "1NT overcall is...", David Stevenson wrote: > 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'! [snip] Given that David does not want "lawmakers to reward poorer ethics", is the *Justice* version of L12C3 sufficient to achieve that end? Or is the more draconian *American Way* version of L12C3 necessary to prevent players benefiting from poor ethics? 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 Jul 10 17:21:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6A7JK404008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:19:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6A7JFH04004 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:19:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48880.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.240]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6A74cH18112 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:04:38 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2BDCF4.3060505@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:06:28 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > On 7/9/02, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>absent other evidence, the intention IS the agreement. >> > > "[T]he Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken > Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." -- footnote to Law 75. > I don't think this is quite the same thing as what you say above. > Isn't it ? I think it is exactly that. > The other day, partner and I bid a hand this way; I was dealer: > > P-(1D)-1S-(4H)-4NT-(P)-5H-(P)-6C-(P)-6S-(P)-P-(P) > > I *knew* we had no agreement about 4NT in this sequence - we had not > discussed "meta agreements" about either Blackwood or Unusual NT. I had > 11 cards in the minors, and few points, and I could not believe that > partner would think I was asking for aces after having passed as dealer. Seems logical to me. Surely you are not saying that the fact that partner does not understand is in some manner evidence that you DON'T have the agreement. "The Director is to presume mistaken information, rather than mistaken bid." > Nonetheless, that's what she thought. My intention in bidding 4NT was > that it be UNT, hers in bidding 5H was to show her two aces. Which > intention "is" the agreement? > Perhaps both, although that cannot be the basis of a ruling of course. Anyway we've all encountered rulings where the Director presumes the worst of both rulings the basis for his determination of system. > 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 Wed Jul 10 17:27:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6A7Prq04021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:25:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6A7PlH04017 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:25:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g6A7Bkr20233 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:11:47 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Jul 10 09:07:15 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KJXAJ9Z5J600127E@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:10:59 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <3NK46RJ2>; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:10:30 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:10:57 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] The timing of 25(b)2(b)1 To: "'Robin Barker'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, B.Schelen@iae.nl Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Please read Law 25B2b1. > > And deduce what? If we have reached L25B2b1 then we should apply it. > > But L25B starts > "Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when Section A > does not apply:". > A call has not been substituted, so none of L25B (in > particular L25B2b1) > applies. > Indeed, not more nor less than UI ton > Robin > > > How do you handle the timing of a 25(b) request? You get > called to the > > > table, and a player asks to change a call (LHO has not > yet taken a call). > > > The player has not as yet named a substitute call. > > > After you have read everyone the Law, the player decides not to > > > make a substitute call; do you treat this as UI, or do you apply > > > Law25(b)2(b)1? > > > I think it should be treated as UI, but a very experienced TD > > > recently told me that (b)2(b)1 was correct. > > > Thanks! > > > Tony (aka ac342) > > > -- > > -- > 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 Wed Jul 10 17:30:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6A7SwT04038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:28:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6A7SnH04030 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:28:50 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6A7EnB20387 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:14:49 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:14 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school 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: <3D2A9958.6040504@skynet.be> HdW wrote: > Native english speakers are at a disadvantage. To them, agreement > seems to mean that partners have agreed on something. > To non-english sepakers that relationship is less strict. Oh I know > that it is the same in other languages. In dutch the word is > "Afspraak" which is also related to "afspreken" = "to agree". > But when I write on blm about agreements, I see "agreement" more as a > synonym to "system". I don't think English speakers have any real problem understanding what is meant by "explicit/implicit agreement" or indeed partnership experience. Where we seem to differ is that some of us consider "ambiguity" to be part of our agreements (or even system). We therefore think that our opponents have a right to be made aware of this ambiguity when it arises. 1N-3C is undefined if one has agreed to play a weak NT and with transfers to majors - I doubt there is any real consensus about what it should mean. Agreements/experience are not synonymous with "system". System is subject to regulation. Agreements and understanding (mostly) are not. Style/approach etc, while disclosable, are not part of the system. > Which means that to me, it does not matter whether or not someone has > agreed something in order to make it an agreement. If I sit down with > a pick-up partner, I don't have to agree on transfers to know that I > am playing them. How on earth can you tell? When I sit down with a stranger I generally expect transfers to be "off" unless explicitly agreed (unless of course the stranger is from Belgium where I am informed that transfers are completely ubiquitous - this information is a disclosable part of my partnership understanding). > Now if someone bids 2He with a hand containing spades, what else but > his hand are you going to use as evidence that his "agreement" was > transfers ? Umm try asking "why did you bid 2H over 1N holding JTxxxxx,x,xxx,xx?". And he says. We hadn't discussed responses to 1NT but I was aware that some people play transfers. I was quite happy to play in 2H undoubled if partner wasn't playing transfers but didn't didn't want to be in 4S if partner was. Of course partner bid 2S holding Ax,KQx,AJx,xxxxx - he doesn't care whether we are playing transfers or not - it is a reasonable bid to cater to both possibilities. And of course partner and I will both explain the bid as "could (perhaps should) be natural weak take-out, may be intended as a transfer". > So please don't argue with me, if all you're going to be saying is > some clever piece of bridge-lawyering saying "the fact that I have > spades may be evidence that I intended 2He as transfer, but it is not > evidence that we agreed that we played transfers". Well it isn't. > If you try such an argument, I might even add a PP. Which I have every confidence will be overturned on appeal. 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 Jul 10 17:30:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6A7SxQ04039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:28:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6A7SnH04031 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:28:50 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6A7Eot20404 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:14:50 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:14 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school 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: <3D2AE95F.2040909@skynet.be> HdW wrote: I have changed some bits to illustrate different appeals. > ACC : "please tell us why you are appealing" > N : "W told me E had spades" > ACC : "I see the hand here - E did have spades" N: Yes but after the hand West told East he wasn't sure if transfers applied here or whether East really had spades. > ACC : "so he has" > N : "but E did not tell me it was uncertain" > ACC : "so?" > N : "so E misinformed me". > ACC : "and what would you ahve done if he had told you he was guessing" N: I would have bid a slightly risky 3D to make the situation difficult for them, given the ambiguity it is unlikely either of them will be able to double with confidence. ACC: Oh we see - yes there is a good chance that 3D would have been passed out in that situation and you would have escaped for -50. > What is the difference between "I think he has spades" and "he has > spades". > > Or rather, what is the legal difference between the two ? Not too much. The difference varies with the degree of ambiguity in your agreements "transfer to spades", "almost certainly a transfer", "quite likely a transfer", "should be natural, but may be intended as transfer", and "natural" sit on a continuum. Since you know where on the continuum your current level of agreement sits your opponents are also entitled to that knowledge. Tim > I am not stating that the first is illegal or anything, just that the > second is equal to it, and should not be illegal. Of course playing against Herman I would probably never get a chance to appeal anyway! I popped to the loo after the hand and never found out that the 2H bid was ambiguous because Herman decided not to "bother me" with that key information when I asked. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 18:04:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6A83lw04072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 18:03:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6A83eH04063 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 18:03:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48880.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.240]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6A7nb916150 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:49:37 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2BDFC9.70409@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:18:33 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school References: <200207091754.g69Hs8N29045@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Yes Ted, a good example. Ted Ying wrote: > I apologize if I have this wrong. I have only partially been > following this thread, but I thought I might inject an example > that might be what Herman is looking for? > > Assume East holds Ax / QJx / xxxx / AKQ > Assume West holds QTxxx / AKxx / Kx / xx > > The auction: > East West > 1NT 2C > 2D 3H (1) (1) no alert, but intended as Smolen > 4H PP > > East didn't realize they were playing Smolen, west thought > they had agreed to play "Lawrence 2/1" and thought that was > a standard part of the agreement. East raises to 4H thinking > they're playing standard with 5H and 4S. The cards would > clearly show that West thought they were playing Smolen and > that it was his/her intent to show Smolen, but and gives > circumstantial evidence to that fact. It does not give > actual evident of an agreement or lack of agreement (although > the CC might give that if correctly filled out). > > Does this fit what you were trying to convey, Herman? > > -Ted. > Now Eric, Please give us rulings on the following : A1) East explains 3He as "no agreement" A2) East explains 3He as "presumably hearts" A3) East explains 3He as "hearts" In all cases presume NS are damaged. Any difference? Any difference as to whether EW really had no agreement or whether E merely forgot, W stating, "we agreed Smolen 5 years ago when we played 3 months together"? I don't believe there is a difference. In all cases, NS are misinformed. The Director cannot accept any evidence that A1 is true. 3 more cases : East does realize it is Smolen and bids accordingly. B1) East explains 3He as "no agreement" B2) East explains 3He as "presumably spades" B3) East explains 3He as "spades" Now of course there is a difference. Again, IMO, the Director cannot accept any evidence that B1 is true. So I believe NS are misinformed in B1, and not in B2 or B3. > -- 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 Jul 10 18:04:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6A83n304073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 18:03:49 +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 g6A83fH04066 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 18:03:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48880.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.240]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6A7nc916175 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:49:38 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2BE063.2020804@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:21:07 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school 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: > [snip] >> > > The B.J. Becker - Jeff Rubens partnership had an > agreement that in certain auctions a Double was > *systemically* two-way; either takeout or penalties. > Partner was supposed to guess which by looking at > their own cards. > > Was this "NOT fair"? Should Becker-Rubens "be worse > off than average"? > > A reductio ad absurdum of the De Wael School is that > Rubens would not be allowed to explain a two-way > Double by Becker to the opponents as "either takeout > or penalties, according to our written system notes, > which we happen to have here as evidence". If > Rubens dared give that explanation, the De Wael > School would hit Rubens with a PP. > > Instead, if Rubens guessed the Double was penalties, > the De Wael School would require Rubens to explain > the Double as "unequivocally penalties". Then the > De Wael School would hit Rubens with a MI penalty if > Rubens had misguessed when the Double was actually > takeout. > Don't be silly, Richard. They could prove by their CC that this was their agreement. But if 2 unknowns are sitting before me, claiming to have this agreement, I might be convinced they are lying cheats. > 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 Jul 10 19:44:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6A9em904118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 19:40:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6A9egH04114 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 19:40:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48880.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.240]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6A9QaZ15357 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:26:36 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2BFE38.8030604@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:28:24 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > >>ACC : "so he has" >>N : "but E did not tell me it was uncertain" >>ACC : "so?" >>N : "so E misinformed me". >>ACC : "and what would you ahve done if he had told you he was guessing" >> > > N: I would have bid a slightly risky 3D to make the situation difficult > for them, given the ambiguity it is unlikely either of them will be able > to double with confidence. > > ACC: Oh we see - yes there is a good chance that 3D would have been passed > out in that situation and you would have escaped for -50. > No the ACC would simply say "you are not entitled to know that EW are not certain of their agreement, only that agreement as such. > >> What is the difference between "I think he has spades" and "he has >> spades". >> >>Or rather, what is the legal difference between the two ? >> > > Not too much. The difference varies with the degree of ambiguity in your > agreements "transfer to spades", "almost certainly a transfer", "quite > likely a transfer", "should be natural, but may be intended as transfer", > and "natural" sit on a continuum. Since you know where on the continuum > your current level of agreement sits your opponents are also entitled to > that knowledge. > No they are not. Just as they are not entitled to know you have formed the agreement on a wednesday. It is not because you "know" something that your opponents are entitled to that knowledge. > Tim > > >>I am not stating that the first is illegal or anything, just that the >>second is equal to it, and should not be illegal. >> > > Of course playing against Herman I would probably never get a chance to > appeal anyway! I popped to the loo after the hand and never found out > that the 2H bid was ambiguous because Herman decided not to "bother me" > with that key information when I asked. > Yes I would. Since you are not entitled to it, I have no qualms telling you this after the deal. Now if the interpretation were to change, and it becomes clear that you are entitled to this knowledge of our uncertainty, then of course I will keep schtum, and there is no way you are going to be able to prove that I was uncertain of something that I told you in all certainty (and ws lucky to have got it right). Not only is this interpretation of yours totally unfounded in present law, it would be unworkable in any future interpretation or change of law. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > -- 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 Jul 10 19:55:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6A9qo804134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 19:52:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6A9qiH04130 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 19:52:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48880.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.240]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6A9cf924085 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:38:41 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2C010E.9080400@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:40:30 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > In-Reply-To: <3D2A9958.6040504@skynet.be> > HdW wrote: > > > I don't think English speakers have any real problem understanding what is > meant by "explicit/implicit agreement" or indeed partnership experience. > Where we seem to differ is that some of us consider "ambiguity" to be part > of our agreements (or even system). We therefore think that our opponents > have a right to be made aware of this ambiguity when it arises. 1N-3C is > undefined if one has agreed to play a weak NT and with transfers to > majors - I doubt there is any real consensus about what it should mean. > I have stated quite clearly that I agree with you on the point of ambiguity. What we are talking of is not ambiguity, it is uncertainty. Most pairs are not clever enough to cover up their uncertainty with a story of ambiguity. Last saturday, after a 2Cl intervention over our 1NT, my partner was not certain if transfers were still on, so she simply bid 2Sp on her 6-cards, and I was on the same wavelength and passed. Had she been aware that there were other possibilities she might have bid 3Cl and we would have reached our even better 4-4 fit in hearts. She was uncertain, and so was I. But I don't think that would have excused us from correctly explaining 2Sp as natural. We would never have been able to convince a TD that our agreement was not this, since we both bid it as such. I don't want to be asked to rule if someone is telling the truth or not. I prefer using the footnote, and interpret the absence of evidence to the contrary in deciding that the system was 2Sp=natural. > Agreements/experience are not synonymous with "system". System is subject > to regulation. Agreements and understanding (mostly) are not. > Style/approach etc, while disclosable, are not part of the system. > We all know that, there is no need to drag this into it. I am simply using the word "system" as an alternate for "agreements" to show you that there is no need for actual "agreeing" to produce an "agreement". > >>Which means that to me, it does not matter whether or not someone has >>agreed something in order to make it an agreement. If I sit down with >>a pick-up partner, I don't have to agree on transfers to know that I >>am playing them. >> > > How on earth can you tell? When I sit down with a stranger I generally > expect transfers to be "off" unless explicitly agreed (unless of course > the stranger is from Belgium where I am informed that transfers are > completely ubiquitous - this information is a disclosable part of my > partnership understanding). > exactly - even when not agreed, "transfers" are an agreement. > >>Now if someone bids 2He with a hand containing spades, what else but >>his hand are you going to use as evidence that his "agreement" was >>transfers ? >> > > Umm try asking "why did you bid 2H over 1N holding JTxxxxx,x,xxx,xx?". > And he says. We hadn't discussed responses to 1NT but I was aware that > some people play transfers. I was quite happy to play in 2H undoubled if > partner wasn't playing transfers but didn't didn't want to be in 4S if > partner was. Of course partner bid 2S holding Ax,KQx,AJx,xxxxx - he > doesn't care whether we are playing transfers or not - it is a reasonable > bid to cater to both possibilities. And of course partner and I will both > explain the bid as "could (perhaps should) be natural weak take-out, may > be intended as a transfer". > And you as director are believing this ? Sorry, but that is just an easy cop-out. I rule that these people are playing transfers. And that their explanation to the opponents is misleading. > >>So please don't argue with me, if all you're going to be saying is >>some clever piece of bridge-lawyering saying "the fact that I have >>spades may be evidence that I intended 2He as transfer, but it is not >>evidence that we agreed that we played transfers". >> > > Well it isn't. > No it is not. I agree. But that is not an argument that I need to consider when making my ruling. The footnote tells me what I have to presume, and your unsubstantiated self-serving statement does not constitute evidence to the contrary. > >>If you try such an argument, I might even add a PP. >> > > Which I have every confidence will be overturned on appeal. > I'm talking of the phony bridge-lawyering argument that intention not an agreement make. > 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/ > > > -- 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 Jul 10 20:36:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6AAXFV04168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 20:33:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6AAXAH04164 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 20:33:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2567.bb.online.no [80.212.218.7]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA18235 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:19:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004201c227fb$38b11880$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3D2BFE38.8030604@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:18:54 +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: "Herman De Wael" ...... > > Not too much. The difference varies with the degree of ambiguity in your > > agreements "transfer to spades", "almost certainly a transfer", "quite > > likely a transfer", "should be natural, but may be intended as transfer", > > and "natural" sit on a continuum. Since you know where on the continuum > > your current level of agreement sits your opponents are also entitled to > > that knowledge. > > > > > No they are not. > Just as they are not entitled to know you have formed the agreement on > a wednesday. There is a difference: The fact that an agreement was formed on a Wednesday has absolutely no bearing on the agreement itself. The fact that there is some uncertainity can be very relevant. > > It is not because you "know" something that your opponents are entitled to that knowledge. Agreed, it is because the information you "know" is relevant in the situation. And under Law 20F1 not only the information conveyed by the actual call made is relevant, but all the information that would have been conveyed by each and every call available but not made. I have a strong feeling that everything you "know" (relevant to the auction) and which is not "known" by your opponents (except information which they ought to understand from from common bridge knowledge) should be deemed "Concealed Partnership Understandings" which are explicitly prohibited under law 40B. The moment your experience with partner makes you suspect that there may be some uncertainity in the information conveyed to you by his call and you let this knowledge influence your choice of further calls, that knowledge is obviously "partnership experience" which shall be "fully and freely available to opponents". (Law 75 A, B & C) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 20:49:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6AAhUv04185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 20:43:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6AAhOH04181 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 20:43:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2567.bb.online.no [80.212.218.7]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA14450 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:29:20 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004601c227fc$a73b04e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3D2C010E.9080400@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:29:20 +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 From: "Herman De Wael" ...... > Most pairs are not clever enough to cover up their uncertainty with a > story of ambiguity. Last saturday, after a 2Cl intervention over our > 1NT, my partner was not certain if transfers were still on, so she > simply bid 2Sp on her 6-cards, and I was on the same wavelength and > passed. Had she been aware that there were other possibilities she > might have bid 3Cl and we would have reached our even better 4-4 fit > in hearts. > > She was uncertain, and so was I. But I don't think that would have excused us from correctly explaining 2Sp as natural. You are aware I assume, that opponents could have asked you what would have been the meaning of each of the following calls by your partner: Pass, Double, 2D, 2H, 2NT, 3C ..... and so on ad. lib. (Law 20F1) And they would have been entitled to your (correct) answer to each of them! And if your answer to any of these alternatives afterwards could be claimed to having misled and damage opponents they would have been entitled to an adjusted score. Would you not say that correct information to opponents would have been (on avaliable calls at the 2-level): "I am not sure, I believe partner was not sure, but 2S can only be natural" - or words to the same effect. Now opponents are on equal terms with you and can have no cause for redress. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 21:01:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6AB0aR04210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:00:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6AB0RH04202 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:00:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6AAkSK26857 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:46:28 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:46 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school 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: <3D2BDCF4.3060505@skynet.be> HDW wrote: > > P-(1D)-1S-(4H)-4NT-(P)-5H-(P)-6C-(P)-6S-(P)-P-(P) > > > > I *knew* we had no agreement about 4NT in this sequence - we had not > > discussed "meta agreements" about either Blackwood or Unusual NT. I > > had > > 11 cards in the minors, and few points, and I could not believe that > > partner would think I was asking for aces after having passed as > > dealer. > > Seems logical to me. > Surely you are not saying that the fact that partner does not > understand is in some manner evidence that you DON'T have the agreement. > "The Director is to presume mistaken information, rather than mistaken > bid." The fact that the partners misunderstood each other is evidence that either a) There was an agreement but one partner forgot, or b) There was no agreement The fact that a passed hand 4N in this sequence is *very* rare and unlikely to have been discussed/encountered before is evidence that there probably wasn't an agreement. The testimony from the players at the table when you question them would (probably) have provided further evidence that there were conflicting inferences from other agreements that made this an ambiguous bid. Most of the evidence is circumstantial but that is no reason to discard it. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 21:01:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6AB0aD04211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:00:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6AB0SH04203 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:00:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6AAkTU26866 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:46:29 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:46 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Wish list 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: <005b01c2278c$98d6e4c0$289968d5@SCRAP> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Bridge Laws seem favour the experienced player > who knows how to take advantage, especially in the > area of claims; but there are many other common > scenarios.... I am a fairly experienced player with a good understanding of the laws and know exactly how to take advantage of them. I believe this actually puts me at a *disadvantage* to players who know them less well. This is particularly the case in UI cases where I am far more aware of my obligations than an average player of my standard but also extends to cases where opponents make impossible concessions or get incomplete rulings from the TD etc, etc. Now if you are saying that players who cheat have an advantage under the current laws (which seems to be the point of your examples) then I agree. But so what. Players who want to cheat at monopoly can steal money from the bank, players who want to cheat at scrabble can practice reading tiles with their fingertips (practice finding the blanks). And those are simple games. In all of GE1, GE2 and GE3 you gave examples of actions which are currently illegal. Sure we can "simplify" the laws to make these actions legal but will that make the game better. Bridge is a complex game - complex laws are needed to cope in certain situations. When I played a Brighton last year my partner was pretty inexperienced. I had to start a lot of explanations with "Undiscussed, it is likely.." my experience was that players generally wanted me to stop right there. Some indicated with abrupt hand motions, others with "Please don't say any more". If people get into the habit of just saying "undiscussed" and waiting for opponents to inquire further if they want more information it wouldn't surprise me. 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 Jul 10 21:25:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6ABNm504243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:23:48 +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 g6ABNgH04239 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:23:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48880.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.240]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6AB9PH16049 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:09:25 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2C1652.3020106@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:11:14 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school References: <3D2BFE38.8030604@skynet.be> <004201c227fb$38b11880$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: >> >>No they are not. >>Just as they are not entitled to know you have formed the agreement on >>a wednesday. >> > > There is a difference: The fact that an agreement was formed on a Wednesday > has absolutely no bearing on the agreement itself. The fact that there is > some > uncertainity can be very relevant. > No Sven, you are confusing relevance with entitlement. It is not because the opponents are not interested in the one (that the agreement was reached on wednesday) and are interested in the other (that you are uncertain of it) that this influences in some way whether you are obliged to tell them that. The knowledge that you have the ace of spades is very interesting to your opponents, but that does not make it entitled information to them. > >>It is not because you "know" something that your opponents are entitled to >> > that knowledge. > > Agreed, it is because the information you "know" is relevant in the > situation. > relevance is no criterion, as proven above. > And under Law 20F1 not only the information conveyed by the actual call > made is relevant, but all the information that would have been conveyed by > each and every call available but not made. > > I have a strong feeling that everything you "know" (relevant to the auction) > and which is not "known" by your opponents (except information which > they ought to understand from from common bridge knowledge) should > be deemed "Concealed Partnership Understandings" which are explicitly > prohibited under law 40B. > Well, if that is true, it also includes the day on which you formed the agreement. Ergo, that is simply not true. > The moment your experience with partner makes you suspect that there > may be some uncertainity in the information conveyed to you by his call > and you let this knowledge influence your choice of further calls, that > knowledge is obviously "partnership experience" which shall be "fully and > freely available to opponents". (Law 75 A, B & C) > Agreed because of the subphrase "and you let this knowledge influence your choice of further calls". But I've said that before, and that subphrase is not included in the simple case that we are talking of. > Sven > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Jul 10 21:37:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6ABZNh04259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:35:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6ABZIH04255 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:35:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48880.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.240]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6ABKv814920 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:20:57 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2C1906.5080007@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:22:46 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school References: <3D2C010E.9080400@skynet.be> <004601c227fc$a73b04e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > ...... > >>Most pairs are not clever enough to cover up their uncertainty with a >>story of ambiguity. Last saturday, after a 2Cl intervention over our >>1NT, my partner was not certain if transfers were still on, so she >>simply bid 2Sp on her 6-cards, and I was on the same wavelength and >>passed. Had she been aware that there were other possibilities she >>might have bid 3Cl and we would have reached our even better 4-4 fit >>in hearts. >> >>She was uncertain, and so was I. But I don't think that would have >> > excused us from correctly explaining 2Sp as natural. > > You are aware I assume, that opponents could have asked you what > would have been the meaning of each of the following calls by your partner: > Pass, Double, 2D, 2H, 2NT, 3C ..... and so on ad. lib. (Law 20F1) > I am aware of that - and what has that got to do with anything. I would have been as uncertain about the meaning of those other calls as I was about 2SP. > And they would have been entitled to your (correct) answer to each of them! > Indeed they would have. > And if your answer to any of these alternatives afterwards could be claimed > to having misled and damage opponents they would have been entitled to > an adjusted score. > That's exactly what I am stating all along. > Would you not say that correct information to opponents would have been > (on avaliable calls at the 2-level): "I am not sure, I believe partner was > not > sure, but 2S can only be natural" - or words to the same effect. > That would probably be true information, but IMO it would be telling them more than they are entitled to. By simply saying "2Sp is natural" (or its equivalent, not alerting) I have told them exactly the same, legally speaking. I would be equally guilty of misinformation had partner held clubs in stead of spades, or was trying to ask for minors, or anything. I don't happen to believe that "but I'm not certain" is a valid excuse for misinforming. > Now opponents are on equal terms with you and can have no cause for > redress. > Yes, they are on equal terms. Which is higher than what they are entitled to. They are not entitled to my doubts. All they are entitled to is that my partner shows spades. Which is what I told 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/ > > > -- 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 Jul 10 21:37:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6ABaAg04265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:36:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6ABa5H04261 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:36:05 +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 17SFXd-00010x-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:22:00 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:58:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Wish list References: <005b01c2278c$98d6e4c0$289968d5@SCRAP> In-Reply-To: <005b01c2278c$98d6e4c0$289968d5@SCRAP> 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 > Bridge Laws seem favour the experienced player > who knows how to take advantage, especially in the > area of claims; but there are many other common > scenarios.... > > Generic example 1. > At GA, with East dealer, you hold as West > Qxxx > xx > xxx > xxxx > The auction (opponents bids in brackets) proceeds: > 1S(P)2S(4H); 4S(5H)? > Some experienced Wests will now hesitate for two > or three seconds before passing, in the hope that > partner will pass; according to some lawyers, partner > may seethe inwardly but should not take other action > unless clear-cut. > I suppose this sort of thing is against the law but > it is common in the top flight of big congresses. Where? I am not accustomed to seeing this. > If any TD has recently been called to adjudicate such > an occurrence, please tell us about it. > > Generic example 2. > You North, are in contention for a place in the last > session of a big pairs event. Opponents are newcomers > who are doing badly. You play in 2S and notice that > according to trick orientation, > You and LHO show the contract as made, while > Dummy and RHO show it as one down. > Some experienced players will enter a score of +110 > without further ado, assuming that most demoralised > opponents will not bother to check or protest. > With no personal interest, why should opponents call > the director, when the TD is all too likely to recite > the mad mantra "Let the field protect itself." Why on earth would a TD say such a stupid thing? Most TDs try to do their job, and I would expect then to do so in this case. > If, having studied the facts, the TD decides to > rule in favour of the experienced players, the > players, not in contention, are unlikely to appeal. > Even if in contention, the less experienced player > is less likely to appeal. So what? The TD is not interested in who is going to appeal: he will just do what he thinks is right. > Generic example 3. > RHO asks you the meaning of partner's undiscussed bid. > Given your other agreements, there are some things > it cannot mean and other things it is more or less > likely to mean. Many experienced players answer > "no agreement" which usually ends interrogation. > Ultra-suspicious opponents may insist on a cross- > examination; but some experienced players will stick > to their guns. In the subsequent auction, the "no- > agreement" partners usually guess better than opponents. If players cannot be bothered despite all the advice to call the TD then they are not going to get places, are they? If a player has a problem with the answer to a question he should always call the TD. > Again if any TD has recently been called to adjudicate > such an occurrence, please tell us about it. I cannot remember a recent case, but certainly I have sorted out such problems. > Even if the TD is called, BLML experts would not all > agree on his correct ruling. So? Does that prove anything? > The extent of such problems (assuming that you agree > that such actions are unlawful) is underestimated because > most players believe it futile to call the TD for them. Fortunately, this is just untrue. > These examples provide more fuel for the argument in > favour of law simplification and rationalisation. No, these arguments merely prove that you are so suspicious in normal situations that I am surprised you play the game at all. Fortunately the game is neither full of cheats nor of bone idle and incompetent Directors, so the game is much more enjoyable than you seem to realise. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 22:37:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6ACake04404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:36:46 +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 g6ACafH04400 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:36:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2567.bb.online.no [80.212.218.7]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA06613 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:22:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001b01c2280c$79ca12c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3D2C010E.9080400@skynet.be> <004601c227fc$a73b04e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3D2C1906.5080007@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:22:36 +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: "Herman De Wael" ....... > > Now opponents are on equal terms with you and can have no cause for > > redress. > > > > > Yes, they are on equal terms. Which is higher than what they are > entitled to. They are not entitled to my doubts. All they are > entitled to is that my partner shows spades. Which is what I told them. Maybe I am old-fashioned as to what constitutes a fair game. I have been brought up with the understanding that everything you know exclusively from your partner's calls is information that shall be available to opponents as well. And that is also how I understand the Laws of duplicate Contract Bridge as they are today. (Inferences from your own cards are of course excluded). The exception in Law 75C is not because opponents are not entitled to inferences from general knowledge, but because they are supposed to make such inferences on their own. Net result: Opponents are entitled to every piece of information you have because of partner's call(s) whether this information comes from explicit or implicit agreements, partnership understanding or partnership experience. "Every piece of information" further include hands that are denied because other available calls were not used, and as such it must even include the confidence in the explanations given if your doubts are caused by knowing (or not knowing) your partner rather than for instance from your own cards. A final remark: The information that an agreement was formed on Wednesday is not part of the information created by partner's call, so please let us ignore that statement? Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 22:40:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6ACecp04417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:40:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6ACeXH04413 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:40:33 +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 17SGYE-0001qL-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:26:35 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020710081903.00b57ac0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:28:05 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school In-Reply-To: <3D2BFE38.8030604@skynet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:28 AM 7/10/02, Herman wrote: >Yes I would. Since you are not entitled to it, I have no qualms >telling you this after the deal. >Now if the interpretation were to change, and it becomes clear that >you are entitled to this knowledge of our uncertainty, then of course >I will keep schtum, I think Herman has gotten a bit carried away with his argument. I do not believe for a moment that if the matter was settled so that it was clear to him that his opponents were entitled to the knowledge of his degree of certainty that he would refuse to follow the law and reveal it at the appropriate time. >and there is no way you are going to be able to prove that I was >uncertain of something that I told you in all certainty (and ws lucky >to have got it right). There is no doubt that this is true; if Herman were to choose to cheat outright in these circumstances, he would not be caught. Perhaps this whole debate is just another variation of, "Should the laws be designed primarily to insure that cheaters can't get away with cheating, or to achieve equity for ethical players who commit unintended infractions?" Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 23:57:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6ADvBC04463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 23:57:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6ADv3H04456 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 23:57:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6ADh3C23550 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:43:03 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:43 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school 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: <3D2C010E.9080400@skynet.be> Herman wrote: > > Umm try asking "why did you bid 2H over 1N holding JTxxxxx,x,xxx,xx?". > > And he says. We hadn't discussed responses to 1NT but I was aware > > that some people play transfers. I was quite happy to play in 2H > > undoubled if partner wasn't playing transfers but didn't didn't want > > to be in 4S if partner was. Of course partner bid 2S holding > > Ax,KQx,AJx,xxxxx - he doesn't care whether we are playing transfers > > or not - it is a reasonable bid to cater to both possibilities. And > > of course partner and I will both explain the bid as "could (perhaps > > should) be natural weak take-out, may be intended as a transfer". > > And you as director are believing this ? It is evidence - I am duty bound to *consider* it. I will question the partnership about how long they played together, what is on their CC, what shared background they have (and anything else that seems relevant). I will then make a choice a) Accept it b) Accept it but point out that there were enough indications that the explanation "likely to be a transfer, but could be a weak T/O" would have been more accurate c) Dismiss the evidence because I regard it as subconscious post-rationalisation. d) Decide it was a deliberate lie and expel the perpetrators from the tournament. > Sorry, but that is just an easy cop-out. Personally I regard saying "I am not going to bother investigating or analysing the evidence I am just going to assume" as the real cop-out. > >>So please don't argue with me, if all you're going to be saying is > >>some clever piece of bridge-lawyering saying "the fact that I have > >>spades may be evidence that I intended 2He as transfer, but it is not > >>evidence that we agreed that we played transfers". > > > > Well it isn't. > > No it is not. I agree. But that is not an argument that I need to > consider when making my ruling. The footnote tells me what I have to > presume, and your unsubstantiated self-serving statement does not > constitute evidence to the contrary. I fear Herman that this may be a misunderstanding on your part. While a self-serving statement is by no means *proof* it is certainly *evidence* in the normal sense of jurisprudence. Nor is the evidence necessarily incapable of being substantiated. For example if playing on line all players can see any system discussion that took place (and play records will show whether a particular pair played before). If playing face to face I might have the club manager as a witness to the fact that he introduced us 30 seconds before the hand was played. There is no requirement on you to regard such statements as *convincing* evidence I agree - but you absolutely must *consider* it even if you then decide to dismiss it (I don't think bridge carries a concept of "inadmissible evidence"). 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 Jul 10 23:57:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6ADv9q04462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 23:57:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6ADv1H04453 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 23:57:02 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6ADh0w23487 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:43:00 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:43 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school 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: <3D2BFE38.8030604@skynet.be> HDW wrote: > > N: I would have bid a slightly risky 3D to make the situation > > difficult for them, given the ambiguity it is unlikely either of them > > will be able to double with confidence. > > > > ACC: Oh we see - yes there is a good chance that 3D would have been > > passed out in that situation and you would have escaped for -50. > > No the ACC would simply say "you are not entitled to know that EW are > not certain of their agreement, only that agreement as such. And here is where we are diametrically opposed. I believe that the fact that a given sequence is "undiscussed" (subject to ambiguity, whatever) is part of the partnership understanding - and fully disclosable. I am of the opinion that a UK AC would give the ruling as above. Such ambiguity is feature of *everybody's* systems (in fewer sequences for some than for others!). > Since you know where on the continuum > > your current level of agreement sits your opponents are also entitled > > to that knowledge. > > No they are not. > Just as they are not entitled to know you have formed the agreement on > a wednesday. > > It is not because you "know" something that your opponents are entitled > to that knowledge. True. It is because you know something that might influence your actions/choice of calls on a given hand and that the knowledge comes from the explicit/implicit agreements and the experience (or lack thereof) you have with partner. I don't see how "we made this agreement on a Wednesday" is relevant to choosing a call. I do see how knowing that partner has made a call that is known to be ambiguous will influence my own choice of calls. > > Of course playing against Herman I would probably never get a chance > > to appeal anyway! I popped to the loo after the hand and never found > > out that the 2H bid was ambiguous because Herman decided not to > > "bother me" with that key information when I asked. > Yes I would. Since you are not entitled to it, I have no qualms > telling you this after the deal. You might have "no qualms" about telling me, but you might not feel the need to tell me - after all you don't consider it relevant. > Now if the interpretation were to change, and it becomes clear that > you are entitled to this knowledge of our uncertainty, then of course > I will keep schtum, and there is no way you are going to be able to > prove that I was uncertain of something that I told you in all > certainty (and ws lucky to have got it right). Let me get this straight. You, *knowing you were meant to disclose*, would *still* keep silent about it. I'm sorry Herman but if those are your ethics the game is way better off without you. I can only hope your partner would have more self-respect! > Not only is this interpretation of yours totally unfounded in present > law, it would be unworkable in any future interpretation or change of > law. The laws of bridge will always present opportunities for cheats to gain an advantage - why worry about 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 Thu Jul 11 02:42:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6AGfGg04589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 02:41:16 +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-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 g6AGfBH04585 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 02:41:11 +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 17SKIy-000OXc-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:27:10 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:38:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Truth, Justice and Lady Macbeth References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >I wrote: > >[snip] > >>>>One should not be ethical in the hope or >>>>expectation of a tangible reward of 7 imps. >>>> >>>>One should be ethical for its own sake; as >>>>the cliche states, "Virtue is its own reward." > >[snip] > >David Stevenson replied: > >>> Of course. But that is no reason for the >>>lawmakers to reward poorer ethics. > >However, in the thread, "1NT overcall is...", >David Stevenson wrote: > >> 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'! > >[snip] > >Given that David does not want "lawmakers to reward >poorer ethics", is the *Justice* version of L12C3 >sufficient to achieve that end? Or is the more >draconian *American Way* version of L12C3 >necessary to prevent players benefiting from poor >ethics? My view is that the Justice method [sympathetic weighting] works well enough. Having seen and heard something of American bridge I think they should consider bringing L12C3 in but excluding the top events. Similarly, despite it being brought in for TDs first at a World Championship I believe it is at lower levels the advantage of its use is generally seen. Neither skewed weighting nor true weighting with near-automatic PPs will endear themselves to players but I can see them both as being possible for top levels only. But I think just to use sympathetic weighting is good enough really. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 04:51:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6AIocs04687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 04:50:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6AIoTH04678 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 04:50:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g6AIaQL04534; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:36:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:25:45 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3D2BFE38.8030604@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 7/10/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >Yes I would. Since you are not entitled to it, I have no qualms >telling you this after the deal. >Now if the interpretation were to change, and it becomes clear that >you are entitled to this knowledge of our uncertainty, then of course >I will keep schtum, and there is no way you are going to be able to >prove that I was uncertain of something that I told you in all >certainty (and ws lucky to have got it right). If you do not disclose your partnership agreement, than you are misinforming opponents. If you claim that some meaning *is* a matter of partnership agreement, when it is not, then you are misinforming opponents. If you make a guess, and you guess right, and what you guess is in accordance with what you told opponents, then you're correct, you cannot be "caught". But you have still misinformed opponents. It is illegal to misinform opponents. It is unethical to do so deliberately. It seems to me that you have taken an untenable position. >Not only is this interpretation of yours totally unfounded in present >law, it would be unworkable in any future interpretation or change of law. I'm not so sure either of these is true. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp 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 Jul 11 04:51:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6AIocQ04688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 04:50:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6AIoVH04680 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 04:50:31 +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 g6AIaSL04577; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:36:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:19:05 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3D2BDFC9.70409@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 7/10/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >Yes Ted, a good example. [snip] Hm. My general bridge knowledge tells me that a jump to 3M after a 2D response to Stayman shows 5 cards in that major and 4 in the other in "standard american". It also tells me that many, if not most, experts, as well as many non-experts, play it the other way 'round, that is, as Smolen. In fact, I've never discussed this sequence with my partner, and it's never come up. We have not agreed to play Smolen. But just before today's session, partner attended a short class (which I missed - but I saw the blackboard when I came in) in which Smolen was discussed. I don't know if opponents attended the class or not, but in any case, the laws' provision that I need not disclose inferences from my general knowledge and experience doesn't say anything about *their* general knowledge and experience. Now, if opponents ask me what 3H means, how should I explain it? We have no agreement, but simply saying "no agreement" doesn't feel quite right. OTOH, I *will not* say "it shows 5 spades" or "it shows 5 hearts" because either, implying definite knowledge, would be a lie. I suppose I could say something like 'she must be 5-4 in the majors, but I don't know which suit is which', but that inference is based on my general knowledge, which I need not disclose (granted, I'm not prohibited from disclosing it). *If* I infer that it shows spades because I know she attended the class, then *that* is, I think, disclosable. OTOH, I shouldn't make that inference, because one of the few meta-agreements we do have is that we won't use any undiscussed convention, or indeed any undiscussed conventional sequence, even if it's a use of a convention we *have* agreed. (Frex, she got very annoyed with me when I made an unusual NT bid that *wasn't* a jump to 2NT.) Anyway, I think this dilemma is just to hard to expect any but those who've studied the finer points of the law, and perhaps even some of those, to resolve in the heat of battle. And I don't think it's fair of a TD to rule with the expectation that a player must have been able to do so. Especially if he's going to give PPs to a player who tries to explain his reasoning. Regards, Ed "Difficult? I can make you *pray* for difficult." -- "Ian Nottingham", in "Witchblade" -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 04:56:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6AIu0M04707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 04:56:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6AItsH04703 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 04:55:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48880.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.240]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6AIfl912381 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 20:41:48 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2C8057.40402@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 20:43:35 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020710081903.00b57ac0@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 Quite correct here Eric, Eric Landau wrote: > At 05:28 AM 7/10/02, Herman wrote: > >> Yes I would. Since you are not entitled to it, I have no qualms >> telling you this after the deal. >> Now if the interpretation were to change, and it becomes clear that >> you are entitled to this knowledge of our uncertainty, then of course >> I will keep schtum, > > > I think Herman has gotten a bit carried away with his argument. I do > not believe for a moment that if the matter was settled so that it was > clear to him that his opponents were entitled to the knowledge of his > degree of certainty that he would refuse to follow the law and reveal it > at the appropriate time. > I thank you for the confidence shown in me. And while I realize that this matter isn't settled, I do believe very strongly that this information is not one my opponents are entitled to, and so I repeat here once more that I won't tell them. Now Eric, you started this argument. Please finish it in some way. You have said over and over again that I should express my doubt to opponents. As your only point you state that I should not lie. I have stated over and over again that while I might well be lying, that is of no importance since it would be over something I believe the opponents not to be entitled to. (and I do realize that this sentence is gramatically incorrect - but it is very hard to use the word entitlement correctly) Now please tell me why you believe I am wrong. Is there a flaw in my argumentation - I don't believe so. Or do you feel that the opponents ARE entitled to the doubt factor? In that case please come up with a better argument than that I should not lie. Oh and don't try the subcase any more - the case where my doubt would influence my own bidding. I have already conceded that one. But it's a special case, not the general one. >> and there is no way you are going to be able to prove that I was >> uncertain of something that I told you in all certainty (and ws lucky >> to have got it right). > > > There is no doubt that this is true; if Herman were to choose to cheat > outright in these circumstances, he would not be caught. > > Perhaps this whole debate is just another variation of, "Should the laws > be designed primarily to insure that cheaters can't get away with > cheating, or to achieve equity for ethical players who commit unintended > infractions?" > Now that might well be an interesting debate - but the laws are actually written that way - remember the "could have known"s ? > -- 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 Jul 11 05:00:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6AJ0Zx04723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 05:00:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6AJ0UH04719 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 05:00:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48880.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.240]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6AIkO917595 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 20:46:24 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2C816C.1080400@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 20:48:12 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school References: <3D2C010E.9080400@skynet.be> <004601c227fc$a73b04e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3D2C1906.5080007@skynet.be> <001b01c2280c$79ca12c0$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, you seem to be misunderstanding the argument I have with Eric. Sven Pran wrote: > > Maybe I am old-fashioned as to what constitutes a fair game. > > I have been brought up with the understanding that everything > you know exclusively from your partner's calls is information > that shall be available to opponents as well. And that is also > how I understand the Laws of duplicate Contract Bridge as > they are today. (Inferences from your own cards are of course > excluded). > And I understand them just the same. > The exception in Law 75C is not because opponents are not > entitled to inferences from general knowledge, but because > they are supposed to make such inferences on their own. > Well, I happen to believe that the exception is simply there so as not to burden a player with stating the obvious. If the opponent asks, I believe even the obvious should be told. > Net result: Opponents are entitled to every piece of information > you have because of partner's call(s) whether this information > comes from explicit or implicit agreements, partnership > understanding or partnership experience. > We have no quarrel there. > "Every piece of information" further include hands that are > denied because other available calls were not used, and as > such it must even include the confidence in the explanations > given if your doubts are caused by knowing (or not knowing) > your partner rather than for instance from your own cards. > No. Every piece of information is everything you know (or think you can know) about partner's hand. The fact that you are uncertain about this is not something about partner's hand, it is something about your state of mind. > A final remark: The information that an agreement was formed > on Wednesday is not part of the information created by > partner's call, so please let us ignore that statement? > Again the same distinction though - "everything you know" includes this fact. Which does not make it disclosable. Only things you know about partner's hand are disclosable, not things you know in general. > -- 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 Jul 11 05:13:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6AJDG504740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 05:13:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6AJDAH04736 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 05:13:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48880.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.240]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6AIwi903358 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 20:58:44 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2C8450.10606@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:00:32 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > > >>Now if the interpretation were to change, and it becomes clear that >>you are entitled to this knowledge of our uncertainty, then of course >>I will keep schtum, and there is no way you are going to be able to >>prove that I was uncertain of something that I told you in all >>certainty (and ws lucky to have got it right). >> > > Let me get this straight. You, *knowing you were meant to disclose*, would > *still* keep silent about it. I'm sorry Herman but if those are your > ethics the game is way better off without you. I can only hope your > partner would have more self-respect! > > >>Not only is this interpretation of yours totally unfounded in present >>law, it would be unworkable in any future interpretation or change of >>law. >> > > The laws of bridge will always present opportunities for cheats to gain an > advantage - why worry about it. > OK, so in this new interpretation we get the following. David gives a 100 word explanation, totally unhelpful to the opponents, and goes free. Herman gives a 1 word explanation, the same one as David's last one, tells the opponents exactly what they want to know, gets on with the game, and then gets branded not just for misinformation but also for cheating. And in what way would that interpretation be better for the Game? > -- 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 Jul 11 05:25:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6AJPQH04753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 05:25:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6AJPLH04749 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 05:25:21 +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 g6AJAwp11428; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:11:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:41:34 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school To: Sven Pran , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <004201c227fb$38b11880$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 7/10/02, Sven Pran wrote: >I have a strong feeling that everything you "know" (relevant to the >auction) and which is not "known" by your opponents (except >information which they ought to understand from from common bridge >knowledge) should be deemed "Concealed Partnership Understandings" >which are explicitly prohibited under law 40B. This is dangerous. The laws do not speak of "common" knowledge, but of "general" knowledge. I have read some two hundred books on the game (and not retained much, it sometimes seems :) and I have played at least three distinctly different systems - Acol, Precision, and Standard American. My "general knowledge" is much greater, I think, than most of the club players around here (save some of the real experts). I certainly do not hold most of what I know from that reading and playing in *common* with them. 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 Jul 11 05:26:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6AJQ7t04765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 05:26:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6AJQ2H04761 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 05:26:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g6AJBfp12478; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:11:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:37:47 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3D2C010E.9080400@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 7/10/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >No it is not. I agree. But that is not an argument that I need to >consider when making my ruling. The footnote tells me what I have to >presume, and your unsubstantiated self-serving statement does not >constitute evidence to the contrary. The laws perhaps require a TD to discount "unsubstantiated self-serving statements", but to claim that such a statement is not evidence goes too far. It *is* evidence, even if it's given a low weight. Perhaps it's just more diplomatic to say "I don't see enough evidence to convince me that this was not a misexplanation, and in that case the laws require me to presume it *was* a misexplanation". I get a sense, though, both from what I read here and what I've seen TDs actually do, that such doesn't happen in practice. If a TD said to me "I don't care what you "claim* your agreements are, it's obvious to me (or even just "it seems to me") that you have given an incorrect explanation, your agreement is actually this other thing", then I feel he has accused me of cheating, even though I *know* that what he probably means (what he should mean) is the more diplomatic statement above. And though I know it, a lot of people, even those who've been playing a long time, don't. Maybe TDs don't care what players think of them, though. :-( Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp 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 Jul 11 05:45:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6AJiim04782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 05:44:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6AJidH04778 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 05:44:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g6AJUYd20215 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:30:34 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200207101930.g6AJUYd20215@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:30:34 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Ed Reppert" at Jul 10, 2002 02:19:05 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 Ed, My personal choice, which I've used at the table is "We have no specific agreement, but if you want at some point partner can leave the table and I can provide you with some inferences." Some players will take me up on that (and have) and some will not. I believe this is keeping with the intent of the policy of full disclosure. -Ted. > Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:19:05 -0400 > From: Ed Reppert > > On 7/10/02, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Yes Ted, a good example. > > [snip] > > Hm. My general bridge knowledge tells me that a jump to 3M after a 2D > response to Stayman shows 5 cards in that major and 4 in the other in > "standard american". It also tells me that many, if not most, experts, > as well as many non-experts, play it the other way 'round, that is, as > Smolen. In fact, I've never discussed this sequence with my partner, and > it's never come up. We have not agreed to play Smolen. But just before > today's session, partner attended a short class (which I missed - but I > saw the blackboard when I came in) in which Smolen was discussed. I > don't know if opponents attended the class or not, but in any case, the > laws' provision that I need not disclose inferences from my general > knowledge and experience doesn't say anything about *their* general > knowledge and experience. Now, if opponents ask me what 3H means, how > should I explain it? We have no agreement, but simply saying "no > agreement" doesn't feel quite right. OTOH, I *will not* say "it shows 5 > spades" or "it shows 5 hearts" because either, implying definite > knowledge, would be a lie. I suppose I could say something like 'she > must be 5-4 in the majors, but I don't know which suit is which', but > that inference is based on my general knowledge, which I need not > disclose (granted, I'm not prohibited from disclosing it). *If* I infer > that it shows spades because I know she attended the class, then *that* > is, I think, disclosable. OTOH, I shouldn't make that inference, because > one of the few meta-agreements we do have is that we won't use any > undiscussed convention, or indeed any undiscussed conventional sequence, > even if it's a use of a convention we *have* agreed. (Frex, she got very > annoyed with me when I made an unusual NT bid that *wasn't* a jump to > 2NT.) Anyway, I think this dilemma is just to hard to expect any but > those who've studied the finer points of the law, and perhaps even some > of those, to resolve in the heat of battle. And I don't think it's fair > of a TD to rule with the expectation that a player must have been able > to do so. Especially if he's going to give PPs to a player who tries to > explain his reasoning. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 05:45:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6AJjqK04794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 05:45:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6AJjlH04790 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 05:45:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1359.bb.online.no [80.212.213.79]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA27026 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:31:42 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002301c22848$6b785600$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:31:41 +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: "Ed Reppert" > On 7/10/02, Sven Pran wrote: > > >I have a strong feeling that everything you "know" (relevant to the > >auction) and which is not "known" by your opponents (except > >information which they ought to understand from from common bridge > >knowledge) should be deemed "Concealed Partnership Understandings" > >which are explicitly prohibited under law 40B. > > This is dangerous. The laws do not speak of "common" knowledge, but of > "general" knowledge. Well, I did write "..... which they ought to understand from ....." There will always be a matter of judgement here, and frankly I see no real disagreement between us on this point? Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 09:44:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6ANiCb04917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:44:12 +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 g6ANi5H04913 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:44:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA04665 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:45:08 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:25:48 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:20:00 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 11/07/2002 09:25:27 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: [snip] >>A reductio ad absurdum of the De Wael School is that [snip] Herman De Wael replied: >Don't be silly, Richard. >They could prove by their CC that this was their >agreement. >But if 2 unknowns are sitting before me, claiming to >have this agreement, I might be convinced they are >lying cheats. In response to examples contrived by myself and other blmlers, Herman De Wael has evaded the reductio ad absurdum of the De Wael School by admitting numerous exceptions and special cases. However, IMHO, that therefore means that the De Wael School exists in a logical vacuum, as it fails the test of Occam's Razor. IMHO, the De Wael School also exists in a moral vacuum. Central to the De Wael School is the assertion that "fairness" to the opponents requires you to lie that you have an agreement, when you actually have a non-agreement. That is, according to Herman De Wael, the ends justifies the means. *If* it is true that the De Wael School exists in both a logical and moral vacuum, is there any justification for TDs other than Herman to belong to the De Wael School? 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 Jul 11 11:17:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6B1Gih04959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:16:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6B1GeH04955 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:16:40 +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 LAA22386 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:17:43 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:58:24 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:02:20 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 11/07/2002 10:58:04 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: [snip] >Now if someone bids 2He with a hand containing >spades, what else but his hand are you going to >use as evidence that his "agreement" was transfers? > >So please don't argue with me, if all you're going >to be saying is some clever piece of bridge- >lawyering saying "the fact that I have spades may >be evidence that I intended 2He as transfer, but it >is not evidence that we agreed that we played >transfers". > >If you try such an argument, I might even add a PP. Any time someone makes a call, unless they are psyching, they intend their call to be descriptive of their hand. But just as one swallow does not make a summer, one partner does not make a partnership agreement. It appears that Herman De Wael and I are arguing on a different conceptual basis. The priority for myself is to inform the opponents accurately about the *agreement* of *both* partners. OTOH, Herman De Wael's priority is to inform the opponents of an *accurate description of partner's hand*. In L75 and footnote, the word "agreement(s)" makes thirteen appearances. There is only one reference to "accurate description of ... hands." (In the footnote.) And that reference explicitly states that the opponents are *not* entitled to any such description. Therefore, Herman's misinformation PP should be applied to... Herman! :-) 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 Jul 11 11:37:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6B1b8Q04975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:37:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6B1b3H04971 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:37:04 +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 LAA26250 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:38:06 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:18:46 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:22:40 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 11/07/2002 11:18:26 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert: >>My intention in bidding 4NT was >>that it be UNT, hers in bidding 5H >>was to show her two aces. Which >>intention "is" the agreement? Herman De Wael: >Perhaps both, although that cannot be >the basis of a ruling of course. Reductio ad absurdum for the De Wael School. >Anyway we've all encountered rulings >where the Director presumes the worst >of both rulings the basis for his >determination of system. Another reductio ad absurdum for the De Wael School. Other TDs would quickly find evidence that this particular 4NT was undiscussed. But the predetermined view of the De Wael School is that "undiscussed" is never a valid explanation. The De Wael School is therefore forced to devise two bidding systems, determine which one is more damaging, then foist that system on Ed Reppert and his partner. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 12:33:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6B2XH905007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:33:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6B2XCH05003 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:33:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.2.210] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17STXS-000DXw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 03:18:39 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c22881$bbb3a500$d202e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 03:20:40 +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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 2:27 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling > > I would rule that EW did not have an agreement about the > meaning of this particular redouble. > > Does Wales require redoubles which have no agreed meaning to > be alerted? If so, I would rule that there has been MI. > > If, on the other hand, the Welsh regulation is that only > redoubles *agreed* to be non-natural should be alerted, then > there there has been no MI and therefore no adjusted score. > +=+ No doubt DWS or Anne will tell us what the Welsh alerting regulation is. The English regulation says "The purpose of alerting is to draw your opponents' attention to any call by your partner that *may have* a special meaning" and "When there is no alert your opponents can assume that the call does not fall within an alertable category." and "Alert any call which you believe to be alertable even if you cannot explain its meaning". I would think there is enough here to protect the opponents when the call is not alerted. The European Bridge League regulation says that, inter alia, a call is to be alerted if it has "a partnership meaning that may not be understood by opponents". If the partnership knows that a call has a meaning based upon an agreement but does not know what that meaning is, can opponents be expected to understand it? I think I can persuade myself that the call should be alerted in EBL tournaments.. The WBF regulation is not quite so helpful in its core requirements - they tend to be stated in black or white terms - but it does require an alert "whenever there is doubt". ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 12:39:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6B2dYd05022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:39:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6B2dTH05018 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:39:29 +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 MAA08354 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:40:31 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:21:13 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Anti-cheating or equity? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:25:07 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 11/07/2002 12:20:52 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 "The Edgar Kaplan school", Eric Landau asked: >>"Should the laws be designed primarily to insure that >>cheaters can't get away with cheating, or to achieve >>equity for ethical players who commit unintended >>infractions?" Herman De Wael replied: >Now that might well be an interesting debate - but the >laws are actually written that way - remember the >"could have known"s? IMHO, the Laws should handle potential cheating by the principle of, "Lead us not into temptation". A number of laws already follow this principle. Examples: L6C, L74C8, L90B4 But there are still a few fuzzy areas where the Laws could be changed to lead us less into temptation. Examples: L21A - More rigid requirements for non- confusion in explanations. L46B - Addition of "could have known" if incomplete designation damages defenders, plus addition of a cross-reference to L45F. Zonal option L61B - Abolition. L72B3 - Replaced with antithesis of current law, plus addition of "could have known". 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 Jul 11 13:03:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6B330A05050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:03:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6B32tH05046 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:02:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from young.alumni.princeton.edu (pcp01742111pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net [68.54.87.60]) by mtaout02.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GZ2009U5D596Z@mtaout02.icomcast.net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:48:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:37:39 -0400 From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? X-Sender: davidgrabiner@mail.comcast.net To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020710221039.00aaf020@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 On board 1: W N E S P P 1H X 3D! P 3H AP South explained North's 3D bid as a splinter. At the end of the auction, North corrected the explanation (3D was a weak preempt), and says, "Call the director if you think there is a problem." Nobody calls the director, and 3H goes down three. North's action is a technical infraction; he is supposed to call the TD, but it is rarely done in this situation because strict obedience would lead to too many director calls and game delays. Howeve, this time it may have contributed to a problem. After board 2, West calls the director and says that he would have doubled 3H if he had been properly informed. Is he eligible for an adjustment, or is it too late? I don't see any statute of limitations in the Laws. Would it make a difference if East said that she would have doubled, since East could have retracted her final pass if the director had been called? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 13:49:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6B3n2x05102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:49:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6B3mvH05098 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:48:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g6B3Yqs01829 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 23:34:52 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200207110334.g6B3Yqs01829@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 23:34:52 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020710221039.00aaf020@mail.comcast.net> from "David J. Grabiner" at Jul 10, 2002 10:37:39 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk First, I would not consider that it is North's duty to call the director. East-West should call the director. It is North's duty to call attention to the irregularity (which he did). Although L9A does state that "The Director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." it is not an infraction for North-South, but an infraction for everyone. If anyone bears the brunt of the infraction, it should be East-West. L11A does state "The right to penalize an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty." I think that East-West have forfeit their right to redress. The point of calling the director at the time is that the director should ask of East and West what their actions would have been had they known the information. They are supposed to convey their supposed actions without knowledge of the final result of the hand. It is self-serving to say that you would have doubled had you been informed once you see the hand down 3. Personally, if she really would have doubled, don't you think she would have called for the director at the time? By waiting until they saw the result on the hand, East-West have forfeit their right to redress. And just because East would have been given the chance to change her call to double, you don't allow that since that is double-shotting. If the contract goes down, you call the director and ask for redress saying you would have doubled. If the contract makes, you happily sit in your chair and pull the cards from the next deal. No such luck. North-South were damaged by their failure to call the director. If they had called the director and given their proposed actions before seeing the result, the director could consider giving either an assigned score, or an adjusted score, but not after they've seen the result and hand. At that point, they could double-dummy the hand and say they'd do whatever fits the hand best. Now, this doesn't mean that if the director felt it appropriate, he could award North-South a PP as per L11c, but I don't think North-South did anything wrong once they corrected the mistaken explanation. -Ted. > Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:37:39 -0400 > From: "David J. Grabiner" > > On board 1: > > W N E S > P P 1H > X 3D! P 3H > AP > > South explained North's 3D bid as a splinter. At the end of the auction, > North corrected the explanation (3D was a weak preempt), and says, "Call > the director if you think there is a problem." Nobody calls the director, > and 3H goes down three. > > North's action is a technical infraction; he is supposed to call the TD, > but it is rarely done in this situation because strict obedience would lead > to too many director calls and game delays. Howeve, this time it may have > contributed to a problem. > > After board 2, West calls the director and says that he would have doubled > 3H if he had been properly informed. Is he eligible for an adjustment, or > is it too late? I don't see any statute of limitations in the Laws. > > Would it make a difference if East said that she would have doubled, since > East could have retracted her final pass if the director had been called? > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 14:31:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6B4VPB05131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:31:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6B4VKH05127 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:31:20 +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 OAA26640 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:32:22 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:13:03 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:16:56 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 11/07/2002 02:12:42 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >>+=+ No doubt DWS or Anne will tell us what the Welsh >>alerting regulation is. The English regulation says "The >>purpose of alerting is to draw your opponents' attention >>to any call by your partner that *may have* a special >>meaning" and "When there is no alert your opponents >>can assume that the call does not fall within an alertable >>category." and "Alert any call which you believe to be >>alertable even if you cannot explain its meaning". >> I would think there is enough here to protect the >>opponents when the call is not alerted. [snip] The relevant parallel paragraph of the Australian Alert Regulations is: >The general principle is to alert calls which the opponents >may not fully understand or may reasonably misinterpret. All >natural bids that convey a meaning that the opponents may not >expect must be alerted. This includes strong bids that sound >weak, weak bids that sound strong, and all other calls that, >by agreement, convey meanings different from, or in addition >to the normal meaning ascribed to them. > >For example: > >1. a 2 over 1 change of suit response by a non-passed hand > that is non-forcing, >2. passes or other bids below 3NT that are not natural or > have special partnership agreements. This Australian Alert paragraph refers to "calls that, by agreement". It therefore seems that non-agreements do *not* have to be alerted in Australia. However, non-agreements should not be confused with forgotten agreements vis-a-vis Australian Alert requirements. >In the case of a player forgetting what his/her partner's >alertable call means, the following procedure is to be >adopted. The player must still alert, and explain that the >meaning has been forgotten. The Director should then be >called. Guidance given by the Australian Alert Regulations, on the explanation of non-agreements, is as follows. (This reg will certainly irritate a member of blml I have high respect for, despite our absurd differences.) :-) >If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of a >call, players must say so (by saying, "Undiscussed", for >example), and not try to offer a possible explanation. In all >such cases, players should not offer explanations such as, "I >take it to mean ...." When, however, as a result of >partnership experience and style, players are able to form a >cogent view of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, >that information shall be given to opponents on request. 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 Jul 11 14:56:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6B4uNd05154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:56:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6B4uJH05150 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:56:19 +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 OAA01040 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:57:21 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:38:01 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:41:51 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 11/07/2002 02:37:41 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: [snip] >a technical infraction; he is supposed to call the TD, >but it is rarely done in this situation because strict >obedience would lead to too many director calls and >game delays. [snip] To the best of my (imperfect) recollection, the Danish NCBO has proposed a relaxation of the "must" requirement of L9B1(a) in the 2005 Laws. L9B1(a) is the one Law I repeatedly and unashamedly violate. Even so, I breach that Law less frequently than other players, since I do so only in two circumstances: (a) When I am a NOS accepting an irregularity by the OS. (b) After correcting partner's trivial misexplanation (I would still invoke L9B1(a) for a major mis-explanation, such as pard describing my natural preempt as a splinter bid). On the other hand, when I am OS, I make a habit of invoking L9B1(a) before the NOS can get around to it. 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 Jul 11 17:27:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6B7Qjk05216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:26:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6B7QZH05212 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:26:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-46342.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.53.6]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6B7BAH25327 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:11:10 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2D2FFC.40703@skynet.be> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:13:00 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school 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, Yes, we've all had these stories happen to us before, so ? Ed Reppert wrote: > > Hm. My general bridge knowledge tells me that a jump to 3M after a 2D > response to Stayman shows 5 cards in that major and 4 in the other in > "standard american". It also tells me that many, if not most, experts, > as well as many non-experts, play it the other way 'round, that is, as > Smolen. In fact, I've never discussed this sequence with my partner, and > it's never come up. We have not agreed to play Smolen. But just before > today's session, partner attended a short class (which I missed - but I > saw the blackboard when I came in) in which Smolen was discussed. I > don't know if opponents attended the class or not, but in any case, the > laws' provision that I need not disclose inferences from my general > knowledge and experience doesn't say anything about *their* general > knowledge and experience. Now, if opponents ask me what 3H means, how > should I explain it? We have no agreement, but simply saying "no > agreement" doesn't feel quite right. I'm happy to hear it. That's stage one. You admit that "no agreement" is in general insufficient information. You almost always know more than that, and such knowledge is disclosable. > OTOH, I *will not* say "it shows 5 > spades" or "it shows 5 hearts" because either, implying definite > knowledge, would be a lie. Now I've never said that it would not be a lie, nor have I ever said that you should say this. I have said that I would say this, and that I advise players to say something like this. I respect your reluctance to lie, but please accept my non-reluctance to do so, since IMO I am not breaking any bridge-laws. > I suppose I could say something like 'she > must be 5-4 in the majors, but I don't know which suit is which', but > that inference is based on my general knowledge, which I need not > disclose (granted, I'm not prohibited from disclosing it). *If* I infer > that it shows spades because I know she attended the class, then *that* > is, I think, disclosable. So you tell them it's spades. Either with or without the story about her attending the class. > OTOH, I shouldn't make that inference, because > one of the few meta-agreements we do have is that we won't use any > undiscussed convention, or indeed any undiscussed conventional sequence, > even if it's a use of a convention we *have* agreed. (Frex, she got very > annoyed with me when I made an unusual NT bid that *wasn't* a jump to > 2NT.) So you tell them it's hearts. Either with or without the story about your meta-agreement never to use undiscussed conventions. In either case, you have special knowledge about your agreements (about your meta-agreement in this case) that allows you to form an opinion about the likelihood of either meaning. That special knowledge must be disclosed. Now if you want to make it into a game of deduction for your opponents, go right ahead, but I'd really prefer it if you just told them the outcome of your reasoning, with or without the doubt. > Anyway, I think this dilemma is just to hard to expect any but > those who've studied the finer points of the law, and perhaps even some > of those, to resolve in the heat of battle. And I don't think it's fair > of a TD to rule with the expectation that a player must have been able > to do so. Well, you're faced with a problem, aren't you? And you're going to solve it, aren't you? Deciding whether it is hearts or spades? So where's the dilemma in also telling your opponents which way you've finally decided? > Especially if he's going to give PPs to a player who tries to > explain his reasoning. > When I find, after the board, that both your partner and you have interpreted the bid in the same manner, and I hear that you have been totally unhelpful towards opponents, and you tell me that in your opinion and that of some members of blml, the mere fact that you've both concluded the same does not disprove that you have "no agreement", then I will indeed issue a PP for bridge-lawyering. And I will rule misinformation. > Regards, > > Ed > > "Difficult? I can make you *pray* for difficult." -- "Ian Nottingham", > in "Witchblade" > > > -- 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 Jul 11 17:35:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6B7Z7q05228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:35:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6B7Z1H05224 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:35:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-46342.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.53.6]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6B7KsZ26219 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:20:54 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2D3244.6080003@skynet.be> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:22:44 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > On 7/10/02, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > If you do not disclose your partnership agreement, than you are > misinforming opponents. If you claim that some meaning *is* a matter of > partnership agreement, when it is not, then you are misinforming > opponents. no you are not. not in the legal sense. I've said a hundred times, and you have said this a hundred times. Please, please, please, either stop this, or try and convince me, law in hand, why this is misinformation. It is not a breac of L40 and L75 to not inform opponents of the level of your confidence in what you are saying to be your agreement. > If you make a guess, and you guess right, and what you guess > is in accordance with what you told opponents, then you're correct, you > cannot be "caught". But you have still misinformed opponents. It is > illegal to misinform opponents. It is unethical to do so deliberately. > It seems to me that you have taken an untenable position. > No Ed, you have. You continue to say that lying is against the law. It is NOT. > >>Not only is this interpretation of yours totally unfounded in present >>law, it would be unworkable in any future interpretation or change of >> > law. > > I'm not so sure either of these is true. > Please Ed, consider this: I explain something. It turns out to be correct. Afterwards you ask me how confident I was about the explanation. I tell you honestly (because I am honest) that I was 90% certain. You call the director, claiming that if I had told you this at the time, you would have doubled the final contract (easy to say now that I've just managed to go two down when it was cold all along). Do you really believe that I (or rather some other poor schlob who does not have my level of ethics) will tell you next time that I was only 90% certain if this director rules against me? We've tried very hard to eliminate mind-reading from our directorial skills. Now you are suggesting an interpretation where the only way to know that an infraction has been committed is to ask the person who made the infraction ? And besides, when have you ever been 110% certain ? (that was a typo but I figure it's better like this) Sorry Ed, but in this interpretation you are simply WRONG. Please others, tell Ed the same. > 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 Thu Jul 11 20:29:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6BAT0605308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:29:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6BASpH05300 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:28:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6BAEmI22639 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:14:48 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:14 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school 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: <3D2D3244.6080003@skynet.be> Herman wrote: > Please, please, please, either stop this, or try and convince me, law > in hand, why this is misinformation. It is not a breac of L40 and L75 > to not inform opponents of the level of your confidence in what you > are saying to be your agreement. C. Answering Questions on Partnership Agreements When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience. 1. Are you aware that a specific sequence is undiscussed? 2. Are you aware that this sequence has not previously been encountered by your partnership? 3. Does this knowledge come from the discussions and experience of your partnership (please note that "having no experience as a partnership" is also information derived from experience)? In all of the situations we have talked about the answer to all of these questions is "Yes". Now we are reduced to arguing about whether the word "special" means you do not have to disclose such information. My personal view is that "special" depends on the overall familiarity of all the players concerned. In other words if I play cut-in rubber at my regular club with other regulars there is damn all "special" information. If a visitor cuts in then the "club standard" becomes "special". A reasonable test (in order to keep disclosure manageable) is "Is it conceivable that you, your partner, or your opponents might base a decision on the existence of such uncertainty/ambiguity?". I note that you concede the "subcase" where *you* might base your decisions on such information. I would suggest that the "subcase" whereby partner *might* so base a subsequent decision should also be conceded. I further suggest that you can (almost) never know when this might happen. Bring opponents into the picture and the subcases combine to fill about 99.9% of the original class. 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 Jul 11 20:29:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6BAT0r05309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:29:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6BASpH05301 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:28:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6BAEoe22669 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:14:50 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:14 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school 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: <3D2C8450.10606@skynet.be> Herman wrote: > >>Now if the interpretation were to change, and it becomes clear that > >>you are entitled to this knowledge of our uncertainty, then of course > >>I will keep schtum, and there is no way you are going to be able to > >>prove that I was uncertain of something that I told you in all > >>certainty (and ws lucky to have got it right). > >> > > > > Let me get this straight. You, *knowing you were meant to disclose*, > > would *still* keep silent about it. I'm sorry Herman but if those > > are your ethics the game is way better off without you. I can only > > hope your partner would have more self-respect! > > >>Not only is > > > > this interpretation of yours totally unfounded in present >>law, > it would be unworkable in any future interpretation or change of >>law. > >> > > > > The laws of bridge will always present opportunities for cheats to > > gain an advantage - why worry about it. > > > > > OK, so in this new interpretation we get the following. > > David gives a 100 word explanation, totally unhelpful to the > opponents, and goes free. Let me assure you that if David (or anyone else) gave a "totally unhelpful" explanation he would get a PP from me too. However, David would give an explanation that made it as clear as possible to his opponents the state of his agreements and experience. He would take care to ensure they understood all the inferences and to put them in a position where they can make a properly informed decision. (Feel free to disagree if this misrepresents your approach David.) On occasions they may find this makes their bridge decision more difficult than receiving a one word answer. So what, they have all the information to which they are entitled (perhaps a bit more knowing David). It is not, and should not be, David's job to edit the pertinent information based on what he *thinks* opponents need to know - he will never have enough information to make that decision. > Herman gives a 1 word explanation, the same one as David's last one, > tells the opponents exactly what they want to know, gets on with the > game, and then gets branded not just for misinformation but also for > cheating. You get branded for cheating because you knowingly refused to disclose something you knew should be disclosed (you were referring to a hypothetical situation where you had accepted that as a requirement). As it happens I believe that the moment your opinion on what should be disclosed changes (if it ever does) is the exact same moment that your disclosure approach will change. (Like Eric I do not believe your earlier assertion that you will "keep schtum" even when you *know* it is illegal to do so). I don't think you are either cheating, or being unethical, under the current law because you a abiding by *your* interpretation of what it requires. (Sure *I* think your interpretation is wrong, and because of that it would be unethical for *me* to use your interpretation.) Abiding by one's own interpretation is ethical *until* the relevant official body tells you that it is wrong. > And in what way would that interpretation be better for the Game? It would allow players to make informed choices at the table rather than relying on a subsequent committee adjustment. Now I could just about live with the De Wael School if the law was changed to: "If a definitive answer was given in an uncertain situation the TD *must* be called by the offending side as per the timings in L75D2 (even if the answer turns out to be correct)." 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 Jul 11 21:43:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6BBgnU05421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 21:42:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6BBghH05417 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 21:42:44 +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 17Sc7j-0005LX-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:28:42 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 01:39:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school References: <3D2C010E.9080400@skynet.be> In-Reply-To: <3D2C010E.9080400@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 >The footnote tells me what I have to >presume, and your unsubstantiated self-serving statement does not >constitute evidence to the contrary. Unsubstantiated self-serving statements are certainly evidence, and no TD or AC will dismiss them unconsidered. It is up to the TD or AC to decide what weight shall be given to this evidence, but it will not be zero. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 22:40:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6BCeAd05541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:40:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6BCe1H05537 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:40:02 +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 17Sd1E-0007MJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:26:00 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020711081234.00a96a90@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:27:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020710221039.00aaf020@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 10:37 PM 7/10/02, David wrote: >On board 1: > >W N E S > P P 1H >X 3D! P 3H >AP > >South explained North's 3D bid as a splinter. At the end of the >auction, North corrected the explanation (3D was a weak preempt), and >says, "Call the director if you think there is a problem." Nobody >calls the director, and 3H goes down three. > >North's action is a technical infraction; he is supposed to call the >TD, but it is rarely done in this situation because strict obedience >would lead to too many director calls and game delays. Howeve, this >time it may have contributed to a problem. > >After board 2, West calls the director and says that he would have >doubled 3H if he had been properly informed. Is he eligible for an >adjustment, or is it too late? I don't see any statute of limitations >in the Laws. > >Would it make a difference if East said that she would have doubled, >since East could have retracted her final pass if the director had >been called? There may be no legal time limit, but in practice, unless the circumstances are extraordinarily unusual, it is too late. E-W could not have doubled 3H on board 1 after board 2 had been played; they'd have had to double on the spot, but presumably didn't because that was before the MI was revealed. But if that were their genuine mindset, they would have wanted to have doubled as soon as the MI was revealed, and would have called the TD at that time. The fact that they didn't creates a strong presumption that they wanted to double only after knowing the deal and having had time to think about (and possibly discuss) it. So the statement that they would have doubled should be very heavily discounted, to the point where its weight is virtually nil. Even though players in general, when MI is revealed, rarely call the TD at the time for the reasons David suggests, we can assume that this does not apply to players who know that they would have taken a different call had they not been misinformed. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 22:58:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6BCwJ205563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:58:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6BCwAH05556 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:58:10 +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 17SdIk-0000d6-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:44:09 +0100 Message-ID: <9MnxDnBMOXL9Ewi6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:01:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020710221039.00aaf020@mail.comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020710221039.00aaf020@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 >On board 1: > >W N E S > P P 1H >X 3D! P 3H >AP > >South explained North's 3D bid as a splinter. At the end of the auction, >North corrected the explanation (3D was a weak preempt), and says, "Call >the director if you think there is a problem." Nobody calls the director, >and 3H goes down three. > >North's action is a technical infraction; he is supposed to call the TD, >but it is rarely done in this situation because strict obedience would lead >to too many director calls and game delays. Howeve, this time it may have >contributed to a problem. > >After board 2, West calls the director and says that he would have doubled >3H if he had been properly informed. Is he eligible for an adjustment, or >is it too late? I don't see any statute of limitations in the Laws. There is always some debate as to the apparent conflict between L9B and L92B. But in principle she is eligible for an adjustment. Unless there is some reason why the late call caused a problem an adjustment is acceptable. In the actual case, however, it looks to me like a double shot attempt [let's see whether it is going down before I ask for a ruling] so L11A applies. >Would it make a difference if East said that she would have doubled, since >East could have retracted her final pass if the director had been called? Yes, no adjustment can be given based on East's pass. L21B3 says that an adjustment may be given when it was too late too change a call. since it was not too late, L21B3 does not apply. As the EBU is now stressing, while calling the TD immediately may not matter in several situations, it is imperative he is called immediately in potential or actual MI situations. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 22:58:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6BCwJg05564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:58:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6BCwAH05555 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:58:10 +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 17SdIk-0000d3-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:44:08 +0100 Message-ID: <88yxfOBbFXL9EwBM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:51:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling References: <000b01c22881$bbb3a500$d202e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000b01c22881$bbb3a500$d202e150@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >From: >> I would rule that EW did not have an agreement about the >> meaning of this particular redouble. >> >> Does Wales require redoubles which have no agreed meaning to >> be alerted? If so, I would rule that there has been MI. >> >> If, on the other hand, the Welsh regulation is that only >> redoubles *agreed* to be non-natural should be alerted, then >> there there has been no MI and therefore no adjusted score. >+=+ No doubt DWS or Anne will tell us what the Welsh >alerting regulation is. The English regulation says "The >purpose of alerting is to draw your opponents' attention >to any call by your partner that *may have* a special >meaning" and "When there is no alert your opponents >can assume that the call does not fall within an alertable >category." and "Alert any call which you believe to be >alertable even if you cannot explain its meaning". > I would think there is enough here to protect the >opponents when the call is not alerted. The Welsh alerting rules are the same as the English ones. I am not convinced that a call that has no agreed meaning is alertable since it does not fall into an alertable category. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 22:59:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6BCx8N05582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:59:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6BCx3H05578 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:59:03 +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 17SdJe-0002Ae-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:45:02 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020711083359.00b5b680@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:44:55 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school In-Reply-To: <3D2D2FFC.40703@skynet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:13 AM 7/11/02, Herman wrote: >In either case, you have special knowledge about your agreements >(about your meta-agreement in this case) that allows you to form an >opinion about the likelihood of either meaning. That special >knowledge must be disclosed. Now if you want to make it into a game >of deduction for your opponents, go right ahead, but I'd really prefer >it if you just told them the outcome of your reasoning, with or >without the doubt. I think this strikes to the heart of the debate. You have a set of facts that provide you with contradictory evidence about the meaning of partner's call. You consider those facts and deduce from them what you believe to be the most likely meaning. The anti-De-Wael school believes that the opponents are absolutely entitled to consider those facts for themselves and make their own deductions from them, which may be different from yours -- which may even be right when yours are wrong. To deprive them of the opportunity to play the "game of deduction" by misleading them into believing that your deduction is actually your agreement is to deprive them of a right to which the law does -- and should -- entitle them. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 23:18:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6BDIIc05606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 23:18:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6BDICH05602 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 23:18:13 +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 PAA19682; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:01:47 +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 PAA23547; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:04:10 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020711145655.00a5d810@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:12:29 +0200 To: "David J. Grabiner" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020710221039.00aaf020@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 22:37 10/07/2002 -0400, David J. Grabiner wrote: >On board 1: > >W N E S > P P 1H >X 3D! P 3H >AP > >South explained North's 3D bid as a splinter. At the end of the auction, >North corrected the explanation (3D was a weak preempt), and says, "Call >the director if you think there is a problem." Nobody calls the director, >and 3H goes down three. > >North's action is a technical infraction; he is supposed to call the TD, >but it is rarely done in this situation because strict obedience would >lead to too many director calls and game delays. AG : what follows might be considered jesuito-talmudic, but ... L9 doesn't say who *has* to call after the attention has been drawn to an infraction. It merely says that any player may, and that somebody has to. L75D, more specifically, says you must call *yourself* when your explanation was wrong, and that you must tell the TD the explanation was wrong after he has been called when partner's was. Since there is a difference in the wording of these two parts, one might assume there was a difference in the legislator's mind, ie when you draw attention to your partner's misexplanation, the onus of calling the TD is on the other players as well as on you. The reason could well be that the opponents might consider the impact on their bidding to be nought after having seen the whole bidding (you won't react before the end of the bidding when it's your *partner*'s misexplanation). Since there is no *penalty* for misexplanation, only adjusted scores, L10A (incorrect waiving of penalties) doesn't apply. Thus, North didn't commit any infraction. By suggesting that the director be called, he made what he had to do. It was E/W's right to decline calling for the TD, but I'd consider it a binding decision. >Would it make a difference if East said that she would have doubled, since >East could have retracted her final pass if the director had been called? AG : if East feels she had some good reasons to double had she known, she should have called the TD and told him. If East states, half an hour later, that she would have doubled had she known, don't believe her. For the TD not to be called, there must have been some reaction from East/West to this effect. 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 Jul 12 00:06:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6BE6PF05676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 00:06:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6BE6KH05671 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 00:06:20 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6BDqIb01749 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:52:18 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:52 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <88yxfOBbFXL9EwBM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> DWS wrote: > I am not convinced that a call that has no agreed meaning is alertable > since it does not fall into an alertable category. Neither am I. However I am pretty sure that a call having two reasonably likely meanings (one of which is alertable) is alertable. If we accept that "take-out" is not the systemic meaning I guess we have to ask "Was take-out a sufficiently likely possibility that this should have been disclosed?". Close in my view but I don't reckon many would consider the possibility of t/o in this sequence. 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 Jul 12 00:17:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6BEHhs05708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 00:17:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6BEHcH05704 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 00:17:38 +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 17SeXf-0006kM-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:03:36 +0100 Message-ID: <4T4A04Cx8YL9EwTv@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:59:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] The timing of 25(b)2(b)1 References: <200207091910.UAA09538@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200207091910.UAA09538@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: "Ben Schelen" >> To: "bridge-laws" >> Subject: Re: [BLML] The timing of 25(b)2(b)1 >> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 19:54:59 +0200 > >> Please read Law 25B2b1. > >And deduce what? If we have reached L25B2b1 then we should apply it. > >But L25B starts >"Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when Section A does not apply:". >A call has not been substituted, so none of L25B (in particular L25B2b1) >applies. In effect it looks to me as though L25B was written only to be applied after a player had changed a call. In fact the EBU used to advise their TDs that L25B did not apply when a player merely wished to change a call, and the EBU TDs would say "No" if asked whether a call could be changed. With a slight change of wording in 1995 and advice from the WBFLC that players should be allowed to make a change we now do allow a change, but the wording still needs careful examination. In effect it seems to me that if a player has changed or attempted to change a call then L25B2B1 applies if he finally decides not to change a call. However, if he is merely asking the TD what the law says he has not tried to change the call and so if he does not go ahead with trying to change a call, L25 does not apply and all that happens is that UI is passed. Incidentally, anyone like to write a short simple piece on how to apply L25B at the table? I need it for the next EBU White book. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 12 00:26:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6BEQ8J05756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 00:26:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6BEQ2H05752 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 00:26:03 +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 QAA05441; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:10:06 +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 QAA19116; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:11:59 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020711161538.00a72370@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:20:18 +0200 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:14 11/07/2002 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: > >It would allow players to make informed choices at the table rather than >relying on a subsequent committee adjustment. Now I could just about live >with the De Wael School if the law was changed to: >"If a definitive answer was given in an uncertain situation the TD *must* >be called by the offending side as per the timings in L75D2 (even if the >answer turns out to be correct)." AG : interesting, but impractical, as is usual with mind-reading regulations. It is illegal to answer "such-and-such" when you don't know ; your opponents are allowed to know you don't know. The TD has to be called if it happens. Right ? Wrong. Nobody will ever be able to know one's partner had doubts about the bid, more so if his explanation was the right one. This is not the same as the case where your partner gives an incomplete explanation that happens to fit your hand ; in that case you *know* the exlpanation is wrong, and you have every right and duty to call the director at proper time. Best regards. Alain. >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 Jul 12 00:38:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6BEcOp05784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 00:38:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6BEcJH05780 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 00:38:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id KAA06266 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:24:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA14356 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:24:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:24:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200207111424.KAA14356@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Ted Ying > First, I would not consider that it is North's duty to call the > director. L75D2 says otherwise, although as David G. says, this duty is often neglected in practice. > Although L9A does state that "The Director must be summoned at > once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." it is not > an infraction for North-South, but an infraction for everyone. Yes, there is some fault all around. > L11A does state "The right to penalize an irregularity may be > forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any > action before summoning the Director. The Director so rules when > the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action > taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty." The last sentence clearly does not apply here. First of all, there is no penalty in view, only a possible adjusted score. Second, there is no reason to believe the OS would have done anything different. > East-West have forfeit their right to redress. As Eric and David S. point out (with somewhat different emphasis), this is a judgment decision for the TD. Certainly the fact that no one called the TD immediately _suggests_ that the decision to double was far from obvious, but as David S. is fond of saying, the TD should consult, weigh the evidence, and form a judgment. Unlike David S., I think the possibility of an adjustement applies for both East and West despite the fact that East would have had an opportunity to change his call had the TD been called. However, this fact should certainly influence the TD's judgment, and only in the most extreme cases should East be given an adjustment. > calling the director at the time is that the director should > ask of East and West what their actions would have been had they > known the information. Although widely practiced in the ACBL, this procedure has been amply disparaged on BLML. > Now, this doesn't mean that if the director felt it appropriate, > he could award North-South a PP as per L11c Given how common it is for players in North's position not to call the TD, a PP seems wildly out of place. However, if SO's wanted to start enforcing L75D2, they could mandate PP's for North's infraction. I have not heard of any that do so. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 12 01:01:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6BF0nk05868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 01:00:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6BF0hH05864 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 01:00:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-46342.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.53.6]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6BEkWH01545 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:46:32 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2D9AB4.70109@skynet.be> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:48:20 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk OK Tim, thanks for accepting my challenge. Tim West-meads wrote: > In-Reply-To: <3D2D3244.6080003@skynet.be> > Herman wrote: > > >>Please, please, please, either stop this, or try and convince me, law >>in hand, why this is misinformation. It is not a breac of L40 and L75 >>to not inform opponents of the level of your confidence in what you >>are saying to be your agreement. >> > > C. Answering Questions on Partnership Agreements > When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an > opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special > information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership > experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general > knowledge and experience. > first remark : "the significance of partner's call". I presume that is equal to common talk "what the call means". "I am uncertain" is not a part of "what it means" - not a part of "the significance". > 1. Are you aware that a specific sequence is undiscussed? OK, suppose I am. > 2. Are you aware that this sequence has not previously been encountered > by your partnership? I am. > 3. Does this knowledge come from the discussions and experience of your > partnership (please note that "having no experience as a partnership" is > also information derived from experience)? > Yes it does. > In all of the situations we have talked about the answer to all of these > questions is "Yes". Now we are reduced to arguing about whether the word > "special" means you do not have to disclose such information. My personal > view is that "special" depends on the overall familiarity of all the > players concerned. In other words if I play cut-in rubber at my regular > club with other regulars there is damn all "special" information. If a > visitor cuts in then the "club standard" becomes "special". > Quite reasonable and true. > A reasonable test (in order to keep disclosure manageable) is "Is it > conceivable that you, your partner, or your opponents might base a > decision on the existence of such uncertainty/ambiguity?". > Me Yes, My partner, yes, and in those cases we would probably be required to tell opponents that subsequent bids may be based on uncertainty. My opponents- yes, they'd like to. Which is why I won't tell them unless we interpret the Laws that I have to. > I note that you concede the "subcase" where *you* might base your > decisions on such information. I would suggest that the "subcase" whereby > partner *might* so base a subsequent decision should also be conceded. done. > I > further suggest that you can (almost) never know when this might happen. > Bring opponents into the picture and the subcases combine to fill about > 99.9% of the original class. > I don't believe we should be bringing opponents in. They are interested, yes, but they are not entitled to it. You have just tried to make them entitled to it because you believe they are entitled to it. Ergo, I don't believe it is even close to 99% of all cases. But that hardly matters, does it? Whether the subcase fills just 10% or 90% of all cases, we still have to figure out what the entitlements are in the other 90% or 10% of the cases. > > -- 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 Jul 12 01:09:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6BF8fV05880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 01:08:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6BF8aH05876 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 01:08:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-46342.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.53.6]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6BEsUH12857 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:54:30 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2D9C92.5000804@skynet.be> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:56:18 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > In-Reply-To: <3D2C8450.10606@skynet.be> > Herman wrote: > > > > Let me assure you that if David (or anyone else) gave a "totally > unhelpful" explanation he would get a PP from me too. However, David > would give an explanation that made it as clear as possible to his > opponents the state of his agreements and experience. He would take care > to ensure they understood all the inferences and to put them in a position > where they can make a properly informed decision. (Feel free to disagree > if this misrepresents your approach David.) > My point was that if David starts his 100 word soliloquoy, his opponents will not let him speak all the way and will never get to the one word which they are interested in, which is the last one. In that sense I call this approach unhelpful. > On occasions they may find this makes their bridge decision more difficult > than receiving a one word answer. So what, they have all the information > to which they are entitled (perhaps a bit more knowing David). It is not, > and should not be, David's job to edit the pertinent information based on > what he *thinks* opponents need to know - he will never have enough > information to make that decision. > Well, Stayman seems like a very good summary to me. I'm not saying that he should not add 99 words, I'm only saying that you should allow me to abbreviate into one word. Of course provided there is nothing in the 99 words that modifies the meaning of the call, only it's certainty and derivation and alternatives to it. > >>Herman gives a 1 word explanation, the same one as David's last one, >>tells the opponents exactly what they want to know, gets on with the >>game, and then gets branded not just for misinformation but also for >>cheating. >> > > You get branded for cheating because you knowingly refused to disclose > something you knew should be disclosed (you were referring to a > hypothetical situation where you had accepted that as a requirement). OK, I agree to that. I would not do it. But I know no-one good enough to unequivocally state that they would not either. Nor do I believe myself that I would not be tempted. After all, the only person that is going to reveal that I am in doubt would be me myself! > As it happens I believe that the moment your opinion on what should be > disclosed changes (if it ever does) is the exact same moment that your > disclosure approach will change. (Like Eric I do not believe your earlier > assertion that you will "keep schtum" even when you *know* it is illegal > to do so). > Thanks for the vote of confidence. But do admit that it would make "cheating" far too easy. > I don't think you are either cheating, or being unethical, under the > current law because you a abiding by *your* interpretation of what it > requires. (Sure *I* think your interpretation is wrong, and because of > that it would be unethical for *me* to use your interpretation.) > Abiding by one's own interpretation is ethical *until* the relevant > official body tells you that it is wrong. > > >>And in what way would that interpretation be better for the Game? >> > > It would allow players to make informed choices at the table rather than > relying on a subsequent committee adjustment. Now I could just about live > with the De Wael School if the law was changed to: > "If a definitive answer was given in an uncertain situation the TD *must* > be called by the offending side as per the timings in L75D2 (even if the > answer turns out to be correct)." > And when have you last been certain of anything ? > 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/ > > > -- 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 Jul 12 01:17:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6BFH0905897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 01:17:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6BFGtH05893 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 01:16:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-46342.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.53.6]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6BF2m917773 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:02:49 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2D9E85.90606@skynet.be> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:04:37 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020711083359.00b5b680@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 03:13 AM 7/11/02, Herman wrote: > >> In either case, you have special knowledge about your agreements >> (about your meta-agreement in this case) that allows you to form an >> opinion about the likelihood of either meaning. That special >> knowledge must be disclosed. Now if you want to make it into a game >> of deduction for your opponents, go right ahead, but I'd really prefer >> it if you just told them the outcome of your reasoning, with or >> without the doubt. > > > I think this strikes to the heart of the debate. You have a set of > facts that provide you with contradictory evidence about the meaning of > partner's call. You consider those facts and deduce from them what you > believe to be the most likely meaning. > > The anti-De-Wael school believes that the opponents are absolutely > entitled to consider those facts for themselves and make their own > deductions from them, which may be different from yours -- which may > even be right when yours are wrong. To deprive them of the opportunity > to play the "game of deduction" by misleading them into believing that > your deduction is actually your agreement is to deprive them of a right > to which the law does -- and should -- entitle them. > That would be good if it were possible. You know your partner, they don't. All the knowledge about your partner cannot be put into words. How are you going to prove to the Director, after you've made a correct conclusion about what he was trying to convey, that you've given opponents all the information - unless you also tell them the result of your deliberation? But really Eric, isn't this another question ? You seem to be promoting not telling them the outcome here. I am saying that I only tell them the outcome. I accept that if I have omitted something I may well be still subject to MI charges. What I mean is this: If I tell them it is A, and not tell them the alternative is C, they might think the alternative is B. They might well see in their holdings that it's impossibly A, and so they might follow B when they should be following C. But I believe it is very stupid to follow B when someone says it's A. You have no right to redress if it turns out to be A all along. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Jul 12 01:44:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6BFiMI05915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 01:44:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6BFiHH05911 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 01:44:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id RAA20599; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:27:52 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id RAA11143; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:30:15 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020711172850.00a75ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:38:33 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school In-Reply-To: <3D2D9C92.5000804@skynet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g6BFiJH05912 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:56 11/07/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Tim West-meads wrote: > >>In-Reply-To: <3D2C8450.10606@skynet.be> >>Herman wrote: >> >>Let me assure you that if David (or anyone else) gave a "totally >>unhelpful" explanation he would get a PP from me too. However, David >>would give an explanation that made it as clear as possible to his >>opponents the state of his agreements and experience. He would take care >>to ensure they understood all the inferences and to put them in a >>position where they can make a properly informed decision. (Feel free to >>disagree if this misrepresents your approach David.) > > >My point was that if David starts his 100 word soliloquoy, his opponents >will not let him speak all the way and will never get to the one word >which they are interested in, which is the last one. >In that sense I call this approach unhelpful. > > >>On occasions they may find this makes their bridge decision more >>difficult than receiving a one word answer. So what, they have all the >>information to which they are entitled (perhaps a bit more knowing >>David). It is not, and should not be, David's job to edit the pertinent >>information based on what he *thinks* opponents need to know - he will >>never have enough information to make that decision. > > >Well, Stayman seems like a very good summary to me. I'm not saying that >he should not add 99 words, I'm only saying that you should allow me to >abbreviate into one word. Of course provided there is nothing in the 99 >words that modifies the meaning of the call, only it's certainty and >derivation and alternatives to it. AG : an interesting thing here is that the custom, in some semi-standard cases, is to answer, not a complete description, but in what aspects the bid differs from the expected. For example, the bidding goes : 1C 1D 1NT Alert - ask - explanation : could have a 4-card major or both. To me, the explanation is sufficient, even if there was not explicitly mentioned that the hand will be balanced. The mere fact that you don't say it might not be means, to experienced players, that it is. However, any ambiguïties are on the explainer's account. Also, there are sometimes some bids whose inferences won't be describable in 100 words. There are also times when partner's bid doesn't give any pertinent information about his hand. Does anybody really expect me to explain what 1H 2C 2NT 6NT means ? >>It would allow players to make informed choices at the table rather than >>relying on a subsequent committee adjustment. Now I could just about >>live with the De Wael School if the law was changed to: >>"If a definitive answer was given in an uncertain situation the TD *must* >>be called by the offending side as per the timings in L75D2 (even if the >>answer turns out to be correct)." > > >And when have you last been certain of anything ? AG : you mean, at bridge ? Last night. It was sure that we had misdefended. (er, partner had, of course) Also, you might be sure you don't know, as Descartes put 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 Fri Jul 12 02:39:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6BGdOv06083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 02:39:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6BGdGH06074 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 02:39:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6BGPEs00959 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:25:15 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:25 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school 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: <3D2D9C92.5000804@skynet.be> HDW wrote: > My point was that if David starts his 100 word soliloquoy, his > opponents will not let him speak all the way and will never get to the > one word which they are interested in, which is the last one. > In that sense I call this approach unhelpful. > > Well, Stayman seems like a very good summary to me. I'm not saying > that he should not add 99 words, I'm only saying that you should allow > me to abbreviate into one word. Of course provided there is nothing > in the 99 words that modifies the meaning of the call, only it's > certainty and derivation and alternatives to it. I'm pretty sure that David is capable of starting his soliloquy with "Undiscussed, either Stayman or weak T/O in clubs" if opponents do this. Personally I don't worry too much if my opponents stop me from giving a full answer - that is their choice. I'd let you abbreviate to 2/3 words "Probably Stayman", "Almost certainly Stayman". If opps are interested they can ask for further clarification. > OK, I agree to that. I would not do it. But I know no-one good > enough to unequivocally state that they would not either. Nor do I > believe myself that I would not be tempted. After all, the only > person that is going to reveal that I am in doubt would be me myself! And your partner! He too is likely to be aware of the status of your agreements. > But do admit that it would make "cheating" far too easy. Cheating at bridge is trivially easy once you find a partner willing to along with it ("hey partner, we could win if we cheated" is not to be recommended as an approach). This is not a particular good method if that is your objective. Doing it often *will* come to the attention of the authorities. If, for instance, you give definitive answers when you are only 80% certain of the agreement then I would imagine that you will end up being wrong sometimes. This will start to form a pattern once your behaviour is investigated. The money rubber bridge community in London is too small for cheats to survive for long (unless they are so woefully bad that they still lose money). If people want to cheat at duplicate I regard it as their loss not mine. I doubt they will remain uncaught for long either. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 12 02:39:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6BGdOa06082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 02:39:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6BGdFH06073 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 02:39:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6BGPDR00927 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:25:13 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:25 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school 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: <3D2D9AB4.70109@skynet.be> Herman wrote: > > A reasonable test (in order to keep disclosure manageable) is "Is it > > conceivable that you, your partner, or your opponents might base a > > decision on the existence of such uncertainty/ambiguity?". > > Me Yes, My partner, yes, and in those cases we would probably be > required to tell opponents that subsequent bids may be based on > uncertainty. > My opponents- yes, they'd like to. Which is why I won't tell them > unless we interpret the Laws that I have to. > > > I note that you concede the "subcase" where *you* might base your > > decisions on such information. I would suggest that the "subcase" > > whereby partner *might* so base a subsequent decision should also be > > conceded. > > done. > > > I further suggest that you can (almost) never know when this might > > happen. > > Bring opponents into the picture and the subcases combine to fill > > about 99.9% of the original class. > > I don't believe we should be bringing opponents in. > They are interested, yes, but they are not entitled to it. > You have just tried to make them entitled to it because you believe > they are entitled to it. I did - whoops, sorry. > Ergo, I don't believe it is even close to 99% of all cases. Now I am down to about 95/96%. I am very seldom sure what my partners might do even in non-ambiguous situations! Also note that giving an unambiguous answer in such situations makes much more UI available to your partner than does giving the "true" explanation. > But that hardly matters, does it? > > Whether the subcase fills just 10% or 90% of all cases, we still have > to figure out what the entitlements are in the other 90% or 10% of the > cases. Perhaps. But we might say that if the subcase fills 90% of cases then assume the subcase applies in the other 10%. After all if opponents occasionally get a bit more info about your partnership than they are entitled to is it really a problem? Far better that than the situation where they are not getting the information they should. 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 Jul 12 04:22:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6BIL4V06366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 04:21:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6BIKwH06362 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 04:20:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.156.127]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020711180654.RAEY4119.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:06:54 +0100 Message-ID: <004e01c22905$c317fe20$7f9c68d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:06:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As one grows older one's memory gets worse. One is almost never 100% sure of agreements, even those detailed on one's convention card (or at least one thinks they probably are). Does this mean, almost always, [1] One shouldn't alert? [2] One should say "no definite agreement"? (but perhaps divulge more if asked) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 01/07/2002 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 12 04:46:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6BIjfc06411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 04:45:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6BIjZH06407 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 04:45:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.156.127]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020711183128.IJCD28874.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:31:28 +0100 Message-ID: <008801c22909$32d48c30$7f9c68d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:31:22 +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 Richard Hill: The B.J. Becker - Jeff Rubens partnership had an agreement that in certain auctions a Double was *systemically* two-way; either takeout or penalties. Partner was supposed to guess which by looking at their own cards. Was this "NOT fair"? Should Becker-Rubens "be worse off than average"? A reductio ad absurdum of the De Wael School is that Rubens would not be allowed to explain a two-way Double by Becker to the opponents as "either takeout or penalties, according to our written system notes, which we happen to have here as evidence". If Rubens dared give that explanation, the De Wael School would hit Rubens with a PP. Instead, if Rubens guessed the Double was penalties, the De Wael School would require Rubens to explain the Double as "unequivocally penalties". Then the De Wael School would hit Rubens with a MI penalty if Rubens had misguessed when the Double was actually takeout. Nigel Guthrie: Richard's argument is too deep for me -- many conventions combine alternative meanings: e.g. Promissory Stayman = hearts OR spades e.g. Michaels 2H over 1H = Weak OR strong Spades + EITHER minor e.g. X of 1NT = Minors OR Majors De Wael gives no indication that he would.. [1] disallow such explanations. [2] expect further elucudation based on the contents of explainer's hand. Regards, Nigel --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 01/07/2002 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 12 05:11:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6BJBfo06433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 05:11:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6BJBaH06429 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 05:11:37 +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 17Sj88-0004bz-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:57:34 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:20:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020710221039.00aaf020@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020711145655.00a5d810@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020711145655.00a5d810@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 22:37 10/07/2002 -0400, David J. Grabiner wrote: >>On board 1: >> >>W N E S >> P P 1H >>X 3D! P 3H >>AP >> >>South explained North's 3D bid as a splinter. At the end of the auction, >>North corrected the explanation (3D was a weak preempt), and says, "Call >>the director if you think there is a problem." Nobody calls the director, >>and 3H goes down three. >> >>North's action is a technical infraction; he is supposed to call the TD, >>but it is rarely done in this situation because strict obedience would >>lead to too many director calls and game delays. > >AG : what follows might be considered jesuito-talmudic, but ... > >L9 doesn't say who *has* to call after the attention has been drawn to an >infraction. >It merely says that any player may, and that somebody has to. >L75D, more specifically, says you must call *yourself* when your >explanation was wrong, and that you must tell the TD the explanation was >wrong after he has been called when partner's was. Since there is a >difference in the wording of these two parts, one might assume there was a >difference in the legislator's mind, ie when you draw attention to your >partner's misexplanation, the onus of calling the TD is on the other >players as well as on you. The difference is clear enough, though, is it not? When you make a mistake in describing a call the TD should be called presumably to warn everyone and to tell you how to correct, and basically to make it all right again, without reference to damage. But this does not excuse the player who thinks he is/may be damaged who must make sure the TD is called. >The reason could well be that the opponents might consider the impact on >their bidding to be nought after having seen the whole bidding (you won't >react before the end of the bidding when it's your *partner*'s >misexplanation). >Since there is no *penalty* for misexplanation, only adjusted scores, L10A >(incorrect waiving of penalties) doesn't apply. > >Thus, North didn't commit any infraction. By suggesting that the director >be called, he made what he had to do. It was E/W's right to decline calling >for the TD, but I'd consider it a binding decision. North certainly committed an infraction. L75D2 gives him a procedure that includes the word 'must', so it is an infraction not to follow it. In practice it is one infraction that is regularly ignored and rarely does much harm - but that does not mean it is not an infraction. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 12 08:52:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6BMofs06559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 08:50:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g6BMoaH06555 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 08:50:36 +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 17SmY1-0009O6-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 23:36:34 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:19:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? References: <200207111424.KAA14356@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200207111424.KAA14356@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: Ted Ying >> East-West have forfeit their right to redress. >As Eric and David S. point out (with somewhat different emphasis), this >is a judgment decision for the TD. Certainly the fact that no one >called the TD immediately _suggests_ that the decision to double was >far from obvious, but as David S. is fond of saying, the TD should >consult, weigh the evidence, and form a judgment. > >Unlike David S., I think the possibility of an adjustement applies for >both East and West despite the fact that East would have had an >opportunity to change his call had the TD been called. However, this >fact should certainly influence the TD's judgment, and only in the most >extreme cases should East be given an adjustment. What extreme cases? When the Law does not apply? The TD has no right to give an adjustment when the Law does not permit 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 Jul 12 09:23:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6BNMu106581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:22:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6BNMpH06577 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:22:52 +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 TAA04755 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:08:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA15567 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:08:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:08:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200207112308.TAA15567@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > What extreme cases? When the Law does not apply? The TD has no right > to give an adjustment when the Law does not permit it. Haven't we had this discussion before? Presumably we disagree on what moment "When it is too late to change a call..." applies to. You think it is the moment when the MI is revealed, but I don't see why it isn't the moment the TD is called. In practice, adjustments should be rare in this sort of situation, but I don't see that the text of the law forbids them. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 12 10:06:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6C069906615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:06:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sm13.texas.rr.com (sm13.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6C064H06611 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:06:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from kevins (cs6625176-109.austin.rr.com [66.25.176.109]) by sm13.texas.rr.com (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta16) with SMTP id g6C08Ims017616 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:08:19 -0500 Message-ID: <004301c22935$f6187a40$6db01942@austin.rr.com> From: "Kevin Perkins" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020711083359.00b5b680@pop.starpower.net> <3D2D9E85.90606@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:52:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 10:04 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school > Eric Landau wrote: > > > At 03:13 AM 7/11/02, Herman wrote: > > > >> In either case, you have special knowledge about your agreements > >> (about your meta-agreement in this case) that allows you to form an > >> opinion about the likelihood of either meaning. That special > >> knowledge must be disclosed. Now if you want to make it into a game > >> of deduction for your opponents, go right ahead, but I'd really prefer > >> it if you just told them the outcome of your reasoning, with or > >> without the doubt. > > > > > > I think this strikes to the heart of the debate. You have a set of > > facts that provide you with contradictory evidence about the meaning of > > partner's call. You consider those facts and deduce from them what you > > believe to be the most likely meaning. > > > > The anti-De-Wael school believes that the opponents are absolutely > > entitled to consider those facts for themselves and make their own > > deductions from them, which may be different from yours -- which may > > even be right when yours are wrong. To deprive them of the opportunity > > to play the "game of deduction" by misleading them into believing that > > your deduction is actually your agreement is to deprive them of a right > > to which the law does -- and should -- entitle them. > > > > > That would be good if it were possible. You know your partner, they > don't. All the knowledge about your partner cannot be put into words. > How are you going to prove to the Director, after you've made a > correct conclusion about what he was trying to convey, that you've > given opponents all the information - unless you also tell them the > result of your deliberation? > > But really Eric, isn't this another question ? You seem to be > promoting not telling them the outcome here. I am saying that I only > tell them the outcome. I accept that if I have omitted something I > may well be still subject to MI charges. > > What I mean is this: > > If I tell them it is A, and not tell them the alternative is C, they > might think the alternative is B. They might well see in their > holdings that it's impossibly A, and so they might follow B when they > should be following C. But I believe it is very stupid to follow B > when someone says it's A. You have no right to redress if it turns > out to be A all along. > You say it is stupid to follow B when someone says its A. But if A is impossible from their holding, then it is the alternative C. How do they know not to follow B, but follow C? Do they have redress if it is C? Kevin > > > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Jul 12 10:17:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6C0HHs06633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:17:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6C0HAH06628 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:17:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA11026 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:18:12 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:58:50 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:02:44 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 12/07/2002 09:58:29 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie asked: >>As one grows older one's memory gets worse. >>One is almost never 100% sure of agreements, >>even those detailed on one's convention card >>(or at least one thinks they probably are). >>Does this mean, almost always, >>[1] One shouldn't alert? >>[2] One should say "no definite agreement"? >> (but perhaps divulge more if asked) If Nigel played bridge in Australia, his first question would be answered by this Australian regulation: >In the case of a player forgetting what his/her partner's >alertable call means, the following procedure is to be >adopted. The player must still alert, and explain that the >meaning has been forgotten. The Director should then be >called. Of course, the regulation only caters for situations where Nigel *knows* he has an agreement, but has forgotten the details. Second question: If Nigel *does not know* whether or not he has an agreement, one thing that Nigel should *not* say is, "no definite agreement". "No definite agreement" alias "undiscussed" should be restricted to situations where Nigel *knows* he has a non-agreement. Again, if Nigel played bridge in Australia, how Nigel should explain "undiscussed" calls is answered by an Australian regulation: >If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of a >call, players must say so (by saying, "Undiscussed", for >example), and not try to offer a possible explanation. In all >such cases, players should not offer explanations such as, "I >take it to mean ...." When, however, as a result of >partnership experience and style, players are able to form a >cogent view of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, >that information shall be given to opponents on request. Note that if Herman De Wael were an Australian TD, the above regulation would prevent Herman De Wael from making De Wael School rulings. 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 Jul 12 10:37:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6C0be906646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:37:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6C0bZH06642 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:37:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA14867 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:38:33 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:19:12 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:21:59 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 12/07/2002 10:18:52 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] Nigel Guthrie wrote: >Richard's argument is too deep for me -- >many conventions combine alternative meanings: >e.g. Promissory Stayman = hearts OR spades >e.g. Michaels 2H over 1H = Weak OR strong > Spades + EITHER minor >e.g. X of 1NT = Minors OR Majors As I noted, Herman's premise that a two-way guess is "NOT fair" to the opponents is untenable. My position has been further backed up by Nigel's examples above. >De Wael gives no indication that he would.. >[1] disallow such explanations. Herman De Wael stated he would disallow the explanation 2C = Stayman OR clubs >[2] expect further elucidation based > on the contents of explainer's hand. In the 2C = Stayman OR clubs example, Herman "expects" just one explanation to be given. Naturally, the contents of explainer's hand will help determine which explanation will be given, if forced to choose by fiat of the De Wael School 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 Fri Jul 12 11:03:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6C12qP06670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 11:02:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6C12kH06666 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 11:02:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from young.alumni.princeton.edu (pcp01742111pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net [68.54.87.60]) by mtaout03.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GZ400BBR24C66@mtaout03.icomcast.net> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:45:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:40:31 -0400 From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? In-reply-to: <9MnxDnBMOXL9Ewi6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> X-Sender: davidgrabiner@mail.comcast.net To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020711202037.028c2ec0@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: <5.1.0.14.0.20020710221039.00aaf020@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020710221039.00aaf020@mail.comcast.net> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:01 PM 7/11/02 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >David J. Grabiner writes > >On board 1: > > > >W N E S > > P P 1H > >X 3D! P 3H > >AP > > > >South explained North's 3D bid as a splinter. At the end of the auction, > >North corrected the explanation (3D was a weak preempt), and says, "Call > >the director if you think there is a problem." Nobody calls the director, > >and 3H goes down three. > > > >North's action is a technical infraction; he is supposed to call the TD, > >but it is rarely done in this situation because strict obedience would lead > >to too many director calls and game delays. Howeve, this time it may have > >contributed to a problem. > > > >After board 2, West calls the director and says that he would have doubled > >3H if he had been properly informed. Is he eligible for an adjustment, or > >is it too late? I don't see any statute of limitations in the Laws. > > There is always some debate as to the apparent conflict between L9B >and L92B. But in principle she is eligible for an adjustment. Unless >there is some reason why the late call caused a problem an adjustment is >acceptable. In the actual case, however, it looks to me like a double >shot attempt [let's see whether it is going down before I ask for a >ruling] so L11A applies. If West had called the TD before the opening lead, he could have said that he would double, and he would still get the better of the result from 3H undoubled or whatever would happen after the double. However, there is a potential double shot is from the choice of action. By waiting until after the hand, West had the choice between saying, "I would have doubled" and saying, "I would have bid 3S". Thus, if both of these were logical alternatives for West, then he gained by not calling the TD. The delay to board 2 may have given West time to think about whether he was damaged. A double by West of 3H would be takeout, and thus it would only have helped West if East left it in or if E-W would have scored more than +150 (3S making 4, or 4S making) had he doubled. If there is no statute of limitations, then such a ruling would be in order. > >Would it make a difference if East said that she would have doubled, since > >East could have retracted her final pass if the director had been called? > > Yes, no adjustment can be given based on East's pass. L21B3 says that >an adjustment may be given when it was too late too change a call. >since it was not too late, L21B3 does not apply. I would rule this way if East was aware of the laws, and thus knew that she could retract her final pass if the TD was called. Otherwise, the TD could award an adjusted score based on East being damaged by North's infraction in not calling the TD; this is an infraction not subject to specific penalty and thus allows the TD to use discretionary powers to restore equity. > As the EBU is now stressing, while calling the TD immediately may not >matter in several situations, it is imperative he is called immediately >in potential or actual MI situations. This is the common problem, though; forgotten alerts are usually corrected, if at all, by the bidder saying, "This bid should have been alerted and shows X," which is a MI situation. When problems are likely, I agree that the TD should be called. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 12 11:36:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6C1ZVh06691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 11:35:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6C1ZQH06687 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 11:35:26 +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 17Sp7a-000CQE-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 02:21:23 +0100 Message-ID: <15sj+dBgIiL9EwwY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 01:26:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? References: <200207112308.TAA15567@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200207112308.TAA15567@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes >> From: David Stevenson >> What extreme cases? When the Law does not apply? The TD has no right >> to give an adjustment when the Law does not permit it. > >Haven't we had this discussion before? Presumably we disagree on what >moment "When it is too late to change a call..." applies to. You think >it is the moment when the MI is revealed, but I don't see why it isn't >the moment the TD is called. L21B1 gives a procedure for dealing with one call: L21C refers to when it is too late. >In practice, adjustments should be rare in this sort of situation, but I >don't see that the text of the law forbids them. You are actually suggesting that a player should gain by deliberately ignoring the Law? Surely not? Your method actually gives a player a *right* to a double shot. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 12 12:34:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6C2Y0d06721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:34:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6C2XtH06717 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:33:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id WAA11355 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:19:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id WAA16861 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:19:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:19:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200207120219.WAA16861@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > You are actually suggesting that a player should gain by deliberately > ignoring the Law? Surely not? Your method actually gives a player a > *right* to a double shot. No more so than in any other situation. It is a matter for TD judgment. If the TD is convinced that the player was damaged and was (all circumstances considered) not liable for the fault of failing to call the TD right away, then the TD has the _legal right_ to adjust the score. Wouldn't you wish to do so if a) you were certain the player had no idea he could have changed his call, and b) you were certain he would have done so if given the opportunity? As I noted, one could read the law otherwise by taking "when" to refer to the instant MI is discovered, but I don't believe that reading is consistent with usual interpretations or with L75D2, which places the primary responsibility for summoning the TD on the OS. In general, the TD has wide discretion about adjusting scores, and if a particular Law meant to deny it, I think it would say so unambiguously. However, it is certainly within the powers of the interpretive bodies to adopt an official position. As you and others have pointed out, TD's will seldom exercise this right in the case of a player who could have changed his call. P.S. I'm just about to leave on an email-free vacation. Anyone trying to contact me should not expect a reply until after July 22. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 12 15:05:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6C54rv06848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:04:53 +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 g6C54nH06844 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:04:49 +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 PAA29880 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:05:51 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:46:29 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:50:25 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 12/07/2002 02:46:08 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: >> I am not convinced that a call that has no agreed >>meaning is alertable since it does not fall into an >>alertable category. Tim replied: >Neither am I. However I am pretty sure that a call >having two reasonably likely meanings (one of which >is alertable) is alertable. [snip] I am surer that a call with no agreed meaning is, under the Laws, a call with no meaning. And, I am also not convinced that the EBU, EBL or WBF regs require a meaningless call to be alerted. However, in the stem case which started this thread, it is possible that further evidence might convince me that East-West's system created an implicit agreement that redouble was two-way; either takeout OR penalties. If evidence convinced me to change my initial ruling of "not a partnership agreed meaning" to "a two-way partnership agreed meaning" that East-West had about redouble, then I would consequently rule that the redouble was alertable. 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 Jul 12 17:07:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6C779x06904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 17:07:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6C774H06900 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 17:07:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.64.160.40] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17SuI0-0004qG-00; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 07:52:28 +0100 Message-ID: <000601c22971$27cbb4e0$28a0403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Patricia Davidson" , "lynn hunt" , "Endicott, Paul, DC" Cc: , "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Woes. Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 05:20:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 17:06:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.64.160.40] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17SuHr-0004qG-00; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 07:52:20 +0100 Message-ID: <000401c22971$22dac0c0$28a0403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <3D2C010E.9080400@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:47:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 1:39 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school > Herman De Wael writes > > >The footnote tells me what I have to > >presume, and your unsubstantiated self-serving statement does not > >constitute evidence to the contrary. > > Unsubstantiated self-serving statements are certainly evidence, and no > TD or AC will dismiss them unconsidered. > > It is up to the TD or AC to decide what weight shall be given to this > evidence, but it will not be zero. > +=+ Agreed. However, it may be a minus value. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 12 17:09:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6C79Uq06922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 17:09:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6C79OH06918 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 17:09:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from pp-xp [10.90.16.33] by mail.eduhi.at (SMTPD32-7.10) id ACBCF08D006E; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 08:52:44 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster OSB To: BLML Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 08:55:19 +0200 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-Id: <942ZUOFAONICPJ4ZXVRMMGUPJIOJHV.3d2e7d57@pp-xp> Subject: Re: [BLML] The timing of 25(b)2(b)1 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 11.07.2002 15:59:13, David Stevenson wrote: > With a slight change of wording in 1995 and advice from the WBFLC that >players should be allowed to make a change we now do allow a change,... Some further change of wording seems to be necessary: L25B1 makes the substituted call illegal by inference ("treated as legal" can only mean it isn't). The infraction of making this illegal call cannot be inadvertent. Therefore, it is an infraction of L72B2, subject to a severe DP ("must not infringe"). 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 Fri Jul 12 17:45:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6C7iq906946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 17:44:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6C7ikH06942 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 17:44:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48108.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.236]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6C7UYZ01787 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:30:34 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2E8609.8040004@skynet.be> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:32:25 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020711083359.00b5b680@pop.starpower.net> <3D2D9E85.90606@skynet.be> <004301c22935$f6187a40$6db01942@austin.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 Kevin Perkins wrote: >> >>What I mean is this: >> >>If I tell them it is A, and not tell them the alternative is C, they >>might think the alternative is B. They might well see in their >>holdings that it's impossibly A, and so they might follow B when they >>should be following C. But I believe it is very stupid to follow B >>when someone says it's A. You have no right to redress if it turns >>out to be A all along. >> >> > > You say it is stupid to follow B when someone says its A. But if A is > impossible from their holding, then it is the alternative C. How do they > know not to follow B, but follow C? Do they have redress if it is C? > Yes, that is the only flaw in my reasoning. Eric will tell them it's A or C. I will just tell them it's A. They might think the alternative is B. If they can be 100% certain from their own holding that it is not A, I might well have misinformed them, compared to Eric. But my point is that this is a very uncommon occurence. Firstly because it needs 3 alternatives, which is far less likely to happen than 2, and secondly because I believe they have to be pretty certain it cannot be A, in order for them to lose redress if they simply follow A. So this is a theoretical case, not a particularly real one. And I won't let it stand in my way of simply explaining A without adding anything. Mind you, in a case like this, I too would probably add that the alternative is C. You see, I never said it was wrong to add as much as you like, only that it was not necessary. And by consequence that it was better for your side not to add too much. > Kevin > > > > > > >>>Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >>>1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >>>Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 >>> >>>-- >>>======================================================================== >>>(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >>>"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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/ > > > -- 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 Jul 12 17:54:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6C7s4b06958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 17:54:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6C7rxH06954 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 17:53:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48108.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.236]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6C7dqH19140 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:39:52 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2E8837.7050104@skynet.be> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:41:43 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school 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: > > >>If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of a >>call, players must say so (by saying, "Undiscussed", for >>example), and not try to offer a possible explanation. In all >>such cases, players should not offer explanations such as, "I >>take it to mean ...." When, however, as a result of >>partnership experience and style, players are able to form a >>cogent view of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, >>that information shall be given to opponents on request. >> > > Note that if Herman De Wael were an Australian > TD, the above regulation would prevent Herman > De Wael from making De Wael School rulings. > First of all Richard, you again get me wrong. There is no De Wael school of rulings. I have never had any problems with you guys concerning a ruling. The De Wael school is an advice to players. I happen to believe it is an advice which does not go against the Laws of the game. Some disagree, but no-one has yet given any solid argument why that should be the case. Now it seems as if the regulation that is stated above makes the De Wael School advice to players illegal. So of course I will not give that advice to players in Australia. In the ROTW however, this regulation does not exist, and a player following my advice will not run afoul to it, there. But let's read the regulation again: >>If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of a >>call, players must say so (by saying, "Undiscussed", for >>example), and not try to offer a possible explanation. In all >>such cases, players should not offer explanations such as, "I >>take it to mean ...." When, however, as a result of >>partnership experience and style, players are able to form a >>cogent view of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, >>that information shall be given to opponents on request. It is my opinion that if two players are on the same wavelength, either they have a partnership agreement (possibly without knowing it), or they have a "cogent view of the likely meaning". In both cases, according to the regulation, they should tell opponents. Which is actually exactly what the laws say. So in effect, this regulation is simply a rewording of the law. My point has been all along that if there really is NO partnership agreement, at all, then saying so is of course not MI. But I believe such cases are as rare as ... well not white ravens, let's say white rhinos. > Best wishes > > Richard > -- 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 Jul 12 17:59:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6C7xXT06971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 17:59:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6C7xRH06967 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 17:59:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48108.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.236]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6C7jLZ23540 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:45:21 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2E8980.60604@skynet.be> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:47:12 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Surely Richard you are more clever than this. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > [snip] > > Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > >>Richard's argument is too deep for me -- >>many conventions combine alternative meanings: >>e.g. Promissory Stayman = hearts OR spades >>e.g. Michaels 2H over 1H = Weak OR strong >> Spades + EITHER minor >>e.g. X of 1NT = Minors OR Majors >> > > As I noted, Herman's premise that a two-way > guess is "NOT fair" to the opponents is > untenable. > > My position has been further backed up by > Nigel's examples above. > > >>De Wael gives no indication that he would.. >>[1] disallow such explanations. >> > > Herman De Wael stated he would disallow the > explanation 2C = Stayman OR clubs > Surely richard you see the difference. When a pair play Multi, they can provide evidence that 2Di shows hearts or spades. But when they bid 2Cl, they cannot provide evidence that this can be done on both types of hands. There is a big difference between 2Di shows (hearts OR spades) and (2Cl shows majors) OR (2Cl shows clubs) I accept the first, of course, since it can be proven. I do not accept the second as a valid explanation and will rule MI unless the explainer picks one and is lucky to pick the one that fits partner's hand. > >>[2] expect further elucidation based >> on the contents of explainer's hand. >> > > In the 2C = Stayman OR clubs example, > Herman "expects" just one explanation to be > given. Naturally, the contents of > explainer's hand will help determine which > explanation will be given, if forced to > choose by fiat of the De Wael School TD. > Since I don not accept the explanation of the second, I ask player to further elaborate. Whether he guesses based on previous experience, on tossing a coin or on looking into his own hand is of no importance. OTOH I don't expect a player to further explain a multi based on his own holdings. Really Richard, I had expected better arguments from you. > 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 Jul 12 18:49:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6C8n3s06998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 18:49:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6C8mvH06994 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 18:48:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.20.39] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17Svy5-000AXZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:40:01 +0100 Message-ID: <001b01c2297f$63f23bc0$2714e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:35:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 5:50 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling > > DWS wrote: > > >> I am not convinced that a call that has no agreed > >>meaning is alertable since it does not fall into an > >>alertable category. > > Tim replied: > > >Neither am I. However I am pretty sure that a call > >having two reasonably likely meanings (one of which > >is alertable) is alertable. > > [snip] > > I am surer that a call with no agreed meaning is, > under the Laws, a call with no meaning. And, I am > also not convinced that the EBU, EBL or WBF regs > require a meaningless call to be alerted. > +=+ I would suggest there is no difficulty in obtaining universal consent to the above, allowing always that the discussion is about absence of agreed meaning. That would not seem to be the problem this thread is addressing. The question is whether the redouble has a meaning that can be seen to be a matter of agreement and which is an alertable agreement. If the redouble intends that the last bid should be the contract (redoubled) it is not alertable. If the redouble intends something other than this it is alertable if a matter of partnership agreement (and the regulations match those of EBU, EBL or WBF). The Director is entitled to draw a conclusion from the action of the partner opposite the redouble: if he passes there is no evidence that he thought the redouble had an artificial meaning; if he bids and to appearances his bid diagnoses an artificial meaning which the redoubler intended, the Director should be expected to rule that there was an agreement and it is for the partnership to demonstrate otherwise on appeal - showing a persuasive bridge reason for the action in the absence of agreement. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 12 19:26:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6C9QIn07073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 19:26:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6C9QCH07069 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 19:26:13 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6C9C8t26972 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:12:08 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:12 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: Richard Hills wrote: Richard, whenever I try to "Reply to all" I have to remember to snip an extraneous .gov.au from the BLML address I think the problem is at your end (but I could be wrong). > DWS wrote: > > >> I am not convinced that a call that has no agreed > >>meaning is alertable since it does not fall into an > >>alertable category. > > Tim replied: > > >Neither am I. However I am pretty sure that a call > >having two reasonably likely meanings (one of which > >is alertable) is alertable. > > [snip] > > I am surer that a call with no agreed meaning is, > under the Laws, a call with no meaning. And, I am > also not convinced that the EBU, EBL or WBF regs > require a meaningless call to be alerted. Here is a situation from last night (On-line pick up partner). 1C 2D 2H 2S We hadn't agreed FSF and due to other agreements the 2S could well be natural. However I felt the possibility of it being FSF (eg bid on KQx) was sufficiently large to justify an alert. The call is far from meaningless in that it certainly shows spade values - the crux is the length 3 or 4? 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 Jul 12 19:35:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6C9ZQX07088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 19:35:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6C9ZLH07084 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 19:35:22 +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 17Swc0-00053O-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:21:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 02:29:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020710221039.00aaf020@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020710221039.00aaf020@mail.comcast.net> <9MnxDnBMOXL9Ewi6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.1.0.14.0.20020711202037.028c2ec0@mail.comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020711202037.028c2ec0@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 >At 01:01 PM 7/11/02 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>David J. Grabiner writes >The delay to board 2 may have given West time to think about whether he was >damaged. A double by West of 3H would be takeout, and thus it would only >have helped West if East left it in or if E-W would have scored more than >+150 (3S making 4, or 4S making) had he doubled. If there is no statute of >limitations, then such a ruling would be in order. > >> >Would it make a difference if East said that she would have doubled, since >> >East could have retracted her final pass if the director had been called? >> >> Yes, no adjustment can be given based on East's pass. L21B3 says that >>an adjustment may be given when it was too late too change a call. >>since it was not too late, L21B3 does not apply. > >I would rule this way if East was aware of the laws, and thus knew that she >could retract her final pass if the TD was called. That's not right. East is aware of the Law, surely, that says call the TD when something goes wrong. Once she ignores this Law then my sympathy for her is gone. > Otherwise, the TD could >award an adjusted score based on East being damaged by North's infraction >in not calling the TD; this is an infraction not subject to specific >penalty and thus allows the TD to use discretionary powers to restore equity. I actively dislike rulings which favour players who ignore the Laws over those who do not. This gives East an unfair advantage over a player who calls the TD and has to decide *then* as the Law requires. Even players who do not know the Laws should not be given an advantage for their ignorance. >> As the EBU is now stressing, while calling the TD immediately may not >>matter in several situations, it is imperative he is called immediately >>in potential or actual MI situations. >This is the common problem, though; forgotten alerts are usually corrected, >if at all, by the bidder saying, "This bid should have been alerted and >shows X," which is a MI situation. When problems are likely, I agree that >the TD should be called. When a player says "This bid should have been alerted and shows X" there are basically two possibilities: [1] An opponent may possibly have taken different action. Why on earth does he not call the TD then? [2] Both opponents know that it has not mattered. Ok, in htis common position I have no problem with not calling the TD. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 12 20:37:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6CAb6k07246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 20:37:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6CAb0H07242 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 20:37:01 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6CAMvg18198 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 11:22:57 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 11:22 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: DWS wrote: > I actively dislike rulings which favour players who ignore the Laws > over those who do not. This gives East an unfair advantage over a > player who calls the TD and has to decide *then* as the Law requires. > > Even players who do not know the Laws should not be given an advantage > for their ignorance. I assume this means that an adjustment for the OS may still be in order. After all it was the "corrector" who was required by law (75d2) to call the TD - not the NOS. > When a player says "This bid should have been alerted and shows X" > there are basically two possibilities: > > [1] An opponent may possibly have taken different action. Why on earth > does he not call the TD then? The opponent is about to defend, he may realise that he might have changed an *earlier* action but not his final one. Knowing it is too late to do that he waits until the end of the hand to avoid giving information (A or U) to opponents and partner. Alternatively he may be unsure as to whether damage has occurred at that time. Suppose he was going to make a lead directing double he can't tell if there was likely damage until after his partner leads. > [2] Both opponents know that it has not mattered. Ok, in htis common > position I have no problem with not calling the TD. The OS was supposed to call the TD. The OS seldom knows whether the actions of opponents might have been influenced. Having the OS call the TD avoids the UI/AI type problems above. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 12 21:28:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6CBRks07345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:27:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6CBRZH07335 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:27:36 +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 17SyMS-000FIO-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:13:25 +0100 Message-ID: <$xAh8uAQeqL9Ewwf@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:55:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? References: <200207120219.WAA16861@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200207120219.WAA16861@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes >> From: David Stevenson >> You are actually suggesting that a player should gain by deliberately >> ignoring the Law? Surely not? Your method actually gives a player a >> *right* to a double shot. > >No more so than in any other situation. It is a matter for TD >judgment. If the TD is convinced that the player was damaged and was >(all circumstances considered) not liable for the fault of failing to >call the TD right away, then the TD has the _legal right_ to adjust the >score. Wouldn't you wish to do so if a) you were certain the player had >no idea he could have changed his call, and b) you were certain he would >have done so if given the opportunity? No, because he is still gaining at the expense of a player who *does* follow the rules, and that is not fair. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 12 21:28:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6CBRiC07344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:27:44 +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-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 g6CBRRH07327 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:27:27 +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 17SyMS-000FIN-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:13:24 +0100 Message-ID: <+BfhAhAvcqL9Ewzd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:53:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >Richard Hills wrote: > >Richard, whenever I try to "Reply to all" I have to remember to snip an >extraneous .gov.au from the BLML address I think the problem is at your >end (but I could be wrong). Why are you using "Reply to all"? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 12 21:28:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6CBRmu07346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:27:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6CBRTH07329 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:27:31 +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 17SyMS-000FIK-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:13:25 +0100 Message-ID: <6RQg0KASSqL9Ewyb@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:42:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >DWS wrote: > >>> I am not convinced that a call that has no agreed >>>meaning is alertable since it does not fall into an >>>alertable category. > >Tim replied: > >>Neither am I. However I am pretty sure that a call >>having two reasonably likely meanings (one of which >>is alertable) is alertable. > >[snip] > >I am surer that a call with no agreed meaning is, >under the Laws, a call with no meaning. And, I am >also not convinced that the EBU, EBL or WBF regs >require a meaningless call to be alerted. > >However, in the stem case which started this thread, >it is possible that further evidence might convince me >that East-West's system created an implicit agreement >that redouble was two-way; either takeout OR penalties. Perhaps you could explain this because it seems silly to me. Perhaps I have missed something. You get a poor pair, who have not played together long. You get a sequence they have never discussed, nor are likely to, and has no obvious similar sequences. How do you get an implicit agreement that they are playing a convention that they have never heard of? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 12 21:28:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6CBRXX07333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:27:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6CBRQH07325 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:27:26 +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 17SyMR-000FIL-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:13:23 +0100 Message-ID: <0hyjYWAZbqL9EwR0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:52:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling References: <001b01c2297f$63f23bc0$2714e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001b01c2297f$63f23bc0$2714e150@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >From: >> DWS wrote: >> >> I am not convinced that a call that has no agreed >> >>meaning is alertable since it does not fall into an >> >>alertable category. >> Tim replied: >> >Neither am I. However I am pretty sure that a call >> >having two reasonably likely meanings (one of which >> >is alertable) is alertable. >> I am surer that a call with no agreed meaning is, >> under the Laws, a call with no meaning. And, I am >> also not convinced that the EBU, EBL or WBF regs >> require a meaningless call to be alerted. >+=+ I would suggest there is no difficulty in obtaining >universal consent to the above, allowing always that >the discussion is about absence of agreed meaning. >That would not seem to be the problem this thread >is addressing. The question is whether the redouble >has a meaning that can be seen to be a matter of >agreement and which is an alertable agreement. > If the redouble intends that the last bid should >be the contract (redoubled) it is not alertable. If >the redouble intends something other than this it is >alertable if a matter of partnership agreement (and >the regulations match those of EBU, EBL or WBF). >The Director is entitled to draw a conclusion from >the action of the partner opposite the redouble: if >he passes there is no evidence that he thought the >redouble had an artificial meaning; if he bids and to >appearances his bid diagnoses an artificial meaning >which the redoubler intended, the Director should be >expected to rule that there was an agreement and >it is for the partnership to demonstrate otherwise >on appeal - showing a persuasive bridge reason for >the action in the absence of agreement. This seems contrary to the advice given to TDs around the world: it is certainly contrary to the advice given to EBU and WBU TDs. We are expected as far as possible to give correct rulings, and not rely on ACs to pick up our mistakes for us. The CoP says 'The expectation is that each appeals committee will presume initially that the Director's ruling is correct. The ruling is overturned only on the basis of evidence presented.' This cannot be right if you are expecting the AC to do the TD's job for him, which may have been the case at one time. Nowadays I expect a TD to rule right. To assume an agreement solely on the basis of the action taken by one player merely suggests the TD has not done his job. He should investigate as far as possible and then decide each case on its merits. Note that in the example case I said as part of it that there would be no appeal. For me to fail to investigate carefully and rely on an AC despite knowing there would be no appeal sounds like dereliction of duty to me. ------------- One other little question: what does anyone think the ruling should have been in the example 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 Fri Jul 12 22:13:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6CCCbQ07391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 22:12:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6CCCWH07387 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 22:12:32 +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 NAA14588; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 13:56:05 +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 NAA18236; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 13:58:27 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020712140417.00a5f780@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:06:48 +0200 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:12 12/07/2002 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: >Here is a situation from last night (On-line pick up partner). > >1C 2D >2H 2S > >We hadn't agreed FSF and due to other agreements the 2S could well be >natural. However I felt the possibility of it being FSF (eg bid on >KQx) was sufficiently large to justify an alert. The call is far from >meaningless in that it certainly shows spade values - the crux is the >length 3 or 4? AG : in belgium, in that case, the bid is non-alertable, since it relates directly to the suit bid, and in a positive way. The mere fact that it will sometimes be a 3-card suit with values, to let the bidding open, is not a reason to make it alertable (the same way that 1H-1S-2C, which will sometimes be a 3-card suit, is not alertable per se). I don't know about other countries, but it seems a sensible rule. 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 Jul 12 22:44:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6CCiDs07489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 22:44:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6CCi4H07485 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 22:44:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.40.36.75] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17Szdc-0003dy-00; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 13:35:08 +0100 Message-ID: <00c101c2299f$94a0cbe0$4b242850@pacific> From: To: "David Stevenson" , "Bridge Laws" References: <001b01c2297f$63f23bc0$2714e150@dodona> <0hyjYWAZbqL9EwR0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 13:26:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 10:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling > > The CoP says 'The expectation is that each > appeals committee will presume initially that > the Director's ruling is correct. The ruling is > overturned only on the basis of evidence presented.' > > This cannot be right if you are expecting the AC > to do the TD's job for him, which may have been > the case at one time. Nowadays I expect a TD to > rule right. > > To assume an agreement solely on the basis of > the action taken by one player merely suggests the > TD has not done his job. He should investigate as > far as possible and then decide each case on its > merits. > +=+ I do not think that answers what I was saying. It is well established that the Director is entitled to take account of evidence of collusion in the actions of partners. What I have said is that the Director should rule agreement exists where he finds that collusion unless there is stronger evidence to the contrary. If a player claims to have no agreement but acts upon a presumption that his partner's call is artificial he has a question to answer if he is right - there is almost certainly a root for the understanding and if there is he is acting upon his belief in having the understanding. Whether he is then required to disclose such agreement will depend upon whether opponents may reasonably be expected to understand the meaning. We are talking about the actions of two players, not one. The AC then requires to be persuaded the Director has got it wrong if the ruling is not to be supported. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 12 23:30:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6CDTnW07527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 23:29:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail45.fg.online.no (mail45-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6CDTfH07523 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 23:29:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1012.bb.online.no [80.212.211.244]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA18562 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:15:32 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004d01c229a6$3388aba0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <+BfhAhAvcqL9Ewzd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:15:32 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 11:53 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling > Tim West-meads writes > >In-Reply-To: > >Richard Hills wrote: > > > >Richard, whenever I try to "Reply to all" I have to remember to snip an > >extraneous .gov.au from the BLML address I think the problem is at your > >end (but I could be wrong). > > Why are you using "Reply to all"? > I think (like my experience) because just "reply" will insert the poster only and not BLML. I too have used "reply to all" and then try remembering to take away all addresses except the BLML address before sending. (I have noticed the same problem with that BLML address) Maybe I should change my attitude and just "forward" messages inserting only my stored BLML address as "to"? 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 Jul 13 00:09:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6CE8cI07549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 00:08:39 +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 g6CE8VH07545 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 00:08:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from JD.i.softco.dk (jd.i.softco.dk [10.160.1.46]) by heimdal.softco.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id D4F2031E707; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:54:25 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: [BLML] Using "reply" or "forward" Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:54:25 +0200 Organization: Softco Message-ID: 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 g6CE8WH07546 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:15:32 +0200, "Sven Pran" wrote: >Maybe I should change my attitude and just "forward" messages inserting >only my stored BLML address as "to"? It is best to always use one of the "reply" functions to reply. Those functions have the property that they set the correct subject (with "Re: ") and (for many modern e-mail programs) that they set an "In-Reply-To" (or "References") header in the message. Both of these help receiving mail programs to show the correct thread structure - provided of course that the receiving mail program supports showing thread structure. I usually use "reply" (not "to all") and then change the address to the BLML entry from my address book - but "reply to all" and remove irrelevant addresses is of course just as good. For the same (or rather opposite) reason, you should never use a "reply" function when you want to create a new thread: even of you change the subject line after choosing "reply", your mail program may insert a header that makes good mail programs show the message nicely indented below the one it seems to be a reply to. That is not a good idea if it ought to be a new thread. -- 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 Sat Jul 13 01:49:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6CFnAS07593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 01:49:10 +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 g6CFn1H07585 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 01:49:02 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6CFYvM02279 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:34:57 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:34 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <+BfhAhAvcqL9Ewzd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> DWS wrote: > Why are you using "Reply to all"? My software gives two choices, "reply" (which goes to the sender alone). And "Reply to all" which populates the "To" field with the sender + bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, I then delete the original sender. Unless it's a message from Richard where it gets to be bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au which my software shows as the "To" address to which Richard sends his messages! 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 Jul 13 01:49:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6CFnAw07594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 01:49:10 +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 g6CFn1H07586 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 01:49:02 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6CFYwp02289 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:34:58 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:34 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020712140417.00a5f780@pop.ulb.ac.be> Alain wrote: > >Here is a situation from last night (On-line pick up partner). > > > >1C 2D > >2H 2S > > > >We hadn't agreed FSF and due to other agreements the 2S could well be > >natural. However I felt the possibility of it being FSF (eg bid on > >KQx) was sufficiently large to justify an alert. The call is far from > >meaningless in that it certainly shows spade values - the crux is the > >length 3 or 4? > > AG : in belgium, in that case, the bid is non-alertable, since it > relates directly to the suit bid, and in a positive way. The mere fact > that it will sometimes be a 3-card suit with values, to let the bidding > open, is not a reason to make it alertable (the same way that 1H-1S-2C, > which will sometimes be a 3-card suit, is not alertable per se). I > don't know about other countries, but it seems a sensible rule. A sensible rule, as you say. The EBU rules are also sensible but I believe require an alert if this can be a 3 card suit (since opponents will expect 4+ for an unalerted bid). Anyway for the sake of the previous discussion can we assume that if a 3 card (or shorter) suit is possible then it would be alertable. Should I alert if I am unsure whether or not it shows 4 spades? Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 13 05:07:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6CJ4Ls07936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 05:04:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6CJ4GH07932 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 05:04:16 +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 g6CIr3511168 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:53:03 -0800 Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:48:21 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling In-Reply-To: <0hyjYWAZbqL9EwR0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I apologize for getting us slightly astray by asking this within this thread: > Grattan Endicott writes > > If the redouble intends that the last bid should > >be the contract (redoubled) it is not alertable. If > >the redouble intends something other than this it is > >alertable if a matter of partnership agreement (and > >the regulations match those of EBU, EBL or WBF). This came as quite a surprise to me that an SOS redouble required an alert in the WBF. I just had a look again at the document on the WBF web page (http://www.worldbridge.org/Dept/systems/alerts.htm) and now I see why I was confused: All the items in the "The following classes of calls should be alerted:" apply specifically to bids, not to doubles, redoubles, or passes. However, in "The following called[sic] should not be alerted:" there is a specific note only about doubles. So, we seem to be in the distressing situation that the WBF *doesn't tell you* whether to alert a conventional redouble! My common-sense interpretation of things is that "redoubles are a lot like doubles, so treat them the same way unless told otherwise." I guess it's a good thing I haven't been playing in any WBF events lately :))) But seriously... I am quite embarrassed at having never noticed the omission from the WBF policy before, and imagine the WBF systems committee might be interested in a slight rewording of their policy in a few places to clarify? GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 13 06:18:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6CKGNM07969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 06:16:23 +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-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 g6CKGHH07965 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 06:16:18 +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 17T6cF-00045E-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:02:13 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:31:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >DWS wrote: > >> I actively dislike rulings which favour players who ignore the Laws >> over those who do not. This gives East an unfair advantage over a >> player who calls the TD and has to decide *then* as the Law requires. >> >> Even players who do not know the Laws should not be given an advantage >> for their ignorance. > >I assume this means that an adjustment for the OS may still be in order. >After all it was the "corrector" who was required by law (75d2) to call >the TD - not the NOS. *Everyone* was required to call the TD. L9B1A and L9B1B cover this. Let us just look at three scenarios on the same hand. At T1, North gives MI. Just before the lead, South corrects it, west calls the TD. West is allowed his last pass back, changes it to a double. Unluckily the contract makes, and West has suffered. At T2, North gives MI. Just before the lead, South corrects it, but no-one calls the TD. West would have doubled if he had been allowed his last pass back but did not know he should call the Director. Unluckily the contract makes, but West has gained from not calling the Director. At T3, North gives MI. Just before the lead, South corrects it, but no-one calls the TD. West would have doubled if he had been allowed his last pass back and knew very well he should call the Director. However he knew this Director gives adjustments anyway so he knows it is in his own best interests not to call the Director. Unluckily the contract makes, and West has gained from not calling the Director. So poor old West at T1 has followed the Laws, and lost points. Rub- of-the-green, certainly. No doubt he will gain on other hands in similar circumstances to compensate. On the next board, the scenario is much the same, except the contract goes off. At T1 the contract is doubled: at T2 and T3 the players ask for a ruling at the end. Now, if we follow the Willner/West-meads approach, they will give such an adjustment, and the players who follow the laws will lose occasionally, and *never* gain, and the players who do not call the Director, either through ignorance [T2] or bad ethics [T3] will *never* lose. I know the odd uneducated player can lose by following the Law as written, but until the law-makers allow adjustments rather than [or in addition to] taking the call back we must not encourage double-shots by the ignorant and the unethical and let the correct players suffer. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 13 07:22:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6CLMKT08008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 07:22:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (nuser.dybdal.dk [62.242.254.78]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6CLMFH08004 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 07:22:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 7EA8910706F for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 23:08:09 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 23:08:09 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: 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 g6CLMHH08005 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:41:51 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >To the best of my (imperfect) recollection, the >Danish NCBO has proposed a relaxation of the >"must" requirement of L9B1(a) in the 2005 Laws. Your recollection is not quite right, but almost. We have proposed a relaxation of L75D2: http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L75D2 If our suggestion is followed, that relaxed L75D2 will be in conflict with L9B1a - a fact that I hadn't considered before. I doubt that the conflict would be a problem, though: the specific law, L75D2, should take precedence over the general law, L9B1a. I think it would be difficult to relax L9B1a itself without causing undesirable side effects. Our suggestion for L21B1 (http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L21B1) contains a discussion of the problems that occur when the TD is not called. -- 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 Sat Jul 13 07:39:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6CLdX608021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 07:39:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (nuser.dybdal.dk [62.242.254.78]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6CLdRH08017 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 07:39:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 05E0310706F for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 23:25:20 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 23:25:20 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: 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 g6CLdTH08018 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:31:37 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > Now, if we follow the Willner/West-meads approach, they will give such >an adjustment, and the players who follow the laws will lose >occasionally, and *never* gain, and the players who do not call the >Director, either through ignorance [T2] or bad ethics [T3] will *never* >lose. When you say "the players" here, you seem to be considering only the non-offenders. But there are two more players at the table. If the TD is not called, the offenders have violated L75D2's very specific requirement for calling the TD, and your approach (not adjusting when called late) thus allows the *offending* side to gain by not following the law. I have no perfect solution, and I wouldn't call any of the two approaches wrong, but it seems to me that the situation is not as black-and-white as your description above seems to indicate. As described in http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L21B1, the Danish NA has on a couple of occasions adjusted in such situations, using L12C3 to hold both sides partly responsible. I think that is sensible. -- 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 Sat Jul 13 08:56:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6CMtSq08058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 08:55:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6CMtNH08054 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 08:55:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.6.235] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17T9BC-000APj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 23:46:26 +0100 Message-ID: <004201c229f5$a0e231e0$eb06e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 23:30:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 7:48 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling > > So, we seem to be in the distressing situation > that the WBF *doesn't tell you* whether to > alert a conventional redouble! > +=+ Aye, indeed, stemming from the failure to discriminate between 'call' and 'bid'. The EBL alerting regulation is more carefully drafted; the word 'bid' does not ever appear, only 'call', and its presentation exhibits the power that lies in brevity. The WBF regulation can be seen not to hang well together if you note that, behind screens, doubles (and the other items excluded when there are no screens) may be alertable (the exclusions only apply when there are no screens). However, the general requirement to protect opponent from undisclosed understandings is stated. It is the Rules & Regulations Committee that is responsible, not the Systems Committee. ~ G ~ +=+ ============================ European Bridge League : Alerting regulation. (a) Any call which has a special or artificial meaning, or (b) Any call which has a partnership meaning that may not be understood by opponents, is a call that must be brought to the immediate attention of the opponents through the use of the 'alert procedure'. The alert procedure is as follows: … etc. …… -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 13 10:12:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6D0BbY08113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 10:11:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6D0BLH08094 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 10:11:22 +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 17TAHi-000HTo-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 00:57:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:40:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling References: <0hyjYWAZbqL9EwR0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower writes >I apologize for getting us slightly astray by asking this within this >thread: > > >> Grattan Endicott writes > >> > If the redouble intends that the last bid should >> >be the contract (redoubled) it is not alertable. If >> >the redouble intends something other than this it is >> >alertable if a matter of partnership agreement (and >> >the regulations match those of EBU, EBL or WBF). > >This came as quite a surprise to me that an SOS redouble required an alert >in the WBF. I just had a look again at the document on the WBF web page >(http://www.worldbridge.org/Dept/systems/alerts.htm) and now I see why I >was confused: > >All the items in the "The following classes of calls should be >alerted:" apply specifically to bids, not to doubles, redoubles, or >passes. > >However, in "The following called[sic] should not be alerted:" there is a >specific note only about doubles. > >So, we seem to be in the distressing situation that the WBF *doesn't tell >you* whether to alert a conventional redouble! > >My common-sense interpretation of things is that "redoubles are a lot like >doubles, so treat them the same way unless told otherwise." I guess it's a >good thing I haven't been playing in any WBF events lately :))) But >seriously... I am quite embarrassed at having never noticed the omission >from the WBF policy before, and imagine the WBF systems committee might be >interested in a slight rewording of their policy in a few places to >clarify? I think you will ifnd that the specific note about doubles only applies without screens. Since the WBF does not actually run any events without screens the apparent inconsistency has no effect. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 13 10:12:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6D0BWJ08108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 10:11:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6D0BMH08096 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 10:11:22 +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 17TAHj-000HTp-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 00:57:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:42:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling References: <+BfhAhAvcqL9Ewzd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004d01c229a6$3388aba0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <004d01c229a6$3388aba0$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" >> Tim West-meads writes >> >Richard Hills wrote: >> >Richard, whenever I try to "Reply to all" I have to remember to snip an >> >extraneous .gov.au from the BLML address I think the problem is at your >> >end (but I could be wrong). >> Why are you using "Reply to all"? >I think (like my experience) because just "reply" will insert the poster >only and not BLML. I too have used "reply to all" and then try remembering >to take away all addresses except the BLML address before sending. > >(I have noticed the same problem with that BLML address) > >Maybe I should change my attitude and just "forward" messages inserting >only my stored BLML address as "to"? No, it appears that your software has a deficiency I did not realise. My question is answered - I shall go back to sleep and play with the kitten [if he comes out from under the bookcase]. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 13 10:12:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6D0BdB08114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 10:11:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6D0BVH08107 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 10:11:32 +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 17TAHq-000HTm-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 00:57:28 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 00:30:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling References: <+$5OuhCTpxK9Ewp5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <+$5OuhCTpxK9Ewp5@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 >B32 3 W N E S >E/W A97643 1NT 2H 2S Dbl >D:W J84 Rdl 3H P 4H > K74 AP >54 JT862 >Q2 [] KT Lead: SJ >KQT95 63 Result: 4H-1 >AQ96 JT52 > AKQ97 1NT = 12-14 >Swiss J85 >Pairs A72 > 83 > > The double was not alerted, but asked about anyway, and described as >showing spades and values in response to the question "Is it for >penalties?". > > The redouble was not alerted, and East assumed it was to play. West >meant it as takeout, which would be alertable. North said he was >damaged, since he said he would not have bid 3H if he had known the >redouble was for takeout. He did not ask its meaning, merely trusted >the failure to alert. > > East-West do play a takeout redouble in certain sequences, but are not >really sure which. There is nowhere really suitable on the CC for this >sequence, and nothing relevant on the CC. > > The following additional information may, or may not be of relevance! >This was Wales, where L12C3 is enabled for TDs and ACs. Your ruling >will not be taken to appeal. Players here do not have an agreement for >this sequence [in fact I do not have with my most scientific partners]. >North would have made 4H if he had drawn trumps. I was disappointed by the response - a single reply. Perhaps it is not as interesting as I thought. --------- richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes >I would rule that EW did not have an agreement about the >meaning of this particular redouble. > >Does Wales require redoubles which have no agreed meaning to >be alerted? If so, I would rule that there has been MI. > >If, on the other hand, the Welsh regulation is that only >redoubles *agreed* to be non-natural should be alerted, then >there there has been no MI and therefore no adjusted score. Since a redouble with no meaning should not be alerted this means no MI, no adjustment. --------------- At the time we thought there was an agreement, rightly or wrongly, since they do play low-level redoubles for takeout. At least, we decided not so much that there was an agreement, but that we were to presume MI in the absence of sufficient evidence that there was no MI [L75D1foot]. We thought North's 3H bid very poor, but not sufficient to deny redress by Welsh standards, ie it was not wild or gambling action, and we saw no trace of a double shot attempt. However, we were less convinced that North would get it right with a different explanation, so we eventually ruled for both sides [sympathetic weighting]: 40% 2Sxx-5 + 60% 4H-1 -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 13 10:12:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6D0BXP08109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 10:11:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6D0BLH08095 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 10:11:22 +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 17TAHi-000HTm-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 00:57:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:38:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling References: <001b01c2297f$63f23bc0$2714e150@dodona> <0hyjYWAZbqL9EwR0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00c101c2299f$94a0cbe0$4b242850@pacific> In-Reply-To: <00c101c2299f$94a0cbe0$4b242850@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk gester@lineone.net writes >Grattan Endicott----------------------------------------------------------- >gester set free - July 12 >........................................................... > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 10:52 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling >> >> The CoP says 'The expectation is that each >> appeals committee will presume initially that >> the Director's ruling is correct. The ruling is >> overturned only on the basis of evidence presented.' >> >> This cannot be right if you are expecting the AC >> to do the TD's job for him, which may have been >> the case at one time. Nowadays I expect a TD to >> rule right. >> >> To assume an agreement solely on the basis of >> the action taken by one player merely suggests the >> TD has not done his job. He should investigate as >> far as possible and then decide each case on its >> merits. >> >+=+ I do not think that answers what I was saying. >It is well established that the Director is entitled to >take account of evidence of collusion in the actions of >partners. What I have said is that the Director should >rule agreement exists where he finds that collusion >unless there is stronger evidence to the contrary. If >a player claims to have no agreement but acts upon >a presumption that his partner's call is artificial he has >a question to answer if he is right - there is almost >certainly a root for the understanding and if there is >he is acting upon his belief in having the understanding. >Whether he is then required to disclose such agreement >will depend upon whether opponents may reasonably >be expected to understand the meaning. We are talking >about the actions of two players, not one. The AC then >requires to be persuaded the Director has got it wrong >if the ruling is not to be supported. The trouble with a general rule like this is it is subject to a lot of exceptions, so is it really helpful? For example, I am called to the table to play because a player's partner has been taken to hospital. There is no time for any discussion, and I pick up 13 HCP and a balanced hand. Since I am in England I open 1NT, and partner responds 2C. Now, I have *no* agreement with partner, and I have to guess. For the TD to rule we have an agreement because I guess Stayman, and that happens to be right, seems the wrong approach. It is correct that we should take notice of the correctness of guesses but to quote a rule because of it is not the correct approach. It reminds me of self-serving statements: people who say they are to be ignored are wrong [and fortunately TDs and ACs do not follow this advice]. However, the fact that they are self-serving should be considered when looking at evidence. I am happy with a rule that advises a TD to look carefully at the evidence when a correct guess follows a statement that there is no agreement but to go further than that is misguided. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 13 10:15:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6D0FRI08144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 10:15:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6D0FMH08140 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 10:15:22 +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 17TALd-0007JC-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 01:01:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 01:01:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? 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 Jesper Dybdal writes >On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:31:37 +0100, David Stevenson >wrote: > >> Now, if we follow the Willner/West-meads approach, they will give such >>an adjustment, and the players who follow the laws will lose >>occasionally, and *never* gain, and the players who do not call the >>Director, either through ignorance [T2] or bad ethics [T3] will *never* >>lose. > >When you say "the players" here, you seem to be considering only the >non-offenders. But there are two more players at the table. > >If the TD is not called, the offenders have violated L75D2's very specific >requirement for calling the TD, and your approach (not adjusting when >called late) thus allows the *offending* side to gain by not following the >law. OK, give them a PP of sufficient size to make sure they do not do it again! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 13 17:57:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6D7un908304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 17:56:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6D7ugH08300 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 17:56:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48460.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.61.76]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6D7gVH25761 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 09:42:31 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D2FDA56.7040405@skynet.be> Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 09:44:22 +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] Let's try a ruling References: <001b01c2297f$63f23bc0$2714e150@dodona> <0hyjYWAZbqL9EwR0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00c101c2299f$94a0cbe0$4b242850@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David, you are making the common mistake yet again. You take a statement by someone, and read it as general, when that person only intended it as partly general. You then construct a counterexample, and by showing that it is wrong try and make out that the general statement is wrong. But since the statement was only intended to be partly general, that is not a valid argument. See here: David Stevenson wrote: > gester@lineone.net writes > >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "David Stevenson" >>> >>> To assume an agreement solely on the basis of >>>the action taken by one player merely suggests the >>>TD has not done his job. He should investigate as >>>far as possible and then decide each case on its >>>merits. >>> >>> >>+=+ I do not think that answers what I was saying. >>It is well established that the Director is entitled to >>take account of evidence of collusion in the actions of >>partners. What I have said is that the Director should >>rule agreement exists where he finds that collusion >>unless there is stronger evidence to the contrary. If >>a player claims to have no agreement but acts upon >>a presumption that his partner's call is artificial he has >>a question to answer if he is right - there is almost >>certainly a root for the understanding and if there is >>he is acting upon his belief in having the understanding. >>Whether he is then required to disclose such agreement >>will depend upon whether opponents may reasonably >>be expected to understand the meaning. We are talking >>about the actions of two players, not one. The AC then >>requires to be persuaded the Director has got it wrong >>if the ruling is not to be supported. >> > > The trouble with a general rule like this is it is subject to a lot of > exceptions, so is it really helpful? > Yes it is, once you know the exceptions. Below is one. > For example, I am called to the table to play because a player's > partner has been taken to hospital. There is no time for any > discussion, and I pick up 13 HCP and a balanced hand. Since I am in > England I open 1NT, and partner responds 2C. > > Now, I have *no* agreement with partner, and I have to guess. For the > TD to rule we have an agreement because I guess Stayman, and that > happens to be right, seems the wrong approach. > Why? You say you are in England, so you guess NT 12-14. If you were playng against me, you would disclose this, wouldn't you? And both you and you partner are aware of the likelyness of 2Cl being stayman, aren't you? I am not and to me this story seems very strange. In Belgium, 2Cl canNOT be anything else. > It is correct that we should take notice of the correctness of guesses > but to quote a rule because of it is not the correct approach. Whyever not ? Aren't we here to give people some simple rules to cling to? Add an "in general" to the rule and it becomes quite helpful. > > reminds me of self-serving statements: people who say they are to be > ignored are wrong [and fortunately TDs and ACs do not follow this > advice]. However, the fact that they are self-serving should be > considered when looking at evidence. > > I am happy with a rule that advises a TD to look carefully at the > evidence when a correct guess follows a statement that there is no > agreement but to go further than that is misguided. > > -- 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 Jul 13 22:15:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6DCEwb08517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 22:14:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6DCEqH08513 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 22:14:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6DC0l014782 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 13:00:47 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 13:00 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: DWS wrote: > >I assume this means that an adjustment for the OS may still be in > order. >After all it was the "corrector" who was required by law > (75d2) to call >the TD - not the NOS. > > *Everyone* was required to call the TD. L9B1A and L9B1B cover this. David please read what I wrote. I said we should still be giving an adjustment against the OS, not for the NOS, in cases where the adjustment involves the "final call". The requirement to call the TD in L75d2 comes *before* attention is drawn to the infraction. In cases where the adjustment depends on earlier action (eg a player being unable to make a lead directing double due to the lack of alert) I see no reason not to adjust for both sides at the end of the hand - surely this would be the same adjustment as if the TD had been called, established that no change of call was desired, and then called back after play. > On the next board, the scenario is much the same, except the contract > goes off. At T1 the contract is doubled: at T2 and T3 the players ask > for a ruling at the end. > > Now, if we follow the Willner/West-meads approach, they will give such > an adjustment, and the players who follow the laws will lose > occasionally, and *never* gain, and the players who do not call the > Director, either through ignorance [T2] or bad ethics [T3] will *never* > lose. I can't speak for Steve but I would indeed adjust (for OS only) at T2/3. Otherwise it is they who have gained by not calling the TD. I have some sympathy with Steve since I would like to have the freedom to adjust for NOS if I think that an experienced player (knowing he should call the TD himself) used gamesmanship to prevent a novice from calling the TD at the proper time. I would expect to exercise such freedom *extremely* infrequently. 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 Jul 14 05:20:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6DJJGI08697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jul 2002 05:19:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6DJJBH08693 for ; Sun, 14 Jul 2002 05:19:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g6DJ53p01744; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 15:05:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 14:56:44 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling To: David Stevenson , 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 7/13/02, David Stevenson wrote: > I was disappointed by the response - a single reply. Perhaps it is >not as interesting as I thought. I was waiting to see what others said, as I'm not confident of my judgement in these cases. One thing does strike me: you pointed out that North would have made 4H had he drawn trumps. It would seem, then, that he was damaged by his own error in play, rather than by any failure to alert. So why give him a favorable adjustment? 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 Jul 14 07:04:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6DL3oD08736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jul 2002 07:03:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6DL3jH08732 for ; Sun, 14 Jul 2002 07:03:45 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 3207 invoked by uid 504); 13 Jul 2002 20:49:36 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.036472 secs); 13 Jul 2002 20:49:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.246) by 0 with SMTP; 13 Jul 2002 20:49:35 -0000 Message-ID: <00d601c22aae$439af4e0$f616b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020705140231.00a62d30@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] 1NT overcall is...? Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 08:45:42 +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: "Alain Gottcheiner" > Also, you should take into account the added pressure from 'Fert' bids. > Their main interest is to create havoc in opponents' bidding, including > misunderstandings, so you shouldn't be severe when it happens. In > particular, 'convention disruption' should never be invoked here. > (Don't think I dislike Ferts up to the point where I want their opponents > to be protected. I've played a Fert 1D more than 10 years, before it was > banned at the non-expert level. But my experience tells me that > misunderstandings by the opponents verge to the unavoidable, thus should > not be taken as an offence). If is not the misunderstanding that is the offense it is the blatant use of UI that is the problem. I am with Richard that these violations should be punished more consistently. 7c -1 seems reasonable. "the most unfavourable result that was at all probable" Blatant uses of UI are a form of cheating. However I would penalize only when a pattern was established. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 15 09:45:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6ENhJd09423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:43:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6ENgvH09406 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:42:58 +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 17TsnB-0004UI-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 00:28:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 22:33:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling References: <+BfhAhAvcqL9Ewzd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004d01c229a6$3388aba0$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 David Stevenson writes > No, it appears that your software has a deficiency I did not realise. >My question is answered - I shall go back to sleep and play with the >kitten [if he comes out from under the bookcase]. He has spent all today wailing for his mother [and some of the time purring as well]. Fortunately I was 100miles away chatting to Grattan, Robin Barker and others. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 15 09:45:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6ENhDT09422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:43:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6ENgvH09404 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:42:58 +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 17TsnB-0004UE-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 00:28:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 22:31:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling References: <001b01c2297f$63f23bc0$2714e150@dodona> <0hyjYWAZbqL9EwR0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00c101c2299f$94a0cbe0$4b242850@pacific> <3D2FDA56.7040405@skynet.be> In-Reply-To: <3D2FDA56.7040405@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, you are making the common mistake yet again. > >You take a statement by someone, and read it as general, when that >person only intended it as partly general. You then construct a >counterexample, and by showing that it is wrong try and make out that >the general statement is wrong. I think you should start by reading what you are replying to. There was a general statement. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 15 09:45:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6ENhDc09420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:43:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6ENgvH09407 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:42:58 +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 17TsnB-0004UM-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 00:28:49 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 22:37:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >DWS wrote: > >> >I assume this means that an adjustment for the OS may still be in >> order. >After all it was the "corrector" who was required by law >> (75d2) to call >the TD - not the NOS. >> >> *Everyone* was required to call the TD. L9B1A and L9B1B cover this. > >David please read what I wrote. I said we should still be giving an >adjustment against the OS, not for the NOS, in cases where the adjustment >involves the "final call". The requirement to call the TD in L75d2 comes >*before* attention is drawn to the infraction. > >In cases where the adjustment depends on earlier action (eg a player being >unable to make a lead directing double due to the lack of alert) I see no >reason not to adjust for both sides at the end of the hand - surely this >would be the same adjustment as if the TD had been called, established >that no change of call was desired, and then called back after play. Of course. Nothing I have written in the last few articles has been about anything but the last call by the NOS. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 15 09:45:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6ENhD209421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:43:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6ENgvH09405 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:42:58 +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 17TsnB-0004UL-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 00:28:49 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 22:35:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >On 7/13/02, David Stevenson wrote: > >> I was disappointed by the response - a single reply. Perhaps it is >>not as interesting as I thought. > >I was waiting to see what others said, as I'm not confident of my >judgement in these cases. One thing does strike me: you pointed out that >North would have made 4H had he drawn trumps. It would seem, then, that >he was damaged by his own error in play, rather than by any failure to >alert. So why give him a favorable adjustment? Why not? He was partly disadvantaged by taking the wrong line, true. Making 4H would still not have been as good as 2S**-5. But we do not deny a player redress because he took a wrong line, do we? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 15 12:59:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6F2wxZ09525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 12:59:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from radius.thenet.co.nz (radius.thenet.co.nz [202.50.167.31]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6F2wtH09521 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 12:58:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip210-55-104-174.thenet.win.co.nz ([210.55.104.174] helo=oemcomputer) by radius.thenet.co.nz with smtp (Exim 3.22 #2) id 17TwoX-0005ir-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:46:21 +1200 Message-ID: <002601c22ba9$5eca9f80$ae6837d2@oemcomputer> From: "Ray Crowe" To: Subject: [BLML] Declarer's revoke Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:43:12 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0023_01C22C0D.F241F100" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C22C0D.F241F100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This happened (by a junior) at the club the other night. Spades are trumps. Declarer ruffs a heart, then leads the AH to the next = trick. At this point, the director was called.=20 As I read Laws 63 and 64, it occurred to me that maybe the "Scope and = Interpretation of the Laws' as defined in the Lawbook (---and I quote = "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, = but rather as redress for damage") was not fully intended to be applied = to this situation of inadvertent play. It seems rather harsh. Surely, as there is no damage to the NOS, it would be fair and proper = for the laws to allow the Declarer to correct the revoke here without = penalty (i.e. win the previous trick with the AH and lead the trump to = the next trick) without having to go through the process of playing the = hand out and then having to suffer a penalty as well. Also, as there was no U/I, nor advantage to the O/S, allowing a revoke = in this situation to be corrected without penalty, would not affect = equity (a law similar, and with the same intent of Law 62D1, could solve = this). Regards, Ray. ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C22C0D.F241F100 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This happened (by a junior) at the club = the other=20 night.
 
Spades are trumps. Declarer ruffs a = heart, then=20 leads the AH to the next trick. At this point, the director was called.=20
 
As I read Laws 63 and 64, it occurred = to me that=20 maybe the "Scope and Interpretation of the Laws' as defined in the = Lawbook=20 (---and I quote "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for=20 irregularities, but rather as redress for damage") was not fully = intended=20 to be applied to this situation of  inadvertent play. It seems = rather=20 harsh.
 
Surely, as there is no damage to the = NOS, it=20 would be fair and proper for the laws to allow the Declarer to correct = the=20 revoke here without penalty (i.e. win the previous trick with the AH and = lead=20 the trump to the next trick) without having to go through the process of = playing=20 the hand out and then having to suffer a penalty as well.
 
Also, as there was no U/I, nor = advantage to the=20 O/S, allowing a revoke in this situation to be corrected without = penalty, would=20 not affect equity (a law similar, and with the same intent of Law 62D1, = could=20 solve this).
 
Regards,
 
Ray.
 
 
 
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C22C0D.F241F100-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 15 13:41:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6F3fOW09552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:41:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6F3fGH09548 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:41:16 +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 NAA20634 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:42:16 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:22:45 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:26:47 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 15/07/2002 01:22:26 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: [snip] >>However, in the stem case which started this thread, >>it is possible that further evidence might convince me >>that East-West's system created an implicit agreement >>that redouble was two-way; either takeout OR penalties. David Stevenson replied: > Perhaps you could explain this because it seems silly >to me. Perhaps I have missed something. > > You get a poor pair, who have not played together >long. You get a sequence they have never discussed, nor >are likely to, and has no obvious similar sequences. > > How do you get an implicit agreement that they are >playing a convention that they have never heard of? The further evidence "not played together long" is just the evidence I needed to confirm my initial "no agreement" ruling and disprove the validity of a "two- way agreement" alternative ruling. * * * However, how would you rule in the case of the pair Humpty Dumpty and Alice? On Hand 1, Humpty Dumpty redoubles after an obscure bidding sequence. Alice does not alert, because she has no agreement with Humpty Dumpty what the redouble means. At the end of the play, Alice discovers that Humpty Dumpty intended the redouble as penalties. On Hand 2, Humpty Dumpty redoubles after an identical obscure bidding sequence. Alice does not alert, because she now has an implicit agreement with Humpty Dumpty that the redouble is penalties, and therefore non-alertable. At the end of the play, Alice discovers that Humpty Dumpty intended the redouble as takeout. "When I make a redouble," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make a redouble mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all." On Hand 3, Humpty Dumpty redoubles after a further identical obscure bidding sequence. *Now* Alice alerts, since she *now* has an agreement with Humpty Dumpty that the redouble is two-way, either takeout or penalties. Were Alice's non-alerts appropriate on Hand 1 and Hand 2? Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 15 14:03:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6F42FF09595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:02:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6F42AH09591 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:02:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA24115 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:03:10 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:43:39 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Declarer's revoke To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:47:41 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 15/07/2002 01:43:19 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g6F42BH09592 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ray Crowe wrote: [snip] >Spades are trumps. Declarer ruffs a heart, then leads the AH >to the next trick. At this point, the director was called. [snip] >Surely, as there is no damage to the NOS, it would be fair >and proper for the laws to allow the Declarer to correct the >revoke here without penalty [snip] Despite the idiosyncratic timing of the revoke, the line has to be drawn *somewhere* as to whether or not a revoke is established. Due to the frequency of revokes, uniform equity adjustment of revokes (instead of mechanical rulings) would be impractical in terms of a TD's time in large events. It would also be impractical in small events with playing TDs. However, the Danish proposal to make mechanical revoke penalties always one trick instead of sometimes two tricks in the 2005 Laws, would be more equitable to the OS. (And the NOS would still be fully protected under L64C.) 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 Jul 15 14:24:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6F4Nx509616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:23:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6F4NtH09612 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:23:55 +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 OAA27868 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:24:55 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:05:24 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:09:26 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 15/07/2002 02:05:04 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: [snip] >I doubt that the conflict would be a problem, >though: the specific law, L75D2, should take >precedence over the general law, L9B1a. [snip] As I am a logical purist, I would suggest that in the 2005 Laws all conflicting Laws should cross-reference each other; and all conflicting Laws should specifically state which Law takes precedence. 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 Jul 15 15:11:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6F5Aao09642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:10:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6F5AWH09638 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:10:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA05965 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:11:32 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:52:02 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:56:05 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 15/07/2002 02:51:42 PM 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] >My point has been all along that if there really >is NO partnership agreement, at all, then saying >so is of course not MI. I agree! Herman, welcome to the Edgar Kaplan school. :-) >But I believe such cases are as rare as ... well >not white ravens, let's say white rhinos. Different estimates of relative frequency are not a matter of Law. It is possible that my estimate of relative frequency is skewed by the high ethics of Canberra experts. In Canberra, it is unprecedented for an expert to falsely claim a call is "undiscussed", when the truth is "discussed, but I don't want to tell you". 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 Jul 15 15:23:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6F5NLd09660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:23:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6F5NGH09656 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:23:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g6F595p15982; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 01:09:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 00:59:51 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling To: David Stevenson 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 7/14/02, David Stevenson wrote: >Why not? Heh. See below. >He was partly disadvantaged by taking the wrong line, true. Making 4H >would still not have been as good as 2S**-5. Ah. I see now. I think. > But we do not deny a player redress because he took a wrong line, do >we? We do if the error breaks the connection between the damage and the infraction. Don't we? If 4H was a *better* result than he could have gotten absent the infraction, then that would be the case. Or so I thought when I made my post. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 15 16:47:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6F6kLx09716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:46:21 +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 g6F6kHH09712 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:46:17 +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 QAA23342 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:47:16 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:27:46 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:31:49 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 15/07/2002 04:27:26 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g6F6kIH09713 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: [snip] >a booklet in PDF format available from > >http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws_publications.asp [snip] How would you rule on this deal from the booklet? Best wishes Richard * * * APPEAL No 30: I am taking it as penalties Tournament Director: David Stevenson Note by editor: Appeal withdrawn when it was found that it could not affect result of match Knockout teams Board no 15 Dealer South N/S vulnerable AQJ10 Q K964 A932 --- K8763 AJ832 6 QJ87 10532 K754 J108 9542 K109754 A Q6 Basic systems: North-South play Blue Club East-West play 5 card majors WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 2D! (1) 2H Dbl(2) Pass Pass Pass (1) Alerted, Multi (2) Asked: described as "I am taking it as penalties" Result at table: 2H doubled -4 by West, NS +800 Director first called: At end of hand Director's statement of facts: As opening lead made North corrected explanation of double: it was asking South to pass with hearts, bid otherwise. East claimed that with a correct explanation either he or his partner might have removed. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 15 16:54:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6F6raF09747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:53:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6F6rVH09743 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:53:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-45611.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.50.43]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6F6dKZ13453 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 08:39:20 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D326E88.1000504@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 08:41:12 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school 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: > Herman De Wael wrote: > > [snip] > > >>My point has been all along that if there really >>is NO partnership agreement, at all, then saying >>so is of course not MI. >> > > I agree! Herman, welcome to the Edgar Kaplan > school. :-) > Well, I don't really see what Kaplan has to do with it. > >>But I believe such cases are as rare as ... well >>not white ravens, let's say white rhinos. >> > > Different estimates of relative frequency are not > a matter of Law. > Indeed. > It is possible that my estimate of relative > frequency is skewed by the high ethics of > Canberra experts. In Canberra, it is unprecedented > for an expert to falsely claim a call is > "undiscussed", when the truth is "discussed, but I > don't want to tell you". > Probably you're also skewed by this being mostly among Canberrese, who would probably realize, among themselves, the background to which "undiscussed" refers to. If, in Antwerp, I answer "undiscussed" to a sequence 1NT (p) 2He, then everyone here knows that is a transfer. But if you're visiting me, "undiscussed", while completely true, is still 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 Mon Jul 15 17:29:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6F7T5W09788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 17:29:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mel-rto3.wanadoo.fr (smtp-out-3.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.233]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6F7T0H09784 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 17:29:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from mel-rta7.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.61) by mel-rto3.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D1848E600A97F97; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:14:07 +0200 Received: from olivier (193.250.24.175) by mel-rta7.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D2A78FA002A6E60; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:14:07 +0200 Message-ID: <002801c22bce$fb48ba20$af18fac1@olivier> From: "Olivier Beauvillain" To: "Ray Crowe" , References: <002601c22ba9$5eca9f80$ae6837d2@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Declarer's revoke Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:12:29 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0025_01C22BDF.BE7D9DC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0025_01C22BDF.BE7D9DC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I don't agree, you have to be able to tell when a revoke is established, = anyway, this borderline can be changed. May be we can include that when = Revoquer (and only revoquer) Leads the Revoke_Suit at Next_Trick, the = revoke is not established. What I want to tell is that in your example, if declarer is allowed to = take back his trump to play Ace oh hearts at previous trick, he can play = Whatever_he_wants to next trick because his trump is not a penalty card. = Olivier ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ray Crowe=20 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au=20 Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 4:43 AM Subject: [BLML] Declarer's revoke This happened (by a junior) at the club the other night. =20 Spades are trumps. Declarer ruffs a heart, then leads the AH to the = next trick. At this point, the director was called.=20 =20 As I read Laws 63 and 64, it occurred to me that maybe the "Scope and = Interpretation of the Laws' as defined in the Lawbook (---and I quote = "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, = but rather as redress for damage") was not fully intended to be applied = to this situation of inadvertent play. It seems rather harsh. =20 Surely, as there is no damage to the NOS, it would be fair and proper = for the laws to allow the Declarer to correct the revoke here without = penalty (i.e. win the previous trick with the AH and lead the trump to = the next trick) without having to go through the process of playing the = hand out and then having to suffer a penalty as well. =20 Also, as there was no U/I, nor advantage to the O/S, allowing a revoke = in this situation to be corrected without penalty, would not affect = equity (a law similar, and with the same intent of Law 62D1, could solve = this). =20 Regards, =20 Ray. ------=_NextPart_000_0025_01C22BDF.BE7D9DC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't agree, you have to be able to = tell when a=20 revoke is established, anyway, this borderline can be changed. May be we = can=20 include that when Revoquer (and only revoquer) Leads the Revoke_Suit at=20 Next_Trick, the revoke is not established.
What I want to tell is that in your = example, if=20 declarer is allowed to take back his trump to play Ace oh hearts at = previous=20 trick, he can play Whatever_he_wants to next trick because his trump is = not a=20 penalty card.
Olivier
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ray=20 Crowe
To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au =
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 = 4:43 AM
Subject: [BLML] Declarer's = revoke

This happened (by a junior) at the = club the other=20 night.
 
Spades are trumps. Declarer ruffs a = heart, then=20 leads the AH to the next trick. At this point, the director was = called.=20
 
As I read Laws 63 and 64, it occurred = to me that=20 maybe the "Scope and Interpretation of the Laws' as defined in the = Lawbook=20 (---and I quote "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for = irregularities, but rather as redress for damage") was not fully = intended=20 to be applied to this situation of  inadvertent play. It seems = rather=20 harsh.
 
Surely, as there is no damage to the = NOS, it=20 would be fair and proper for the laws to allow the Declarer to correct = the=20 revoke here without penalty (i.e. win the previous trick with the AH = and lead=20 the trump to the next trick) without having to go through the process = of=20 playing the hand out and then having to suffer a penalty as = well.
 
Also, as there was no U/I, nor = advantage to the=20 O/S, allowing a revoke in this situation to be corrected without = penalty,=20 would not affect equity (a law similar, and with the same intent of = Law 62D1,=20 could solve this).
 
Regards,
 
Ray.
------=_NextPart_000_0025_01C22BDF.BE7D9DC0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 15 19:15:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6F9FBd09833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:15:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6F9F5H09829 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:15:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id KAA07016; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 10:58:32 +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 LAA23777; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:00:54 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020715110659.00a62300@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:09:19 +0200 To: "Wayne Burrows" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] 1NT overcall is...? In-Reply-To: <00d601c22aae$439af4e0$f616b9d2@laptop> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020705140231.00a62d30@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 08:45 14/07/2002 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > > Also, you should take into account the added pressure from 'Fert' bids. > > Their main interest is to create havoc in opponents' bidding, including > > misunderstandings, so you shouldn't be severe when it happens. In > > particular, 'convention disruption' should never be invoked here. > > (Don't think I dislike Ferts up to the point where I want their opponents > > to be protected. I've played a Fert 1D more than 10 years, before it was > > banned at the non-expert level. But my experience tells me that > > misunderstandings by the opponents verge to the unavoidable, thus should > > not be taken as an offence). > >If is not the misunderstanding that is the offense it is the blatant use of >UI that is the problem. AG : there remains to prove that bidding 6C was "blatant use of UI". If it is, you're right in assessing a score of -50. But the UI here was very slight, and I don't want to penalize a pair for merely putting themselves in a mess over a disruptive opening. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 15 19:19:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6F9JRA09845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:19:27 +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 (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6F9JLH09841 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:19:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id LAA08226; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:02:50 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id LAA28234; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:05:12 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020715111235.00a7b510@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:13:38 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling In-Reply-To: <3D2FDA56.7040405@skynet.be> References: <001b01c2297f$63f23bc0$2714e150@dodona> <0hyjYWAZbqL9EwR0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00c101c2299f$94a0cbe0$4b242850@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:44 13/07/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >David, you are making the common mistake yet again. > >You take a statement by someone, and read it as general, when that person >only intended it as partly general. You then construct a counterexample, >and by showing that it is wrong try and make out that the general >statement is wrong. AG : make him read Imre Lakatos' "Proofs and Refutations", where the notions of global counterexample and local counterexample are defined. >But since the statement was only intended to be partly general, that is >not a valid argument. See here: -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 15 19:27:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6F9R8e09858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:27:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6F9R2H09854 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:27:03 +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 LAA10128; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:10:31 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id LAA06104; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:12:53 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020715112002.00a7dbd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:21:19 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school In-Reply-To: <3D326E88.1000504@skynet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:41 15/07/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >>It is possible that my estimate of relative >>frequency is skewed by the high ethics of >>Canberra experts. In Canberra, it is unprecedented >>for an expert to falsely claim a call is >>"undiscussed", when the truth is "discussed, but I >>don't want to tell you". > > >Probably you're also skewed by this being mostly among Canberrese, who >would probably realize, among themselves, the background to which >"undiscussed" refers to. If, in Antwerp, I answer "undiscussed" to a >sequence 1NT (p) 2He, then everyone here knows that is a transfer. But if >you're visiting me, "undiscussed", while completely true, is still MI. > AG : I'd say it's II (incomplete information). The right answer in such a case would be 'undiscussed, thus probably Transfer'. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 15 21:20:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6FBK5s09919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:20:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6FBJwH09915 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:20:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-45611.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.50.43]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6FB5l900467 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:05:47 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D32ACFA.2030907@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:07:38 +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] The Edgar Kaplan school References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020715112002.00a7dbd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 08:41 15/07/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> >> Probably you're also skewed by this being mostly among Canberrese, who >> would probably realize, among themselves, the background to which >> "undiscussed" refers to. If, in Antwerp, I answer "undiscussed" to a >> sequence 1NT (p) 2He, then everyone here knows that is a transfer. But >> if you're visiting me, "undiscussed", while completely true, is still MI. >> > > AG : I'd say it's II (incomplete information). The right answer in such > a case would be 'undiscussed, thus probably Transfer'. > Don't go mincing words Alain, that's Misinformation. There's no such thing as incomplete information in the lawbook. > > > > -- 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 Jul 15 21:28:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6FBSOK09932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:28:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6FBSIH09928 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:28:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-45611.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.50.43]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6FBDx814821 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:13:59 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D32AEE7.6020706@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:15:51 +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] EBU Appeals 2001 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: > > How would you rule on this deal from the > booklet? > > Best wishes > > Richard > > * * * > > APPEAL No 30: I am taking it as penalties > > Tournament Director: > David Stevenson > > Note by editor: > Appeal withdrawn when it was found that it could > not affect result of match > > Knockout teams > Board no 15 > Dealer South > N/S vulnerable > > AQJ10 > Q > K964 > A932 > --- K8763 > AJ832 6 > QJ87 10532 > K754 J108 > 9542 > K109754 > A > Q6 > Basic systems: > North-South play Blue Club > East-West play 5 card majors > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 2D! (1) > 2H Dbl(2) Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Alerted, Multi > (2) Asked: described as "I am taking it as penalties" > > Result at table: > 2H doubled -4 by West, NS +800 > > Director first called: > At end of hand > > Director's statement of facts: > As opening lead made North corrected explanation of > double: it was asking South to pass with hearts, bid > otherwise. > > East claimed that with a correct explanation either he > or his partner might have removed. > Misinformation. Damage ? West has no damage - whether it is North or South who doubles for penalties does not matter. East is told that North has a penalty double. And he does not remove. The correct information is that North has points and asks South to He make it a penalty double if he has trumps. East is told that trumps are 2-5 (from his point of view). The correct information tells him that trumps are 6-1 or that South has spades. IMO the option that South will not let the double stand is enough compensation for the bad trump fit that is undoubtedly there, perhaps worse with correct information. Besides - run whereto ? I rule no damage. But that's only my personal opinion. > > -- 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 Jul 15 21:35:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6FBZWL09944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 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 imo-m09.mx.aol.com (imo-m09.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.164]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6FBZRH09940 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:35:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.21.) id k.13f.11540f0b (4540); Mon, 15 Jul 2002 07:21:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <13f.11540f0b.2a640a23@aol.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 07:21:07 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: hermandw@skynet.be, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_13f.11540f0b.2a640a23_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_13f.11540f0b.2a640a23_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NIce to get a big hurrah going over something that was withdrawn. However, I can't keep my hands off the keyboard. Are there still TDs out there who believe that the answer to a question about partner's call -- "I'M TAKING IT AS ........." -- is a proper answer? =K= --part1_13f.11540f0b.2a640a23_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NIce to get a big hurrah going over something that was withdrawn.  However, I can't keep my hands off the keyboard.

Are there still TDs out there who believe that the answer to a question about partner's call  --  "I'M TAKING IT AS ........." -- is a proper answer?

=K= --part1_13f.11540f0b.2a640a23_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 15 22:26:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6FCQ2H10035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:26:02 +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 g6FCPwH10031 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:25:58 +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 17U4hh-00060U-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 08:11:49 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020715080632.00afd9c0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 08:13:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:59 AM 7/15/02, Ed wrote: >On 7/14/02, David Stevenson wrote: > > > But we do not deny a player redress because he took a wrong line, do > >we? > >We do if the error breaks the connection between the damage and the >infraction. Don't we? If 4H was a *better* result than he could have >gotten absent the infraction, then that would be the case. Or so I >thought when I made my post. A mere error or misplay does not "break the connection", and therefore, in general, is not grounds for denying redress. The WBF denies redress only if the erroneous action was "wild, irrational or gambling". The ACBL denies redress only if the error was "egregious". These criteria apply only to a tiny percentage of errors. The hand in question doesn't come close to meeting them. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 15 22:27:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6FCRZV10083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:27:35 +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 g6FCRGH10045 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:27:17 +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 17U4is-000FAr-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:13:07 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:32:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >I wrote: > >[snip] > >>>However, in the stem case which started this thread, >>>it is possible that further evidence might convince me >>>that East-West's system created an implicit agreement >>>that redouble was two-way; either takeout OR penalties. > >David Stevenson replied: > >> Perhaps you could explain this because it seems silly >>to me. Perhaps I have missed something. >> >> You get a poor pair, who have not played together >>long. You get a sequence they have never discussed, nor >>are likely to, and has no obvious similar sequences. >> >> How do you get an implicit agreement that they are >>playing a convention that they have never heard of? > >The further evidence "not played together long" is just >the evidence I needed to confirm my initial "no >agreement" ruling and disprove the validity of a "two- >way agreement" alternative ruling. > >* * * > >However, how would you rule in the case of the pair >Humpty Dumpty and Alice? > >On Hand 1, Humpty Dumpty redoubles after an obscure >bidding sequence. Alice does not alert, because she >has no agreement with Humpty Dumpty what the redouble >means. At the end of the play, Alice discovers that >Humpty Dumpty intended the redouble as penalties. > >On Hand 2, Humpty Dumpty redoubles after an identical >obscure bidding sequence. Alice does not alert, >because she now has an implicit agreement with Humpty >Dumpty that the redouble is penalties, and therefore >non-alertable. At the end of the play, Alice discovers >that Humpty Dumpty intended the redouble as takeout. > >"When I make a redouble," Humpty Dumpty said, in a >rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to >mean, neither more nor less." > >"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make a >redouble mean so many different things." > >"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be >master - that's all." > >On Hand 3, Humpty Dumpty redoubles after a further >identical obscure bidding sequence. *Now* Alice alerts, >since she *now* has an agreement with Humpty Dumpty that >the redouble is two-way, either takeout or penalties. > >Were Alice's non-alerts appropriate on Hand 1 and Hand 2? They sound fine to me. But this method is extremely rare. It is not something that really needs to be considered outside Wonderland, especially by a normal pair. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 15 22:27:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6FCRY810082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 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-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 g6FCRGH10044 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:27:16 +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 17U4is-000FAp-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:13:06 +0100 Message-ID: <1xjjM6AARqM9EwoY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:30:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >On 7/14/02, David Stevenson wrote: > >>Why not? > >Heh. See below. > >>He was partly disadvantaged by taking the wrong line, true. Making 4H >>would still not have been as good as 2S**-5. > >Ah. I see now. I think. > >> But we do not deny a player redress because he took a wrong line, do >>we? > >We do if the error breaks the connection between the damage and the >infraction. Don't we? If 4H was a *better* result than he could have >gotten absent the infraction, then that would be the case. Or so I >thought when I made my post. An error does not break the connection. Are you suggesting that you are in a contract that you would not have been in if the oppos had not committed an infraction, and if you take a finesse the wrong way, you will not get redress if taking it the right way means no damage? If you make a really bad stupid error, and it is considered worse than a certain level, then you are denied redress. The level is an egregious error in the ACBL, wild or gambling action so as to suggest at least the possibility of a double shot in England/Wales, irrational, wild or gambling action in most other places. Taking the wrong line in his contract does not meet any of these criteria. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 15 22:27:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6FCRZp10084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:27:35 +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 g6FCRHH10052 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:27:18 +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 17U4is-000FAt-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:13:09 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:41:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Declarer's revoke References: <002601c22ba9$5eca9f80$ae6837d2@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <002601c22ba9$5eca9f80$ae6837d2@oemcomputer> 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 g6FCRMH10055 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ray Crowe writes > This happened (by a junior) at the club the other night. >   > Spades are trumps. Declarer ruffs a heart, then leads the AH to the > next trick. At this point, the director was called. >   > As I read Laws 63 and 64, it occurred to me that maybe the "Scope > and Interpretation of the Laws' as defined in the Lawbook (---and I > quote "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for > irregularities, but rather as redress for damage") was not fully > intended to be applied to this situation of  inadvertent play. It > seems rather harsh. Where is that FAQ? This is another one that comes up regularly! First, when quoting the Scope please do not forget the word 'primarily': there are secondary considerations, like preventing cheating, making life easier for players and Directors, making the game enjoyable for people. *All* of these are relevant to the revoke Law. Second, if you do not have automatic penalties for revokes then you will get a new form of abuse [actually, a very old form that has died out, but will re-emerge], namely that people will revoke deliberately [sorry, I mean accidentally, but quite often when it looks the best chance]. If there is no automatic penalty then it will cost nothing - you cannot lose by it. Third, if you do not have automatic penalties for revokes then you will have great difficulties getting any TDs for clubs. Club TDs have very little competence [with a few exceptions, like the ones who read BLML!] but fortunately club duplicates turn up very few judgement rulings. You get OLOOTs, COOTs, scoring errors and revokes - nothing much else. The moment you take away automatic penalties for revokes then you make revokes into judgement rulings and you make a club TD's life unbearable. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 16 02:41:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6FGedi10251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 02:40:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6FGeYH10247 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 02:40:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.40.24.9] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17U8lA-0004ub-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 17:31:40 +0100 Message-ID: <001f01c22c1c$1843d400$09182850@pacific> From: To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3D32AEE7.6020706@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 17:24:09 +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 Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 12:15 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > > > > > > East claimed that with a correct explanation > > either he or his partner might have removed. > > +=+ East's rather stupid suggestion will not wash.+=+ > > Misinformation. > +=+ Yes. +=+ > > Damage ? > +=+ I would be inclined to ask a question or two about the stupid suggestion; if EW showed signs of accepting it was just that, said in the heat of the moment maybe, I would be thinking whether one could justify setting the score at 2Hx-3, or allowing some proportion thereof. Of course, they make it more difficult for the AC to look at that if they are hell bent on changing the contract. ~ 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 Jul 16 05:10:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6FJABl10413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 05:10:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6FJA6H10409 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 05:10:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.153.138]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020715185555.RIWY290.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:55:55 +0100 Message-ID: <007201c22c31$4afadf50$8a9968d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <200207041742.NAA06805@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00dd01c2238d$90859670$7afef1c3@LNV> Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:56:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Snipped from another thread...] Steve said: > Of course there can still be a debate about where to draw the line > between "normal" and "irrational," but equating "normal" to "any legal > play" is going much too far. Ton Kooijman: That is mildly said, I would call it irrational. Nigel: At most Bridge clubs, "normal" would include "illegal" as well as "irrational" or perhaps Humpty Dumpty should be commissioned to write a glossary for the new edition of the laws. [an unfortunate omission from Orwell's 1984 edition] Nigel: It is difficult to argue about law changes until there is some consensus on what the current law means and how it is to be interpreted in the simplest practical cases. Judging by BLML discussions, we are far from that. Nigel: Rather than leaving BLML members in endless dispute and Bridge players at large in the soup, the Laws committee should rush out an interim edition of the Laws -- without major improvement -- but with clarifications and simplifications to remove the most obvious redundancies, contradictions, and ambiguities. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 01/07/2002 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 16 06:02:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6FK24K10452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 06:02:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (nuser.dybdal.dk [62.242.254.78]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6FK1xH10448 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 06:02:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 7129C10706F for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:47:49 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:47:49 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <0e96jugqu5ltqt1vv7pts2dvm8p8hrhdhl@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: 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 g6FK21H10449 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:09:26 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >[snip] > >>I doubt that the conflict would be a problem, >>though: the specific law, L75D2, should take >>precedence over the general law, L9B1a. > >[snip] > >As I am a logical purist, I would suggest that >in the 2005 Laws all conflicting Laws should >cross-reference each other; and all conflicting >Laws should specifically state which Law takes >precedence. They should indeed. But I am afraid that it will be difficult - in practice impossible - to ensure that they do. -- 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 Tue Jul 16 08:50:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6FMnKf10547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:49:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6FMnGH10543 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:49:16 +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 IAA28416 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:50:16 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:30:46 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's try a ruling To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:34:43 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 16/07/2002 08:30:24 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: [snip] >>"When I make a redouble," Humpty Dumpty said, in a >>rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to >>mean, neither more nor less." >> >>"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make a >>redouble mean so many different things." >> >>"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be >>master - that's all." >> >>On Hand 3, Humpty Dumpty redoubles after a further >>identical obscure bidding sequence. *Now* Alice alerts, >>since she *now* has an agreement with Humpty Dumpty that >>the redouble is two-way, either takeout or penalties. >> >>Were Alice's non-alerts appropriate on Hand 1 and Hand 2? David Stevenson replied: > They sound fine to me. > > But this method is extremely rare. It is not something >that really needs to be considered outside Wonderland, >especially by a normal pair. I agree that the specific case of two-way redoubles is extremely rare. But many bridge players believe that the question about Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle is merely the question about whether they or Aristotle are "to be the master". Those players frequently make calls that "mean just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less". Examples: 4C = clubs OR Gerber; Double = takeout OR penalty; (1C opening) - 2C "Michaels" = majors OR clubs; 4NT = invitational OR Blackwood; 5NT = signoff OR Blackwood for kings. 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 Jul 16 11:23:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6G1LSr10681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:21:28 +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 g6G1LNH10677 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:21:23 +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 LAA24905 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:22:22 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:02:51 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:57:46 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 16/07/2002 11:02:29 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g6G1LOH10678 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: >>Nice to get a big hurrah going over something that >>was withdrawn.  However, I can't keep my hands off >>the keyboard. >> >>Are there still TDs out there who believe that the >>answer to a question about partner's call  --  "I'M >>TAKING IT AS ........." -- is a proper answer? >> >>=K= Definitely not a proper answer in the EBU. Under Appeal No 7 in the casebook is this quote: >The Orange book is the EBU Handbook of Directives. >3.4.3 says: > >Explain only your partnership agreement: if you do >not know the meaning of your partner's call, or you >have no agreement, you must not say how you intend >to interpret it. 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 Jul 16 14:27:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6G4Qnc10750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 14:26:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6G4QjH10746 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 14:26:45 +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 OAA28697 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 14:27:43 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 14:08:11 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 14:03:31 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 16/07/2002 02:07:49 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g6G4QkH10747 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A number of interesting issues are raised by the appeal below. One of them is whether the EBU anti-fielding regulation is legal. The reg appears to contradict L12C2. Or can a reg made under L40B overrule L12C2? Should the 2005 Laws have a prioritised hierarchy of Laws specifically listed upfront? Best wishes Richard * * * APPEAL No 10: Should a player always double? Tournament Director: Dave Armstrong Appeals Committee: Tim Rees (Chairman) Alan Nelson John Holland Swiss Pairs Board no 19 Dealer South E/W vulnerable Q82 AJ10 J954 753 10653 J4 K654 Q982 K862 AQ2 8 AK94 AK97 73 107 QJ1062 Basic systems: North-South play Acol East-West play Acol WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass 1H(1) 1NT 2C Pass Pass Pass (1) Psyche Result at table: 2C -1 by South, NS -50 Director first called: At end of hand Director's statement of facts: TD was asked to record a psyche by North. After TD recorded the hand TD asked why South had not doubled and she had no explanation. TD ruled the psyche 'Red' and adjusted the score. At this point South started saying that TD and the ruling were ridiculous. TD warned her that the arguments were over and the proper course was to appeal. N/S said they wished to. Director's ruling: Artificial score awarded: 30% to N/S, average plus to E/W Note by editor: In the EBU when a psyche is adjudged to be fielded it is described as 'Red', the board is cancelled, there is an adjustment of average plus to the non- offenders, average minus to the offenders, and a further penalty of at least a standard fine to the offenders. The correct fine in Swiss Pairs is 0.5 VP (or more) rather than a percentage of a top. Appeal lodged by: North-South Appeals Committee decision: Director's ruling upheld Artificial score awarded: Average minus to N/S, average plus to E/W, 0.5 VP penalty to N/S Deposit returned Appeals Committee's comments: Although South had no intent to field the psyche, she has selected an option which would result in a better result opposite a psyche. As North has psyched the 2C is deemed to have fielded it. The director should have ruled 40/60 with a ½ VP fine. David Stevenson's comments: This seems the traditional position for a fielded psyche. South has a routine double, and failure to make it is allowing for partner to be the one without his bid. Of course, that may not be her intent, but if she does not double and finds partner has psyched then there is an apparent breach of the Laws. Laurie Kelso's comments: This ruling is a function of the EBU regulations regarding the fielding of psyches. South's action (in bidding 2C, rather than doubling) fulfils the criteria laid down and hence it becomes mandatory to award an artificial adjusted score. The Director's error in expressing the penalty as a matchpoint percentage rather than VPs might have been corrected before the Committee examined the case. Herman De Wael's comments: I have too little experience with English bidding styles and psyching regulations to be able to comment. Matthias Berghaus' comments: The AC said about everything there is to say. The TD was generous not to give a disciplinary penalty. Whether South suspected a psyche or not seems to be immaterial in the EBU (not a bad regulation in my eyes), so the amended ruling is automatic. Fearghal O'Boyle's comments: This looks like your classic 'field'. So you apply the EBU regulation as the AC did. Ron Johnson's comments: Fielding a psyche or just plain poor judgement? If South leads her suit I like their chances of beating 1NT. Further, West shows a curious lack of enterprise. I guess none of that matters given how the EBU's regulations are crafted. I happen to disagree strongly with the regulations, but it's important that they be enforced. The absolute worst thing an appeals committee can do is make up rules or to try and circumvent rules they happen to disagree with. Editor's comments: This seems to be the example that might be quoted in a TD Guide of how to deal with a fielded psyche. Laws & Ethics Committee's comments: The L&E confirmed the Red classification of the following psyche from the Brighton Summer Congress. Mr Fleet had raise the question of whether it was justifiable to deem an action "abnormal" if the alternative, normal, action would not have been considered to be an option by the player concerned. The L&E was satisfied that such considerations did not apply to the present case, comments attributed to the South player along the lines of "I have doubled before on a 10-count; partner was weak and it made" being entirely sufficient to justify a Red classification. In principle the test is objective in the sense that a player's intention will not be taken into account, but the standard of the player will be taken into account where relevant. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 16 17:51:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6G7p5L10831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:51:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6G7oxH10827 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:50:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g6G7ajf25556 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:36:46 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Jul 16 09:32:09 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KK5P5ZMDX80017R8@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:36:30 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <3YRDM5HB>; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:36:00 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:36:25 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? To: "'Jesper Dybdal'" , Bridge Laws List Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills: > > >Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > >[snip] > > > >>I doubt that the conflict would be a problem, > >>though: the specific law, L75D2, should take > >>precedence over the general law, L9B1a. > > > >[snip] > > > >As I am a logical purist, I am too, with a touch of pragmatism too keep (the laws) working. I missed this thread. Could you explain to me why you think that 9B1a and 75D2 are conflicting? ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 16 18:12:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6G8C6G10853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 18:12:06 +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 g6G8C0H10849 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 18:12:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6G7vn614528 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:57:49 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:57 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: > A number of interesting issues are raised by > the appeal below. > > One of them is whether the EBU anti-fielding > regulation is legal. The reg appears to > contradict L12C2. It should be illegal, but the EBU is on a crusade to eliminate psyching from the game and the WBF will allow any corruption of the laws if it is crafted to fit the words of law 40. > * * * > > APPEAL No 10: Should a player always double? > > Tournament Director: > Dave Armstrong > > Appeals Committee: > Tim Rees (Chairman) Alan Nelson John Holland > > Swiss Pairs > Board no 19 > Dealer South > E/W vulnerable > > Q82 > AJ10 > J954 > 753 > 10653 J4 > K654 Q982 > K862 AQ2 > 8 AK94 > AK97 > 73 > 107 > QJ1062 > > Basic systems: > North-South play Acol > East-West play Acol > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass > Pass 1H(1) 1NT 2C > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Psyche > > Result at table: > 2C -1 by South, NS -50 What makes it worse is the fact that the law is apparently applied by people so lacking in any degree of bridge judgement. Q8 AKJ102 J54 753 10653 J42 654 Q98 K9862 AQ2 8 AK94 AK97 73 107 QJ1062 Here we have a hand where North has a perfectly respectable 1H 3rd in hand opener. 1NTx is a complete laydown and they regard 2C as an "abnormal" bid! So they deem this layout "completely unexpected" on the given auction. If that is the judgement shown by top English players at the table I suppose it is no surprise that our team has limited success at international level. I would expect decent players to consider X and 2C as reasonable options, to the extent that were this a UI case with the X of 1N suggested I would be preparing a stern lecture for the person who didn't bid 2C! Thus the EBU policy is actually "Any successful choice of call after a psyche will be ruled illegal". Still, it seems highly likely I will be up in front of the AC for psyching during the forthcoming Brighton congress - something for us all to look forward to. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 16 19:08:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6G97t410878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:07:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from heimdal.softco.dk (heimdal.softco.dk [80.199.79.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6G97oH10874 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:07:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from JD.i.softco.dk (jd.i.softco.dk [10.160.1.46]) by heimdal.softco.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 6688C31E713; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:53:38 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Kooijman, A." Cc: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: [BLML] Time limit for calling TD for MI? Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:53:38 +0200 Organization: Softco Message-ID: References: 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 g6G97qH10875 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:36:25 +0200, "Kooijman, A." wrote: > richard.hills: >> >> >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> > >> >[snip] >> > >> >>I doubt that the conflict would be a problem, >> >>though: the specific law, L75D2, should take >> >>precedence over the general law, L9B1a. >> > >> >[snip] >> > >> >As I am a logical purist, > > >I am too, with a touch of pragmatism too keep (the laws) working. >I missed this thread. Could you explain to me why you think that 9B1a and >75D2 are conflicting? They are not conflicting. But if the DBF's proposal for a change to L75D2 (http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L75D2) is accepted, then it will be in conflict with an unchanged L9B1a - and that was the context of the words quoted above. (I had not considered that conflict when we wrote the proposal, and I suspect that to be the case also for the other contributors to the proposal.) -- 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 Tue Jul 16 19:08:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6G98i910890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:08:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6G98cH10882 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:08:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-46842.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.54.250]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6G8sFH17180 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:54:15 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D33DFA8.4090808@skynet.be> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:56:08 +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] EBU Appeals 2001 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: > > Definitely not a proper answer in the EBU. Under > Appeal No 7 in the casebook is this quote: > > >>The Orange book is the EBU Handbook of Directives. >>3.4.3 says: >> >>Explain only your partnership agreement: if you do >>not know the meaning of your partner's call, or you >>have no agreement, you must not say how you intend >>to interpret it. >> > What a silly advice is that ! I can (reluctantly) agree with the "if you have no agreement" bit, but the "if you don't know" bit ? Consider this : You know partner is trying to say something, you remember that this situation is in your system notes. But you cannot remember what the meaning exactly is. What do you do ? Three possibilities : either you say "I don't remember". This is UI to partner and MI to opponents. or you guess it is A (let's say that is wrong) and you say "it is A". This is UI to partner and MI to opponents, and in addition you will have a bad result because you misinterpreted. or you guess (correctly) that it is B and you say "it is B". This is no UI and no MI, and you get a normal bridge result. Saying "it is .." can only win and never lose. So why would you want to say "I don't remember". Silly advice. > 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 Tue Jul 16 20:28:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6GARob10956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 20:27:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6GARiH10952 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 20:27:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g6GADWf27773 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:13:33 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Jul 16 12:08:57 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KK5UNGYOXY001958@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:13:22 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <3YRDNCJD>; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:12:52 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:13:10 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Wish list To: "'Nigel Guthrie'" , BLML Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > [Snipped from another thread...] > Steve said: > > Of course there can still be a debate about where to draw the line > > between "normal" and "irrational," but equating "normal" to > "any legal > > play" is going much too far. > > Ton Kooijman: > That is mildly said, I would call it irrational. > > Nigel: > At most Bridge clubs, "normal" would include "illegal" as > well as "irrational" > or perhaps Humpty Dumpty should be commissioned > to write a glossary for the new edition of the laws. > [an unfortunate omission from Orwell's 1984 edition] > You are not telling me that those bridge clubs do use a reasonable interpretation of the laws, are you? Most bridgeclubs probably let revokes unpunished and penalty cards taken back. And if not some TD's will deal with it wrongly. All due to those miserable laws. > Nigel: > It is difficult to argue about law changes until there is > some consensus on what the current law means and how it > is to be interpreted in the simplest practical cases. > Judging by BLML discussions, we are far from that. I agree, may be BLML discussions shouldn't be taken as the right sign for a judgement about the quality of the laws. > > Nigel: > Rather than leaving BLML members in endless dispute and > Bridge players at large in the soup, the Laws committee > should rush out an interim edition of the Laws -- > without major improvement -- but with > clarifications and simplifications to remove the most > obvious redundancies, contradictions, and ambiguities. > > Don't count on it. I am not going to propose this to the LC. We are working on some interpretations given by the LC in recent years, to be added to the laws on the WBF site. David Stevenson is helping us to do so. But this is an endless story, (not) reading all these BLML discussions. I didn't study laws, but some of my friends did and I do remember that an important part of their studies were case studies, where generally accepted decisions (interpretations) were presented as milestones for lawyers, having the status of law. There is nothing like that in our world. We pick up the law book, read for a while, interpret and start being TD. Mind you, our organization is more complex, the whole world being involved. No restricted jurisdiction (as long as Mars isn't invaded). And then on top of it, AC's, not aware of decisions taken somewhere else, or interpretations made, do think to have the authority to give their own interpretation and to torture the world with it. It is not the laws that cause problems it is us. I tell you what I read in an AC decision taken in Salsomaggiore. Not laws itself, but still incredible, in my opinion. A team had won a match with 25 -5 (may be 4)in which a TD-decision was made. That team did appeal the decision and the AC found this bad sportsmanship, having won the maximum VP's already. Remarkable isn't it? New approach of sportsmanship, related to laws as 72 and 74, made by three people on a late afternoon. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 16 23:45:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6GDi7o11119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 23:44:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6GDi2H11115 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 23:44:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-46842.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.54.250]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6GDSqH03201 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 15:28:52 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D342004.3000500@skynet.be> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 15:30:44 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: [BLML] Torquay AC ruling Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I just read the following in a bulletin from the European Juniors in Torquay: We (names below) were asked to consider an incident that occurred during the Juniors match between Israel and Italy. During an auction, a variation in tempo by the Italian players was observed by the captain of Israel, who was watching on vu-graph. The Israeli players at the table did not summon the director, nor draw attention to the variation once action had been taken by the Italian players. But, while the match was still in progress, the Israeli captain went to Antonio Riccardi, chief tournament director, and indicated his wish for a ruling in respect of the possible use of unauthorised information. After the match, the Israeli captain spoke to his players, and repeated his request for a ruling. Mr Riccardi did not wish to give a ruling. His view was that attention could not properly be drawn to the possible use of unauthorised information by a spectator, even a non-playing captain; if the players at the table did not summon the director, no irregularity could be considered to have taken place. It is of course possible for rulings to be requested after a match in respect of other irregularities (misexplanations, revokes and so forth), since fresh information may come to light. But the question of tempo is a subjective one, and if nothing untoward is observed at the time by the players at the table, the observations of others are of no consequence. Mr Riccardi therefore refused the Israeli captain's request for a ruling.We had to decide whether he had acted in accordance with the Laws and the Conditions of Contest in so doing. Laws 9 and 16 are clear in terms of stipulating what should happen in the case of irregularities in general and unauthorised information in particular. The director must be summoned when attention is drawn to any irregularity and in the case of unauthorised information, attention should be drawn when a player has substantial reason to believe that information has been both transmitted and acted upon. We agree, in substance, with Mr Riccardi's view that unless the players perceive the transmission and possible use of unauthorised information, no irregularity can be said to have taken place. The Conditions of Contest stipulate that a non-playing captain may act to protect the rights of his team if he believes that they have been jeopardised. But if players of experience (as the players in this case certainly were) do not believe that a violation of Laws 16 and 73 has taken place, then (in effect) it has not - the team does not have any rights to protect in respect of the incident. We were made aware of an incident during the World Junior Championships in Brazil, where an Appeals Committee ruled on a case of unauthorised information. Attention was not drawn to the irregularity by the players at the time, but by the captain, nevertheless, a ruling was given. We could not, however, determine why it was that the Appeals Committee had decided to rule in this case, and did not consider that it established any kind of precedent. We confirm that in our opinion, the chief tournament director has acted in accordance with the Laws and the Conditions of Contest in refusing a request for a ruling in this matter. Steen Moller (Denmark) - Chairman of Appeals David Burn (England) - Chairman, EBU Laws and Ethics Committee Dimitri Ballas (Greece) - Member, Tournament Committee -- 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 Jul 17 00:35:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6GEZKQ11159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 00:35:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f172.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.172]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6GEZFH11155 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 00:35:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 07:21:00 -0700 Received: from 204.52.135.62 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 14:21:00 GMT X-Originating-IP: [204.52.135.62] From: "Roger Pewick" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Torquay AC ruling Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:21:00 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jul 2002 14:21:00.0788 (UTC) FILETIME=[02962B40:01C22CD4] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael >To: Bridge Laws >Subject: [BLML] Torquay AC ruling >Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 15:30:44 +0200 > >I just read the following in a bulletin from the European Juniors in >Torquay: >information in particular. The director must be summoned when >attention is drawn to any irregularity and in the case of unauthorised >information, attention should be drawn when a player >has substantial reason to believe that information has been both >transmitted and acted upon. We agree, in substance, with Mr >Riccardi's view that unless the players perceive the transmission >and possible use of unauthorised information, no irregularity can >be said to have taken place. >Steen Moller (Denmark) - Chairman of Appeals >David Burn (England) - Chairman, EBU Laws and Ethics Committee >Dimitri Ballas (Greece) - Member, Tournament Committee > > >-- >please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be >Herman DE WAEL Actually, this language is much too strong for my taste. A great leap was made between the inaction of not drawing attention and the conclusion that there was no perception of a possible infraction; and therefore there was no ireggularity. Much better to rule that for UI cases a condition for ruling is that attention is drawn by the players and leave it at that. 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 Jul 17 03:22:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6GHM6Y11268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 03:22:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6GHM0H11264 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 03:22:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.153.150]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020716170746.LCLN290.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 18:07:46 +0100 Message-ID: <005d01c22ceb$4ee25e30$969968d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 18:07:41 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Nigel: > At most Bridge clubs, "normal" would include "illegal" as > well as "irrational" > or perhaps Humpty Dumpty should be commissioned > to write a glossary for the new edition of the laws. > [an unfortunate omission from Orwell's 1984 edition] ton [Kooijman, A.]: You are not telling me that those bridge clubs do use a reasonable interpretation of the laws, are you? Most bridge clubs probably let revokes unpunished and penalty cards taken back. And if not some TD's will deal with it wrongly. All due to those miserable laws. > Nigel: > It is difficult to argue about law changes until there is > some consensus on what the current law means and how it > is to be interpreted in the simplest practical cases. > Judging by BLML discussions, we are far from that. ton: I agree, may be BLML discussions shouldn't be taken as the right sign for a judgement about the quality of the laws. > Nigel: > Rather than leaving BLML members in endless dispute and > Bridge players at large in the soup, the Laws committee > should rush out an interim edition of the Laws -- > without major improvement -- but with > clarifications and simplifications to remove the most > obvious redundancies, contradictions, and ambiguities. ton: Don't count on it. I am not going to propose this to the LC. We are working on some interpretations given by the LC in recent years, to be added to the laws on the WBF site. David Stevenson is helping us to do so. But this is an endless story, (not) reading all these BLML discussions. ton: I didn't study laws, but some of my friends did and I do remember that an important part of their studies were case studies, where generally accepted decisions (interpretations) were presented as milestones for lawyers, having the status of law. ton: There is nothing like that in our world. We pick up the law book, read for a while, interpret and start being TD. Mind you, our organization is more complex, the whole world being involved. No restricted jurisdiction (as long as Mars isn't invaded). And then on top of it, AC's, not aware of decisions taken somewhere else, or interpretations made, do think to have the authority to give their own interpretation and to torture the world with it. ton: It is not the laws that cause problems it is us. I tell you what I read in an AC decision taken in Salsomaggiore. Not laws itself, but still incredible, in my opinion. A team had won a match with 25-5 (may be 4)in which a TD-decision was made. That team did appeal the decision and the AC found this bad sportsmanship, having won the maximum VP's already. Remarkable isn't it? New approach of sportsmanship, related to laws as 72 and 74, made by three people on a late afternoon. nigel2: Laws fall into several cagegories (I would be interested in other categories or classification systems)... [1] SIMPLE objective laws about revokes, penalty cards and the like, by which most players abide, and which rarely cause problems. [2] COMPLEX laws like those on disclosure, alerting, and convention cards. These are often flouted. For example, last weekend, in the "A" flight of the Metropolitan Cup, I played against a top pair, who had no convention card. On request, I was shown a shared score-card with a few cryptic annotations -- but even those that I read were wrong. Perhaps, I should emphasise that the "Met" is an informal local county event, our opponents are friends, they are scrupulously ethical, and they were keen to explain their understandings when asked. Yet, technically, they were in breach of the law. At some clubs, few partnerships have a completed convention card and most are reluctant to disclose understandings. [3] Laws that entail the TD making BRIDGE JUDGEMENTS like the law on UI from tempo changes. To the legal tyro, these laws seem half-baked and paradoxical. For example, when, arguably, all possible actions may be suggested by a hesitation -- and especially when the winning action is "PASS". Such laws are regularly flouted, especially those which are nearly impossible to enforce [4] Laws that entail the TD making SKILL JUDGEMENTS For example when a TD has to reconstruct hypothetical lines of play (such as after a claim or hesitation). Like most laws these favour experienced players -- but here the effect is more blatant and seemingly unfair. [5] Laws that entail the TD making INTENTION JUDGEMENTS for example, about whether a bidding box error was mechanical or whether a nominated or touched card may be withdrawn. These laws seem designed just to cause bad feeling, and are an uneccessary burden on TDs. nigel2: Most players would be happier if the law were was more simple and objective i.e category 1. After all, Bridge is a game. nigel2: I cannot see why there cannot be frequent minor editions of the laws, each incorporating a few minor corrections. They could be published only on the web. nigel2: I agree with you, ton, about the value of case law such as "Miami Vice" and so on. Unfortunately, many of the published AC decisions were wrong -- perhaps because the laws are unclear and open to misinterpretation. For example, on the facts you present, I see that the Salsomaggiore "unsporting" ruling was absurd. On the contrary, among other altruistic motives, the apellants seem to have been trying to "protect the field" -- a worthy aim IMO. nigel2: I like the idea of the interpretation web-site that you are setting up with David Stevenson. Perhaps the Law committee could incorporate a small subset of case-law -- paradigm ACs with rulings that the committee approve and endorse. You could call it BridgeLawWebCite. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 01/07/2002 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 17 04:55:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6GIsfU11307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 04:54:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6GIsaH11303 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 04:54:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.2]) by splat.mosquitonet.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g6GIhJ525930 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:43:19 -0800 Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:38:25 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Tim West-meads wrote: > Richard Hills wrote: > > > A number of interesting issues are raised by > > the appeal below. > > > > One of them is whether the EBU anti-fielding > > regulation is legal. The reg appears to > > contradict L12C2. I can't say for sure whether it is legal. I can say, as an outside observer, I have been outraged by very nearly every example of a red psych that has ever been posted to this list. Maybe we only get sent the questionable cases; but once again we have a case where the table result strikes me as normal, hardly anywhere close to a flagrant violation. > It should be illegal, but the EBU is on a crusade to eliminate psyching > from the game and the WBF will allow any corruption of the laws if it is > crafted to fit the words of law 40. I admit to having ever-stronger sentiments in the same direction. > > * * * > > > > AK97 > > 73 > > 107 > > QJ1062 > > > > Basic systems: > > North-South play Acol > > East-West play Acol > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > Pass > > Pass 1H(1) 1NT 2C > > Pass Pass Pass > > > > (1) Psyche > > > > Result at table: > > 2C -1 by South, NS -50 Tim attached an example hand where North has a normal opening and 1NTx still fails. I could attach several more just like it. It does depend on North's opening bid style -- but I could name several US experts whose third seat style is such I expect 1NTx to make well over half the time. If I had been South, I would say it is very nearly a coin flip whether I should try doubling or running to clubs. Unless you are saying I have UI that partner's bid was likely to be a psych (and if you ARE saying that, I think you've taken the need for disclosing my partnership's system and style quite a long way too far!) I can't see any basis for the ruling. > Thus the EBU policy is actually "Any successful choice of call after a > psyche will be ruled illegal". This isn't much of a surprise. After all, in everyday usage, "successfully coping with" is exactly what "fielding" means, at least when dealing with fly balls and press-conference questions (the only two places non-EBU people ever see the word.) Someone once tried to explain to me that the EBU had a slightly different definition of "field" that required some sort of foreknowledge or malicious intent, not just guesing well. Frankly, I don't believe it. > Still, it seems highly likely I will be up in front of the AC for psyching > during the forthcoming Brighton congress - something for us all to look > forward to. > > Tim Best of luck to you. GRB (who is still waiting for the right hand to come up to psych a 2C opener in an ACBL game) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 17 05:14:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6GJEdF11329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 05:14:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6GJEWH11325 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 05:14:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g6GJ3Lx30298 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 20:03:21 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:58:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >A number of interesting issues are raised by >the appeal below. > >One of them is whether the EBU anti-fielding >regulation is legal. The reg appears to >contradict L12C2. > I really do get fed up with the EBU regulating this particular action. It is clear to the whole world (with the exception of the EBU L&E) that partner is 90% likely to be the one who's at it. Sheer bridge expectancy is that it costs to double in this position. Furthermore if it is the 1NT overcaller who is having the joke he'll know where he's going. I don't want to have to guess at the three level what to do when I can tell partner that I have a near opener with a club suit NOW. As Toggy said "don't seek to punish the opponents until you've exhausted the possibilities of your own strain". It's interesting to note that almost to a man the rank and file players at the YC bid 2C here, and don't even think there's a logical alternative. I certainly don't. cheers john >Or can a reg made under L40B overrule L12C2? > >Should the 2005 Laws have a prioritised >hierarchy of Laws specifically listed upfront? > >Best wishes > >Richard > >* * * > >APPEAL No 10: Should a player always double? > >Tournament Director: >Dave Armstrong > >Appeals Committee: >Tim Rees (Chairman) Alan Nelson John Holland > >Swiss Pairs >Board no 19 >Dealer South >E/W vulnerable > > Q82 > AJ10 > J954 > 753 >10653 J4 >K654 Q982 >K862 AQ2 >8 AK94 > AK97 > 73 > 107 > QJ1062 > >Basic systems: >North-South play Acol >East-West play Acol > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass >Pass 1H(1) 1NT 2C >Pass Pass Pass > >(1) Psyche > >Result at table: >2C -1 by South, NS -50 > >Director first called: >At end of hand > >Director's statement of facts: > >TD was asked to record a psyche by North. After >TD recorded the hand TD asked why South had not >doubled and she had no explanation. TD ruled the >psyche 'Red' and adjusted the score. At this point >South started saying that TD and the ruling were >ridiculous. TD warned her that the arguments were >over and the proper course was to appeal. N/S said >they wished to. > >Director's ruling: > >Artificial score awarded: >30% to N/S, average plus to E/W > >Note by editor: > >In the EBU when a psyche is adjudged to be fielded >it is described as 'Red', the board is cancelled, >there is an adjustment of average plus to the non- >offenders, average minus to the offenders, and a >further penalty of at least a standard fine to the >offenders. > >The correct fine in Swiss Pairs is 0.5 VP (or more) >rather than a percentage of a top. > >Appeal lodged by: >North-South > >Appeals Committee decision: >Director's ruling upheld > >Artificial score awarded: >Average minus to N/S, average plus to E/W, 0.5 VP >penalty to N/S >Deposit returned > >Appeals Committee's comments: > >Although South had no intent to field the psyche, >she has selected an option which would result in a >better result opposite a psyche. As North has psyched >the 2C is deemed to have fielded it. >The director should have ruled 40/60 with a ½ VP fine. > >David Stevenson's comments: > >This seems the traditional position for a fielded >psyche. South has a routine double, and failure to >make it is allowing for partner to be the one without >his bid. Of course, that may not be her intent, but if >she does not double and finds partner has psyched then >there is an apparent breach of the Laws. > >Laurie Kelso's comments: > >This ruling is a function of the EBU regulations >regarding the fielding of psyches. >South's action (in bidding 2C, rather than doubling) >fulfils the criteria laid down and hence it becomes >mandatory to award an artificial adjusted score. The >Director's error in expressing the penalty as a >matchpoint percentage rather than VPs might have been >corrected before the Committee examined the case. > >Herman De Wael's comments: > >I have too little experience with English bidding >styles and psyching regulations to be able to comment. > >Matthias Berghaus' comments: > >The AC said about everything there is to say. The TD >was generous not to give a disciplinary penalty. >Whether South suspected a psyche or not seems to be >immaterial in the EBU (not a bad regulation in my eyes), >so the amended ruling is automatic. > >Fearghal O'Boyle's comments: > >This looks like your classic 'field'. So you apply the >EBU regulation as the AC did. > >Ron Johnson's comments: > >Fielding a psyche or just plain poor judgement? If South >leads her suit I like their chances of beating 1NT. >Further, West shows a curious lack of enterprise. I >guess none of that matters given how the EBU's >regulations are crafted. I happen to disagree strongly >with the regulations, but it's important that they be >enforced. The absolute worst thing an appeals committee >can do is make up rules or to try and circumvent rules >they happen to disagree with. > >Editor's comments: > >This seems to be the example that might be quoted in a >TD Guide of how to deal with a fielded psyche. > >Laws & Ethics Committee's comments: > >The L&E confirmed the Red classification of the following >psyche from the Brighton Summer Congress. >Mr Fleet had raise the question of whether it was >justifiable to deem an action "abnormal" if the >alternative, normal, action would not have been >considered to be an option by the player concerned. The >L&E was satisfied that such considerations did not apply >to the present case, comments attributed to the South >player along the lines of "I have doubled before on a >10-count; partner was weak and it made" being entirely >sufficient to justify a Red classification. >In principle the test is objective in the sense that a >player's intention will not be taken into account, but >the standard of the player will be taken into account >where relevant. > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 17 06:01:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6GK1Cr11360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 06:01:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f184.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.184]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6GK18H11356 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 06:01:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:46:52 -0700 Received: from 204.52.135.62 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:46:52 GMT X-Originating-IP: [204.52.135.62] From: "Roger Pewick" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 14:46:52 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jul 2002 19:46:52.0812 (UTC) FILETIME=[888044C0:01C22D01] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 >Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:58:46 +0100 > >In article , >richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > >A number of interesting issues are raised by > >the appeal below. > > > >One of them is whether the EBU anti-fielding > >regulation is legal. The reg appears to > >contradict L12C2. > > > >I really do get fed up with the EBU regulating this particular action. >I certainly don't. cheers john As a player the only things that matter to me when an opponent 'bluffs' is [a] did the bluffer have UI that might suggest conditions were favorable? and [b] did responder have UI? and thus be subject to being influenced by it conciously or subconciously. If no one is aware of such UI then in my book, play bridge- not witch hunt. regards roger pewick > >Richard _________________________________________________________________ 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 Jul 17 08:45:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6GMiOa11479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 08:44:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6GMiJH11475 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 08:44:20 +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 IAA29209 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 08:45:08 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 08:25:35 +0000 (EST) Subject: RE: [BLML] Wish list To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 08:29:39 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 17/07/2002 08:25:14 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton wrote: [snip] >It is not the laws that cause problems it is us. > >I tell you what I read in an AC decision taken in >Salsomaggiore. Not laws itself, but still >incredible, in my opinion. A team had won a match >with 25-5 (may be 4)in which a TD-decision was >made. That team did appeal the decision and the AC >found this bad sportsmanship, having won the >maximum VP's already. > >Remarkable isn't it? New approach of sportsmanship, >related to laws as 72 and 74, made by three people >on a late afternoon. In an Australian congress several years ago, team A beat team B 25vps to 4vps. This maximum win for team A guaranteed them first place with one round to play. However, team B claimed damage on one deal. The claim of damage was dubious, but the TD ruled a split score, changing the result to 25vps to 7vps. Team C, which was team B's rival for second place, asked team A to appeal the TD's dubious ruling in the interest of good sportmanship. Team A refused, as a safety play against the AC changing the vp result to 23-7. So if a team with maximum vps appeals, they can be accused of bad sportmanship. And if a team with maximum vps does not appeal, they can be accused of bad sportmanship. :-) 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 Jul 17 09:13:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6GNCmK11504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 09:12:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6GNChH11500 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 09:12:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA03329 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 09:13:41 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 08:54:07 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 08:58:10 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 17/07/2002 08:53:46 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: >>A number of interesting issues are raised by >>the appeal below. >> >>One of them is whether the EBU anti-fielding >>regulation is legal. The reg appears to >>contradict L12C2. Tim West-Meads replied: >It should be illegal, but the EBU is on a >crusade to eliminate psyching from the game >and the WBF will allow any corruption of the >laws if it is crafted to fit the words of law >40. [snip] A reductio ad absurdum of the EBU position, that a regulation under one law can overrule another law, recently occurred in an Australian bridge club. The club passed a regulation under L72A2 that prevented Player A from ever claiming. Player A therefore appealed to the Australian Bridge Federation. The ABF took a more logically restrictive view of the Laws than the EBU, and ruled the club's regulation ultra vires. (The club then disaffiliated from the ABF.) 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 Jul 17 10:10:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6H09qw11530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:09:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6H09lH11526 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:09:48 +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 KAA14632 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:10:46 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 09:51:11 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 09:55:13 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 17/07/2002 09:50:50 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>The Orange book is the EBU Handbook of Directives. >>3.4.3 says: >> >>Explain only your partnership agreement: if you do >>not know the meaning of your partner's call, or you >>have no agreement, you must not say how you intend >>to interpret it. Herman De Wael replied: >What a silly advice is that ! > >I can (reluctantly) agree with the "if you have no >agreement" bit, but the "if you don't know" bit ? > >Consider this : > >You know partner is trying to say something, you >remember that this situation is in your system notes. >But you cannot remember what the meaning exactly is. >What do you do ? > >Three possibilities : either you say > >"I don't remember". This is UI to partner and MI to >opponents. >or you guess it is A (let's say that is wrong) and >you say "it is A". This is UI to partner and MI to >opponents, and in addition you will have a bad result >because you misinterpreted. >or you guess (correctly) that it is B and you say "it >is B". This is no UI and no MI, and you get a normal >bridge result. Actually four possibilities. The typical at-the-table possibility is firstly informing partner that the system has been forgotten - UI - and secondly informing partner of your response strategy - more UI. Explanations that provide this double UI often begin with the words, "I am taking it as...", and it is these double UI explanations that the Orange Book prohibits. >Saying "it is .." can only win and never lose. >So why would you want to say "I don't remember"? Because "I don't remember" as your *only* statement provides only single UI to partner, and is a truthful statement. Saying you have a definite agreement "it is A", when you are actually making a wrong guess, provides double UI to partner, and is also a false statement. 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 Jul 17 17:08:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6H76lp11702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 17:06:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6H76fH11698 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 17:06:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48431.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.61.47]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6H6qOH08483 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 08:52:24 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D35149A.6020801@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 08:54:18 +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] EBU Appeals 2001 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: > > Actually four possibilities. The typical at-the-table > possibility is firstly informing partner that the > system has been forgotten - UI - and secondly informing > partner of your response strategy - more UI. > You're coming close to the DwS, Richard. > Explanations that provide this double UI often begin > with the words, "I am taking it as...", and it is these > double UI explanations that the Orange Book prohibits. > > >>Saying "it is .." can only win and never lose. >>So why would you want to say "I don't remember"? >> > > Because "I don't remember" as your *only* statement > provides only single UI to partner, and is a truthful > statement. Please drop the idea that truthful statements are what are needed. "I don't remember" is a truthful statement, yet we're both argueing against it. > Saying you have a definite agreement "it is > A", when you are actually making a wrong guess, provides > double UI to partner, and is also a false statement. > Please count again. Since I'm not adding, "I don't remember" it is only one piece of UI. And even if I add it, the fact that I'm making the wrong guess is more than enough UI for partner to (not) deal with. There is no such thing as double UI. OTOH, saying "it is B" (correctly) gives no UI, not even the slight "but I'm not certain" one. > Best wishes > > Richard > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > -- 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 Jul 17 21:03:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6HB2iR11842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 21:02:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6HB2cH11838 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 21:02:38 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6HAmOZ29121 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 11:48:24 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 11:48 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Torquay AC ruling To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3D342004.3000500@skynet.be> Herman wrote: > Laws 9 and 16 are clear in terms of stipulating what should > happen in the case of irregularities in general and unauthorised > information in particular. The director must be summoned when > attention is drawn to any irregularity and in the case of unauthorised > information, attention should be drawn when a player > has substantial reason to believe that information has been both > transmitted and acted upon. We agree, in substance, with Mr > Riccardi's view that unless the players perceive the transmission > and possible use of unauthorised information, no irregularity can > be said to have taken place. I would be very unhappy for this to be taken as any sort of principle. If my partner frowns and I notice and act on it then an offence *has* taken place. Whether my opponents notice or not doesn't change that. While it may be unusual for a player not to notice a tempo break I have kibbitzed games where I have seen it happen. If the NPC later brings this to the attention of his team at the earliest opportunity then that is when they should draw attention to the possible irregularity. I do not think the TD should abdicate responsibility for investigating whether such a tempo break did occur. However, unless the event was being videoed, it is quite likely that no evidence will be found. Perhaps I'm being overly fussy about the language - it's just that "There was insufficient evidence to support the suggestion of UI being made available" seems very different from "We assume there was no UI made available just because the opponents didn't notice". 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 Jul 17 22:04:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6HC3TF11890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 22:03:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6HC3OH11886 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 22:03:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (80-200-4-178.adsl.powered-by.skynet.be [80.200.4.178]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6HBn6805396 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:49:06 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D3559A6.3080002@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:48:54 +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] Torquay AC ruling References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > In-Reply-To: <3D342004.3000500@skynet.be> > Herman wrote: > > > > I would be very unhappy for this to be taken as any sort of principle. > If my partner frowns and I notice and act on it then an offence *has* > taken place. Whether my opponents notice or not doesn't change that. > While it may be unusual for a player not to notice a tempo break I have > kibbitzed games where I have seen it happen. If the NPC later brings this > to the attention of his team at the earliest opportunity then that is when > they should draw attention to the possible irregularity. I do not think > the TD should abdicate responsibility for investigating whether such a > tempo break did occur. However, unless the event was being videoed, it is > quite likely that no evidence will be found. > I was also quite surprised to see the TD and AC so adamant about "not giving a ruling". I would have expected a ruling to be made in the sense of "not accepting the evidence". > Perhaps I'm being overly fussy about the language - it's just that "There > was insufficient evidence to support the suggestion of UI being made > available" seems very different from "We assume there was no UI made > available just because the opponents didn't notice". > Exactly. One other point. At all other matches, the NPC is allowed to be at the table in the open room, and to insist that the TD be called. At the Vue-Graph match, this is not the case. Should not the NPC, present in the theatre, have the same rights as one in the actual room? > -- 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 Jul 17 23:50:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6HDncf12024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 23:49:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from izanami.cee.hw.ac.uk (exim@izanami.cee.hw.ac.uk [137.195.52.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6HDnXH12020 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 23:49:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from gateway-brahma.cee.hw.ac.uk ([137.195.52.27] helo=brahma.cee.hw.ac.uk ident=exim) by izanami.cee.hw.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17UoxZ-0001p3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:35:17 +0100 Received: from idc by brahma.cee.hw.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #3) id 17UoxY-00069y-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:35:16 +0100 From: Ian D Crorie Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Exim/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Message-Id: Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:35:16 +0100 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [John Probst] > > I really do get fed up with the EBU regulating this particular action. > It is clear to the whole world (with the exception of the EBU L&E) that > partner is 90% likely to be the one who's at it. Sheer bridge expectancy > is that it costs to double in this position. Furthermore if it is the > 1NT overcaller who is having the joke he'll know where he's going. I > don't want to have to guess at the three level what to do when I can > tell partner that I have a near opener with a club suit NOW. > > As Toggy said "don't seek to punish the opponents until you've exhausted > the possibilities of your own strain". > > It's interesting to note that almost to a man the rank and file players > at the YC bid 2C here, and don't even think there's a logical > alternative. > > I certainly don't. cheers john I've some sympathy with the position taken by John and others but would like to suggest this: if after the auction p p 1H 1NT ? you hold a good 10 count and decide that "partner is 90% likely to be the one who's at it", then you should alert your 3rd in hand openings. Perhaps not at the Young Chelsea where this is normal and against selected other opps who will expect this too, but the vast majority of club bridge players and most tournament opponents won't play this way. I alert my regular partner's 3rd in hand 1anys, and explain: sometimes semi-psychic (say 8-11) and lead directional. IMHO, it is no good appealing to "Sheer bridge expectancy" when most opponents won't expect it. Of course, one of these days a TD will tell us that we cannot systemically agree to open hands this weak but that's a bridge we'll cross when it happens. Oh, and even then I'd double with the example hand: AK97 73 107 QJ1062. It will make sometimes. *shrug* [The hand for info] > >Tournament Director: > >Dave Armstrong > > > >Appeals Committee: > >Tim Rees (Chairman) Alan Nelson John Holland > > > >Swiss Pairs > >Board no 19 > >Dealer South > >E/W vulnerable > > > > Q82 > > AJ10 > > J954 > > 753 > >10653 J4 > >K654 Q982 > >K862 AQ2 > >8 AK94 > > AK97 > > 73 > > 107 > > QJ1062 > > > >Basic systems: > >North-South play Acol > >East-West play Acol > > > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > Pass > >Pass 1H(1) 1NT 2C > >Pass Pass Pass > > > >(1) Psyche > > [lines deleted] --- Considering the number of wheels that Microsoft has found reason to invent, one never ceases to be baffled by the minuscule number whose shape even vaguely resembles a circle. -- anon -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 18 02:22:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6HGLZc12092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 02:21:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6HGLTH12088 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 02:21:30 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6HG7GZ23752 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 17:07:16 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 17:07 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: Ian Crorie wrote: > I've some sympathy with the position taken by John and others but > would like to suggest this: if after the auction p p 1H 1NT ? > you hold a good 10 count and decide that "partner is 90% likely to be > the one who's at it", then you should alert your 3rd in hand openings. I have no problem with this suggestion except that a natural 1H bid is explicitly not alertable in the EBU. OB 5.4.4 You should not alert: (e) a `wide range' natural opening bid. My third in hand 1H openers are about 8-20+ - wide range and natural is pretty much spot on as a description. One should however show the opening requirements on the convention card. > Of course, one of these days a TD will tell us that we cannot > systemically agree to open hands this weak but that's a bridge we'll > cross when it happens. No they won't (or at least shouldn't). There can be no restrictions on opening hands within a K of average strength. > Oh, and even then I'd double with the > example hand: AK97 73 107 QJ1062. It will make sometimes. *shrug* That is your choice, it would not be mine with some of my partners. I might mildly disagree with a panel that said 2C was inferior to X. My violent disagreement is with those who would regard 2C as "abnormal". 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 Jul 18 04:42:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6HIg6D12195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 04:42:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail11.svr.pol.co.uk (mail11.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6HIg1H12191 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 04:42:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-96.arossiach.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.126.224] helo=pc) by mail11.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17UtWd-0001bM-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:27:47 +0100 Message-ID: <001801c22dbf$574d91a0$e07e883e@pc> From: "LarryBennett" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:17:23 +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 There must be some sort of geographical divide between YC and here (120 miles). I put this to my local group and every reply so far has been for double. Many with comments like "where's the problem, should 1nt have been alerted", "must be unanimous surely", etc. | > It's interesting to note that almost to a man the rank and file players | > at the YC bid 2C here, and don't even think there's a logical | > alternative. | > | > I certainly don't. cheers john -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 18 05:03:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6HJ3RC12212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 05:03:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6HJ3MH12208 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 05:03:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.2]) by splat.mosquitonet.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g6HIq4532031 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:52:05 -0800 Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:47:07 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Ian D Crorie wrote: > > I really do get fed up with the EBU regulating this particular action. > > It is clear to the whole world (with the exception of the EBU L&E) that > > partner is 90% likely to be the one who's at it. Sheer bridge expectancy > > I've some sympathy with the position taken by John and others but > would like to suggest this: if after the auction p p 1H 1NT ? > you hold a good 10 count and decide that "partner is 90% likely to be > the one who's at it", then you should alert your 3rd in hand openings. My view isn't quite the same as John Probst's. 90% of the time, *nobody* is up to anything funny. If everyone is telling the truth, LHO and partner have between them 12 to 15 HCP. There are a LOT more ways for 12 HCP to divide 9-and-3 than there are for them to divide 12-and-0 (and similarly for 9-and-6 vs 12-and-3). It's general bridge knowledge anywhere I've ever played that third hand is liable to open almost all 11-counts along with some weaker hands. If the bidding goes 1H-1NT to me, I am essentially only considering the "11.5 to 15" hands that partner might have, and an average hand for him is something like 12.5 HCP. The weakest hands are still much more likely than the strongest hands. If the bidding goes P-P-1H-1NT I am adding in a whole bunch more weak hands, and partner's expected strength even if he *never* psychs is probably barely 11HCP now. If we aren't vulnerable and partner has ever made a psychic bid in his life, everyone and his dog knows third seat was given an opportunity. We've argued before about how disclosable this might be. The problem in this thread re psyching is the old "a priori vs a posteriori" problem: partner's 1H opening itself, drawn from a pool of all possible 1H openings in third seat, rates to look fairly normal. It's only after the 1NT bid that all of the strong 1H openings get removed from the pool of possible hands, and the (always very small) pool of psychs starts to look significant in comparison to the (now suddenly reduced to also being small) pool of legitimate heart openings. I've heard some unusual alerting proposals before. But "don't alert your third seat openings unless fourth seat takes a strong action, in which case go back and alert the opening because the chance it has been a psych has risen in light of the new information" isn't a palatable one to me. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 18 05:49:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6HJlf412239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 05:47:41 +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 g6HJlZH12235 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 05:47:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6HJXL205602 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 20:33:21 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 20:33 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: <001801c22dbf$574d91a0$e07e883e@pc> LarryBennett" wrote: > There must be some sort of geographical divide > between YC and here (120 miles). > I put this to my local group and every reply so > far has been for double. Many with comments like > "where's the problem, should 1nt have been > alerted", "must be unanimous surely", etc. Interesting. Did you tell them they were playing light 3rd seat openings and that partner has not promised more than a 9 count? Certainly if one plays sound openings in 3rd seat the double is much more attractive. The normality (or otherwise) of the bid will obviously depend on such agreements. 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 Jul 18 09:21:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6HNJEc12328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 09:19:14 +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 g6HNJ9H12324 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 09:19:09 +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 JAA03742 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 09:20:06 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 09:00:30 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 09:04:32 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 18/07/2002 09:00:09 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: >>Saying you have a definite agreement "it is A", >>when you are actually making a wrong guess, >>provides double UI to partner, and is also a >>false statement. Herman De Wael replied: >Please count again. Since I'm not adding, "I >don't remember" it is only one piece of UI. And >even if I add it, the fact that I'm making the >wrong guess is more than enough UI for partner >to (not) deal with. > >There is no such thing as double UI. Saying *wrongly* "it is A" implicitly includes the statement "I don't remember" as UI to partner, since pard knows that your actual agreement is B. And saying wrongly "it is A" provides *further* UI to pard that your response strategy will be based on A rather than B. 1 + 1 = 2. Double UI. On the other hand, saying "I don't remember" and nothing else also provides UI to pard. *But* pard does not know whether your response strategy will be based on A or on B. 1 + 0 = 1. Single UI. Best wishes Richard PS I am unsubscribing from blml for two-and-a- half weeks while I attend the Australian National Championships in Hobart. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 18 09:48:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6HNmbQ12349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jul 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 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 g6HNmWH12345 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 09:48:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.157.24]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020717221021.CWMY23840.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 23:10:21 +0100 Message-ID: <006001c22ddf$8813c870$189d68d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <001801c22dbf$574d91a0$e07e883e@pc> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 23:15:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Larry Bennet: There must be some sort of geographical divide between YC and here (120 miles). I put this to my local group and every reply so far has been for double. Many with comments like "where's the problem, should 1nt have been alerted", "must be unanimous surely", etc. John Probst: It's interesting to note that almost to a man the rank and file players at the YC bid 2C here, and don't even think there's a logical alternative. I certainly don't. Nigel: I deplore covert legislation against psyches; But in this case, the ruling seems sensible. Even if partner has carte-blanche to operate third in hand, double seems almost automatic on a hand which you might well have opened yourself. Surely, a weak or psychic partner knows he must make his own arrangements. Yes, 2C is possible, but when it just happens to coincide with a blatant psyche, the TD has little option but to classify the psyche as red. I hope that partnerships who do adopt this style have "Ferts and frequent psyches third in hand" on the front of their card. Nigel: Not so long ago, in the UK, such openings were completely illegal. (The notorious EBU Rule of 19). My partners and I were the only players in the UK who abided by this rule (even the editor of Bridge Magazine claimed he was unaware of its existence). Those who blatantly flouted the law were left unscathed. Hence I admit to a slight bias. Nigel: Should local organisations be allowed to bend the rules? Thus creating a legal Tower of Babel and delaying Olympic recognition? IMO No - especially with regard to what is alertable -- (: but these are separate questions :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 01/07/2002 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 18 14:47:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6I4k9d12501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:46:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wolfbert.skynet.be (wolfbert.skynet.be [195.238.3.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6I4k2H12497 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:46:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by wolfbert.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-FALLBACK-2.20) with ESMTP id g6HGuok20886 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 18:56:53 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Received: from skynet.be (80-200-4-178.adsl.powered-by.skynet.be [80.200.4.178]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6HGuZ802707 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 18:56:35 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D35A1B6.4020609@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 18:56:22 +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: [BLML] Beer card law anyone Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Could someone from Denmark or England, and familiar with the Beer Card Law, please tell me if the following occurence has happened before, and, if so, what the relevant price is in number of beers. Yesterday evening, Luc, as my opponent, made the last trick as follows: (declarer) - diamond six - (Luc) diamond seven - (dummy) diamond five - (partner) diamond four. The contract was 2 Spades. I guess the prize must be at least five pints. -- 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 Jul 18 17:14:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6I7E1C12640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 17:14:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6I7DsH12636 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 17:13:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (adsl-48790.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.150]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6I6xRH06572 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 08:59:27 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D366746.4090206@skynet.be> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 08:59:18 +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] EBU Appeals 2001 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: > > > If the bidding goes 1H-1NT to me, I am essentially only considering the > "11.5 to 15" hands that partner might have, and an average hand for him is > something like 12.5 HCP. The weakest hands are still much more likely than > the strongest hands. If the bidding goes P-P-1H-1NT I am adding in a whole > bunch more weak hands, and partner's expected strength even if he *never* > psychs is probably barely 11HCP now. > > If we aren't vulnerable and partner has ever made a psychic bid in his > life, everyone and his dog knows third seat was given an > opportunity. We've argued before about how disclosable this might be. The > problem in this thread re psyching is the old "a priori vs a > posteriori" problem: partner's 1H opening itself, drawn from a pool of all > possible 1H openings in third seat, rates to look fairly normal. It's only > after the 1NT bid that all of the strong 1H openings get removed from the > pool of possible hands, and the (always very small) pool of psychs starts > to look significant in comparison to the (now suddenly reduced to also > being small) pool of legitimate heart openings. > Don't also forget that you're holding 11 HCP yourself. If you were holding just 2 HCP, you'd not picture partner with a sub-minimum. Partner's psyching tendencies are AI to you, and must be disclosed to opponents, but your own cards don't have to be disclosed. > I've heard some unusual alerting proposals before. But "don't alert your > third seat openings unless fourth seat takes a strong action, in which > case go back and alert the opening because the chance it has been a psych > has risen in light of the new information" isn't a palatable one to me. > > 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/ > > > -- 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 Jul 19 13:36:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6J3YBL13221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 13:34:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6J3Y5H13217 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 13:34:06 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 18FDA488CE; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 23:11:32 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 23:11:24 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: [BLML] ACBL to do away with ACs Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I've been told that the ACBL Board of Directors voted today, by a 2-1 margin, to discontinue the use of appeal committees in North American Championship events, starting in 2004. Several years ago they did away with ACs for Regional events held at NABCs. This is the proposal that was made -- I don't have the text of the motion that passed. "I. The procedure is: 1. The Director is called to the table. 2. The Director thoroughly investigates the facts. 3. The Director may take any matter away from the table for consideration and consultation with other TDs (matters that involves questions of law) and expert players (matters that involve bridge judgment). When the Director is satisfied that he has gathered all the facts, including any bridge judgment involved and laws to be applied, a final ruling is given. 4. Players shall be advised that in order to have the decision reviewed (per Law 92) they must submit a written statement defining the issues. 5. The request for a review is submitted to the DIC. The DIC (or his designee) considers all issues raised and decides the appropriate action. The reviewer shall: 1. Reconsider the original director's ruling based on issues that may have not been considered or were not given sufficient attention earlier. 2. Thoroughly review the case with the players involved and in consultation with a pool of neutral players regarding bridge issues (as appropriate). 3. When the review is completed the DIC reports the final decision to the players. 6. Management shall select a pool of expert players who will evaluate the decisions for all rulings requiring review in regional and higher events. Management shall consolidate these evaluations and prepare a quarterly summary containing individual and overall ratings." -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 19 13:48:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6J3mbU13240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 13:48:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6J3mVH13236 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 13:48:32 +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 g6J3bIx04577 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 04:37:19 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 04:13:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Beer card law anyone References: <3D35A1B6.4020609@skynet.be> In-Reply-To: <3D35A1B6.4020609@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 <3D35A1B6.4020609@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Could someone from Denmark or England, and familiar with the Beer Card >Law, please tell me if the following occurence has happened before, >and, if so, what the relevant price is in number of beers. > >Yesterday evening, Luc, as my opponent, made the last trick as follows: > >(declarer) - diamond six - (Luc) diamond seven - (dummy) diamond five >- (partner) diamond four. > >The contract was 2 Spades. > >I guess the prize must be at least five pints. > I'd claim a drink from everyone. I claimed at rubber today playing with a LoL (Sheila), pointing out I win the last trick with the D7 and she said, "Oh that must mean I'll have to buy you a cup of tea". She's 75 if a day. I let her, and she was so pleased to have caught onto the joke. (she's a dreadful player and keeps me in beers from my winnings, and she knows all that, but it made her day) -- 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 Jul 19 15:19:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6J5J0f13280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 15:19:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imf05bis.bellsouth.net (mail205.mail.bellsouth.net [205.152.58.145]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6J5IoH13276 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 15:18:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from Dell4400 ([66.20.119.192]) by imf05bis.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with SMTP id <20020719050602.NNEJ1189.imf05bis.bellsouth.net@Dell4400> for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 01:06:02 -0400 From: "David Kent" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL to do away with ACs Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 01:02:23 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry for the non-politcally-coorect comment, but this is bullshit! --David Kent -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Adam Wildavsky Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 11:11 PM To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] ACBL to do away with ACs I've been told that the ACBL Board of Directors voted today, by a 2-1 margin, to discontinue the use of appeal committees in North American Championship events, starting in 2004. Several years ago they did away with ACs for Regional events held at NABCs. This is the proposal that was made -- I don't have the text of the motion that passed. "I. The procedure is: 1. The Director is called to the table. 2. The Director thoroughly investigates the facts. 3. The Director may take any matter away from the table for consideration and consultation with other TDs (matters that involves questions of law) and expert players (matters that involve bridge judgment). When the Director is satisfied that he has gathered all the facts, including any bridge judgment involved and laws to be applied, a final ruling is given. 4. Players shall be advised that in order to have the decision reviewed (per Law 92) they must submit a written statement defining the issues. 5. The request for a review is submitted to the DIC. The DIC (or his designee) considers all issues raised and decides the appropriate action. The reviewer shall: 1. Reconsider the original director's ruling based on issues that may have not been considered or were not given sufficient attention earlier. 2. Thoroughly review the case with the players involved and in consultation with a pool of neutral players regarding bridge issues (as appropriate). 3. When the review is completed the DIC reports the final decision to the players. 6. Management shall select a pool of expert players who will evaluate the decisions for all rulings requiring review in regional and higher events. Management shall consolidate these evaluations and prepare a quarterly summary containing individual and overall ratings." -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 20 04:07:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6JI6WJ13761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 04:06:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6JI6QH13756 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 04:06:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from webmail.worldnet.att.net ([204.127.135.60]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020719175205.XPEW6994.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@webmail.worldnet.att.net>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 17:52:05 +0000 Received: from [172.168.108.14] by webmail.worldnet.att.net; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 17:52:05 +0000 From: joanandron@att.net To: Adam Wildavsky Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL to do away with ACs Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 17:52:05 +0000 X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (May 28 2002) Message-Id: <20020719175205.XPEW6994.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@webmail.worldnet.att.net> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi, Thanks Adam for letting everyone know the decision of the ACBL Board.... the actual vote was 14 -10 with one abstaining. Joan Gerard, District 3 District Director > I've been told that the ACBL Board of Directors voted today, by a 2-1 > margin, to discontinue the use of appeal committees in North American > Championship events, starting in 2004. Several years ago they did > away with ACs for Regional events held at NABCs. This is the proposal > that was made -- I don't have the text of the motion that passed. > > "I. The procedure is: > 1. The Director is called to the table. > 2. The Director thoroughly investigates the facts. > 3. The Director may take any matter away from the table for > consideration and consultation with other TDs (matters that > involves questions of law) and expert players (matters that > involve bridge judgment). When the Director is satisfied > that he has gathered all the facts, including any bridge > judgment involved and laws to be applied, a final ruling is > given. > 4. Players shall be advised that in order to have the decision > reviewed (per Law 92) they must submit a written statement > defining the issues. > 5. The request for a review is submitted to the DIC. The DIC > (or his designee) considers all issues raised and decides > the appropriate action. The reviewer shall: > 1. Reconsider the original director's ruling based on issues > that may have not been considered or were not given > sufficient attention earlier. > 2. Thoroughly review the case with the players involved and > in consultation with a pool of neutral players regarding > bridge issues (as appropriate). > 3. When the review is completed the DIC reports the final > decision to the players. > 6. Management shall select a pool of expert players who will > evaluate the decisions for all rulings requiring review in > regional and higher events. Management shall consolidate > these evaluations and prepare a quarterly summary > containing individual and overall ratings." > > -- > Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC > adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 20 04:07:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6JI6Tp13758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 04:06:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6JI6NH13752 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 04:06:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from webmail.worldnet.att.net ([204.127.135.60]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020719175201.XPDU6994.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@webmail.worldnet.att.net>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 17:52:01 +0000 Received: from [172.168.108.14] by webmail.worldnet.att.net; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 17:51:57 +0000 From: joanandron@att.net To: Adam Wildavsky Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL to do away with ACs Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 17:51:57 +0000 X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (May 28 2002) Message-Id: <20020719175201.XPDU6994.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@webmail.worldnet.att.net> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi, Thanks Adam for letting everyone know the decision of the ACBL Board.... the actual vote was 14 -10 with one abstaining. Joan Gerard, District 3 District Director > I've been told that the ACBL Board of Directors voted today, by a 2-1 > margin, to discontinue the use of appeal committees in North American > Championship events, starting in 2004. Several years ago they did > away with ACs for Regional events held at NABCs. This is the proposal > that was made -- I don't have the text of the motion that passed. > > "I. The procedure is: > 1. The Director is called to the table. > 2. The Director thoroughly investigates the facts. > 3. The Director may take any matter away from the table for > consideration and consultation with other TDs (matters that > involves questions of law) and expert players (matters that > involve bridge judgment). When the Director is satisfied > that he has gathered all the facts, including any bridge > judgment involved and laws to be applied, a final ruling is > given. > 4. Players shall be advised that in order to have the decision > reviewed (per Law 92) they must submit a written statement > defining the issues. > 5. The request for a review is submitted to the DIC. The DIC > (or his designee) considers all issues raised and decides > the appropriate action. The reviewer shall: > 1. Reconsider the original director's ruling based on issues > that may have not been considered or were not given > sufficient attention earlier. > 2. Thoroughly review the case with the players involved and > in consultation with a pool of neutral players regarding > bridge issues (as appropriate). > 3. When the review is completed the DIC reports the final > decision to the players. > 6. Management shall select a pool of expert players who will > evaluate the decisions for all rulings requiring review in > regional and higher events. Management shall consolidate > these evaluations and prepare a quarterly summary > containing individual and overall ratings." > > -- > Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC > adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 20 17:13:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6K7Bbx16490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 17:11:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fep03-svc.swip.net (fep03.swip.net [130.244.199.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6K7BUH16486 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 17:11:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from Dator.swipnet.se ([213.101.70.125]) by fep03-svc.swip.net with SMTP id <20020720065705.EWEB7098.fep03-svc.swip.net@Dator.swipnet.se>; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 08:57:05 +0200 Message-ID: <000701c22fba$1182c300$7d4665d5@swipnet.se> Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= To: , "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: References: <20020719175201.XPDU6994.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@webmail.worldnet.att.net> Subject: SV: [BLML] ACBL to do away with ACs Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 08:52:50 +0200 Organization: SBF MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g6K7BXH16487 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi, What about law 93 C? Hans-Olof Hallén ----- Ursprungligt meddelande ----- Från: Till: "Adam Wildavsky" Kopia: Skickat: den 19 juli 2002 19:51 Ämne: Re: [BLML] ACBL to do away with ACs > Hi, > > Thanks Adam for letting everyone know the decision > of the ACBL Board.... the actual vote was 14 -10 with > one abstaining. > Joan Gerard, District 3 District Director > > I've been told that the ACBL Board of Directors voted today, by a 2-1 > > margin, to discontinue the use of appeal committees in North American > > Championship events, starting in 2004. Several years ago they did > > away with ACs for Regional events held at NABCs. This is the proposal > > that was made -- I don't have the text of the motion that passed. > > > > "I. The procedure is: > > 1. The Director is called to the table. > > 2. The Director thoroughly investigates the facts. > > 3. The Director may take any matter away from the table for > > consideration and consultation with other TDs (matters that > > involves questions of law) and expert players (matters that > > involve bridge judgment). When the Director is satisfied > > that he has gathered all the facts, including any bridge > > judgment involved and laws to be applied, a final ruling is > > given. > > 4. Players shall be advised that in order to have the decision > > reviewed (per Law 92) they must submit a written statement > > defining the issues. > > 5. The request for a review is submitted to the DIC. The DIC > > (or his designee) considers all issues raised and decides > > the appropriate action. The reviewer shall: > > 1. Reconsider the original director's ruling based on issues > > that may have not been considered or were not given > > sufficient attention earlier. > > 2. Thoroughly review the case with the players involved and > > in consultation with a pool of neutral players regarding > > bridge issues (as appropriate). > > 3. When the review is completed the DIC reports the final > > decision to the players. > > 6. Management shall select a pool of expert players who will > > evaluate the decisions for all rulings requiring review in > > regional and higher events. Management shall consolidate > > these evaluations and prepare a quarterly summary > > containing individual and overall ratings." > > > > -- > > Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC > > adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 21 10:07:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6L06fH22657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 10:06:41 +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 g6L06ZH22653 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 10:06:36 +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 g6KNq1L23066 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 19:52:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 19:31:15 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: SV: [BLML] ACBL to do away with ACs To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <000701c22fba$1182c300$7d4665d5@swipnet.se> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 7/20/02, Hans-Olof Hallén wrote: >Hi, >What about law 93 C? Heh. That was my thought, too. Perhaps the ACBL LC feels it doesn't have enough to do. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 21 11:56:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6L1u6622712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 11:56:06 +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-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 g6L1toH22693 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 11:55:51 +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 17W5is-0003a2-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 02:41:30 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 02:25:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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 Ian D Crorie writes >[John Probst] >> >> I really do get fed up with the EBU regulating this particular action. >> It is clear to the whole world (with the exception of the EBU L&E) that >> partner is 90% likely to be the one who's at it. Sheer bridge expectancy >> is that it costs to double in this position. Furthermore if it is the >> 1NT overcaller who is having the joke he'll know where he's going. I >> don't want to have to guess at the three level what to do when I can >> tell partner that I have a near opener with a club suit NOW. >> >> As Toggy said "don't seek to punish the opponents until you've exhausted >> the possibilities of your own strain". >> >> It's interesting to note that almost to a man the rank and file players >> at the YC bid 2C here, and don't even think there's a logical >> alternative. >> >> I certainly don't. cheers john >I've some sympathy with the position taken by John and others but >would like to suggest this: if after the auction p p 1H 1NT ? >you hold a good 10 count and decide that "partner is 90% likely to be >the one who's at it", then you should alert your 3rd in hand openings. > >Perhaps not at the Young Chelsea where this is normal and against >selected other opps who will expect this too, but the vast majority >of club bridge players and most tournament opponents won't play this >way. I alert my regular partner's 3rd in hand 1anys, and explain: >sometimes semi-psychic (say 8-11) and lead directional. IMHO, it is >no good appealing to "Sheer bridge expectancy" when most opponents >won't expect it. > >Of course, one of these days a TD will tell us that we cannot >systemically agree to open hands this weak but that's a bridge we'll >cross when it happens. Oh, and even then I'd double with the >example hand: AK97 73 107 QJ1062. It will make sometimes. *shrug* Such openings are illegal in the EBU and the ABF. If you think that you should not double because you know that your partner is likely to open with a hand that constitutes an illegal agreement then I think your legal problems are different from fielding psyches. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 21 11:56:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6L1u8922715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 11:56:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6L1tvH22708 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 11:55:58 +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 17W5j5-0003a1-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 02:41:38 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 02:34:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article , >richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes >> >>A number of interesting issues are raised by >>the appeal below. >> >>One of them is whether the EBU anti-fielding >>regulation is legal. The reg appears to >>contradict L12C2. >I really do get fed up with the EBU regulating this particular action. >It is clear to the whole world (with the exception of the EBU L&E) that >partner is 90% likely to be the one who's at it. Sheer bridge expectancy >is that it costs to double in this position. Furthermore if it is the >1NT overcaller who is having the joke he'll know where he's going. I >don't want to have to guess at the three level what to do when I can >tell partner that I have a near opener with a club suit NOW. I think it is time you separated the two matters which you seem to be confusing. The question of whether fielding here is permitted is a matter of Law not regulation: the way it is dealt with is by regulation. If 2C in the YC is strong and forcing which your posts seems to suggest then bidding 2C is not fielding. However, this idea you have that because the YC plays it this way it is acceptable for players who do not play such a system [the majority of players, that is] seems strange. If I open 1H on a 16 count third-in-hand, and you respond 2C over a 1NT overcall, of course I shall put the dummy down. Since you have denied a good 9 count why should I continue? In my view if people wish to play 2C as strong and nearly forcing on up to an 11 count [probably more if they have not originally passed] then of course they may - but it is clearly alertable [perhaps not at the YC where you tell me the expectations are different from normal]. What worries me is that I wonder whether the YC players are only playing 2C in this strange way after a 3rd-in-hand opening. That is beginning to sound like a psychic control. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 21 11:56:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6L1u5B22713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 11:56:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6L1tpH22696 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 11:55:52 +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 17W5is-0003a4-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 02:41:32 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 02:26:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: >Richard Hills wrote: > >> A number of interesting issues are raised by >> the appeal below. >> >> One of them is whether the EBU anti-fielding >> regulation is legal. The reg appears to >> contradict L12C2. > >It should be illegal, but the EBU is on a crusade to eliminate psyching >from the game and the WBF will allow any corruption of the laws if it is >crafted to fit the words of law 40. It is a pity when you can often talk sense that you should talk such utter bollocks here. You know perfectly well that the EBU is not on such a crusade, and trying to confuse people in other jurisdictions as to the reasons for this regulation and the logic behind it demeans you. [s] >Here we have a hand where North has a perfectly respectable 1H 3rd in hand >opener. 1NTx is a complete laydown and they regard 2C as an "abnormal" >bid! So they deem this layout "completely unexpected" on the given >auction. If that is the judgement shown by top English players at the >table I suppose it is no surprise that our team has limited success at >international level. I would expect decent players to consider X and 2C >as reasonable options, to the extent that were this a UI case with the X >of 1N suggested I would be preparing a stern lecture for the person who >didn't bid 2C! Of course it is open to you to play systems different from standard, and as John Probst is fond of pointing out, the YC system in this area is non-standard. I hope that the reason for this is not in an attempt to control psyches. But the majority of players double on something around 9 HCP, and a 2C bid shows a weaker hand. A typical 2C bid is xx Kxxx x JTxxxx When such a player fails to double 1NT but bids a non-forcing 2C bid instead, your rants against the EBU [and the WBFLC, of course, though you and other contributors to this thread are conveniently forgetting that] look pretty stupid to me. If you really want to support players who do this just so that you can gain an unfair advantage yourself then I am very disappointed. >Thus the EBU policy is actually "Any successful choice of call after a >psyche will be ruled illegal". As you know perfectly well this is not the case. Do you think it clever to make baseless accusations? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 21 11:56:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6L1u6H22714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 11:56:06 +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-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 g6L1tqH22697 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 11:55:53 +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 17W5is-0003a3-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 02:41:33 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 02:25:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: >Ian Crorie wrote: > >> I've some sympathy with the position taken by John and others but >> would like to suggest this: if after the auction p p 1H 1NT ? >> you hold a good 10 count and decide that "partner is 90% likely to be >> the one who's at it", then you should alert your 3rd in hand openings. > >I have no problem with this suggestion except that a natural 1H bid is >explicitly not alertable in the EBU. > >OB 5.4.4 You should not alert: >(e) a `wide range' natural opening bid. > >My third in hand 1H openers are about 8-20+ - wide range and natural is >pretty much spot on as a description. > >One should however show the opening requirements on the convention card. > >> Of course, one of these days a TD will tell us that we cannot >> systemically agree to open hands this weak but that's a bridge we'll >> cross when it happens. > >No they won't (or at least shouldn't). There can be no restrictions on >opening hands within a K of average strength. As you know perfectly well there are such restrictions in the EBU. If you know you are deliberately playing an illegal system then I really think you might consider shutting up now. If done deliberately it is a serious offence. I know that you seem to think the laws of Bridge should not apply to you, but I am afraid that they 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 Sun Jul 21 12:27:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6L2R0d22757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 12:27:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6L2QsH22753 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 12:26:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from annescomputer ([62.255.4.24]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020721021233.HCOQ16050.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@annescomputer> for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 03:12:33 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01c2305c$0b8e6100$1804ff3e@annescomputer> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 03:12:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Annwyl David Curb your tongue. Hwyl Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 2:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > Tim West-meads writes > >In-Reply-To: > >Richard Hills wrote: > > > >> A number of interesting issues are raised by > >> the appeal below. > >> > >> One of them is whether the EBU anti-fielding > >> regulation is legal. The reg appears to > >> contradict L12C2. > > > >It should be illegal, but the EBU is on a crusade to eliminate psyching > >from the game and the WBF will allow any corruption of the laws if it is > >crafted to fit the words of law 40. > > It is a pity when you can often talk sense that you should talk such > utter bollocks here. You know perfectly well that the EBU is not on > such a crusade, and trying to confuse people in other jurisdictions as > to the reasons for this regulation and the logic behind it demeans you. > > [s] > > >Here we have a hand where North has a perfectly respectable 1H 3rd in hand > >opener. 1NTx is a complete laydown and they regard 2C as an "abnormal" > >bid! So they deem this layout "completely unexpected" on the given > >auction. If that is the judgement shown by top English players at the > >table I suppose it is no surprise that our team has limited success at > >international level. I would expect decent players to consider X and 2C > >as reasonable options, to the extent that were this a UI case with the X > >of 1N suggested I would be preparing a stern lecture for the person who > >didn't bid 2C! > > Of course it is open to you to play systems different from standard, > and as John Probst is fond of pointing out, the YC system in this area > is non-standard. I hope that the reason for this is not in an attempt > to control psyches. > > But the majority of players double on something around 9 HCP, and a 2C > bid shows a weaker hand. A typical 2C bid is > > xx > Kxxx > x > JTxxxx > > When such a player fails to double 1NT but bids a non-forcing 2C bid > instead, your rants against the EBU [and the WBFLC, of course, though > you and other contributors to this thread are conveniently forgetting > that] look pretty stupid to me. If you really want to support players > who do this just so that you can gain an unfair advantage yourself then > I am very disappointed. > > >Thus the EBU policy is actually "Any successful choice of call after a > >psyche will be ruled illegal". > > As you know perfectly well this is not the case. Do you think it > clever to make baseless accusations? > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 21 13:06:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6L365L22782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 13:06:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6L35xH22778 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 13:06:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g6L2sjx10119 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 03:54:46 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 03:27:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Ian D Crorie writes >>[John Probst] >>> >>> I really do get fed up with the EBU regulating this particular action. >>> It is clear to the whole world (with the exception of the EBU L&E) that >>> partner is 90% likely to be the one who's at it. Sheer bridge expectancy >>> is that it costs to double in this position. Furthermore if it is the >>> 1NT overcaller who is having the joke he'll know where he's going. I >>> don't want to have to guess at the three level what to do when I can >>> tell partner that I have a near opener with a club suit NOW. >>> >>> As Toggy said "don't seek to punish the opponents until you've exhausted >>> the possibilities of your own strain". >>> >>> It's interesting to note that almost to a man the rank and file players >>> at the YC bid 2C here, and don't even think there's a logical >>> alternative. >>> >>> I certainly don't. cheers john > >>I've some sympathy with the position taken by John and others but >>would like to suggest this: if after the auction p p 1H 1NT ? >>you hold a good 10 count and decide that "partner is 90% likely to be >>the one who's at it", then you should alert your 3rd in hand openings. >> >>Perhaps not at the Young Chelsea where this is normal and against >>selected other opps who will expect this too, but the vast majority >>of club bridge players and most tournament opponents won't play this >>way. I alert my regular partner's 3rd in hand 1anys, and explain: >>sometimes semi-psychic (say 8-11) and lead directional. IMHO, it is >>no good appealing to "Sheer bridge expectancy" when most opponents >>won't expect it. >> >>Of course, one of these days a TD will tell us that we cannot >>systemically agree to open hands this weak but that's a bridge we'll >>cross when it happens. Oh, and even then I'd double with the >>example hand: AK97 73 107 QJ1062. It will make sometimes. *shrug* yep, 1H, 1C and 5 diamonds later, you'll be in to take the rest, while you can easily make 3C > > Such openings are illegal in the EBU and the ABF. > > If you think that you should not double because you know that your >partner is likely to open with a hand that constitutes an illegal >agreement then I think your legal problems are different from fielding >psyches. > David, we're known to disagree on this one. However, there is very little equity in doubling once you're a passed hand. If partner has enough to get 500, we have enough equity in our game, and I'd rather tell partner I've got some values and where they are. If partner has a shaded (but still legal) opener, we're as likely to concede 180 as we are to defeat it by one. The only time I lose out is when I have 300 or 500 (Vul) and no game, and that's not all that frequent. I'm not even considering the possibility of partner's psyche, I just hate defending 1NTx, it's a hellish contract to beat. FWIW, I do double with a 3 card fit and 10-11, but on almost no other hands, since I have a sensible opening lead, and hopefully will be able to lead the third (and killing) round of partner's suit. I'd love to see some simulations of this, 1) where partner has opened some random, 4-card lead directing, 11-count which cannot by any standards be deemed a psyche 2) where partner has a decent 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 Sun Jul 21 13:15:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6L3FXV22799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 13:15:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6L3FQH22795 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 13:15:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g6L34Ex10147 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 04:04:14 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 03:37:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Tim West-meads writes >>In-Reply-To: >>Richard Hills wrote: >> >>> A number of interesting issues are raised by >>> the appeal below. >>> >>> One of them is whether the EBU anti-fielding >>> regulation is legal. The reg appears to >>> contradict L12C2. >> >>It should be illegal, but the EBU is on a crusade to eliminate psyching >>from the game and the WBF will allow any corruption of the laws if it is >>crafted to fit the words of law 40. > > It is a pity when you can often talk sense that you should talk such >utter bollocks here. You know perfectly well that the EBU is not on >such a crusade, and trying to confuse people in other jurisdictions as >to the reasons for this regulation and the logic behind it demeans you. > > [s] > >>Here we have a hand where North has a perfectly respectable 1H 3rd in hand >>opener. 1NTx is a complete laydown and they regard 2C as an "abnormal" >>bid! So they deem this layout "completely unexpected" on the given >>auction. If that is the judgement shown by top English players at the >>table I suppose it is no surprise that our team has limited success at >>international level. I would expect decent players to consider X and 2C >>as reasonable options, to the extent that were this a UI case with the X >>of 1N suggested I would be preparing a stern lecture for the person who >>didn't bid 2C! > > Of course it is open to you to play systems different from standard, >and as John Probst is fond of pointing out, the YC system in this area >is non-standard. I hope that the reason for this is not in an attempt >to control psyches. > > But the majority of players double on something around 9 HCP, and a 2C >bid shows a weaker hand. A typical 2C bid is > > xx > Kxxx > x > JTxxxx > I'd bid 3C on this as a jump fit, I'm convinced a simple response after a 1NT overcall should be mildly constructive, say 8-10, about the same values as you'd need to respond 1NT and accept any game invitation. After partner's 1D/1S bid I'd happily pass a 1NT overcall. I have no desire to be in an auction where we're outgunned and the cards lie badly for us. Perhaps we should get the L&E to play some money bridge. > When such a player fails to double 1NT but bids a non-forcing 2C bid >instead, your rants against the EBU [and the WBFLC, of course, though >you and other contributors to this thread are conveniently forgetting >that] look pretty stupid to me. If you really want to support players >who do this just so that you can gain an unfair advantage yourself then >I am very disappointed. > >>Thus the EBU policy is actually "Any successful choice of call after a >>psyche will be ruled illegal". > > As you know perfectly well this is not the case. Do you think it >clever to make baseless accusations? > -- 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 Jul 21 13:27:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6L3R0f22812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 13:27:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6L3QsH22808 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 13:26:55 +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 g6L3Fgx10178 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 04:15:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 03:48:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > In my view if people wish to play 2C as strong and nearly forcing on >up to an 11 count [probably more if they have not originally passed] >then of course they may - but it is clearly alertable [perhaps not at >the YC where you tell me the expectations are different from normal]. > > What worries me is that I wonder whether the YC players are only >playing 2C in this strange way after a 3rd-in-hand opening. That is >beginning to sound like a psychic control. > They'd be more inclined to bid 2C after a ferdinand, but I've seen the call made in most seats - it's generally range 7-10 or a really decent 6-card suit KQTxxx perhaps. Most 11 counts won't get past opener. Ferdinands are not all that common at the YC, I tried one recently on xx KJTxx xx KJxx, but I'm pulling partner's double anyway. It seems to me that the whole problem lies with the fact that I legally cannot psyche a 3-card suit in third seat without facing the consequences of a rabid mob when partner sets about finding a sensible contract on a misfitting hand and at the two level, rather than the three level. It's a fundamental tenet of bridge that you should only seek to punish the opponents once you *have* exhausted the possibilities of your own strain, and the auction in question hasn't got remotely close to that. -- 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 Jul 21 15:47:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6L5kQr22861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 15:46:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6L5kLH22857 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 15:46:21 +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 g6L5Z0526340 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 21:35:00 -0800 Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 21:29:51 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > If 2C in the YC is strong and forcing which your posts seems to > suggest then bidding 2C is not fielding. However, this idea you have > that because the YC plays it this way it is acceptable for players who > do not play such a system [the majority of players, that is] seems > strange. I haven't heard anyone suggest 2C was anything other than natural and nonforcing without a good fit for opener. What you've heard several of us suggest is that opposite a normal minimum 3rd seat opening (we know you aren't maximum, since our own hand and RHO's 1NT bid account for 25+ HCP), we believe our 4-2-2-5 10-count has less than an even chance of beating 1NTX. > > If I open 1H on a 16 count third-in-hand, and you respond 2C over a > 1NT overcall, of course I shall put the dummy down. Since you have > denied a good 9 count why should I continue? You shouldn't. We aren't proposing a psychic control, we're just making the bridge observation that the upper limit for a "weak but constructive" bid higher opposite a third-seat opener than a first seat opener. It's essentially the same argument as for 1S-P-P-X-P-2C having a higher upper limit than 1S-X-P-2C does. Okay, some of the comments suggesting the EBU is on a witch hunt might have been exaggerated. The fact remains that some of us are deeply offended to learn that a completely routine (for us, though not you) action opposite a full but minimum third-seat opener becomes Red when our partner has a weak hand. Red is supposed to mean a blatant deviation from system in compensation for partner's detected psych. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 21 18:40:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6L8cKx22933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 18:38:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6L8cEH22929 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 18:38:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from cow.ripe.net (cow.ripe.net [193.0.1.239]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6L8NG109403; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 10:23:16 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by cow.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6L8NGn09757; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 10:23:16 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: cow.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 10:23:16 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Kent cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL to do away with ACs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-RIPE-NCC-SpamStatus: Found to be clean X-RIPE-NCC-SpamCheck: SpamAssassin (score=-103, required 15, IN_REP_TO, X_AUTH_WARNING, DOUBLE_CAPSWORD, USER_IN_WHITELIST) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, David Kent wrote: > Sorry for the non-politcally-coorect comment, but this is bullshit! I disagree: this qualifies as the best decision from the BoD in a long time. Henk > > --David Kent > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Adam Wildavsky > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 11:11 PM > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: [BLML] ACBL to do away with ACs > > > I've been told that the ACBL Board of Directors voted today, by a 2-1 > margin, to discontinue the use of appeal committees in North American > Championship events, starting in 2004. Several years ago they did > away with ACs for Regional events held at NABCs. This is the proposal > that was made -- I don't have the text of the motion that passed. > > "I. The procedure is: > 1. The Director is called to the table. > 2. The Director thoroughly investigates the facts. > 3. The Director may take any matter away from the table for > consideration and consultation with other TDs (matters that > involves questions of law) and expert players (matters that > involve bridge judgment). When the Director is satisfied > that he has gathered all the facts, including any bridge > judgment involved and laws to be applied, a final ruling is > given. > 4. Players shall be advised that in order to have the decision > reviewed (per Law 92) they must submit a written statement > defining the issues. > 5. The request for a review is submitted to the DIC. The DIC > (or his designee) considers all issues raised and decides > the appropriate action. The reviewer shall: > 1. Reconsider the original director's ruling based on issues > that may have not been considered or were not given > sufficient attention earlier. > 2. Thoroughly review the case with the players involved and > in consultation with a pool of neutral players regarding > bridge issues (as appropriate). > 3. When the review is completed the DIC reports the final > decision to the players. > 6. Management shall select a pool of expert players who will > evaluate the decisions for all rulings requiring review in > regional and higher events. Management shall consolidate > these evaluations and prepare a quarterly summary > containing individual and overall ratings." > > -- > Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC > adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) NOTE: My email address (and a hole in our mailing list software) is being abused by a spammer. We are working on fixing this hole and tracking the spammer down. If you receive mail from "henk@ripe.net" that is obviously spam, please send me a copy of the mail including ALL headers. I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused by this. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 21 20:50:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6LAnju22985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 20:49:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6LAnZH22981 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 20:49:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-35-17-230.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.17.230] helo=gordonrainsford.co.uk) by carbon with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17WE3W-0006Nq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 11:35:14 +0100 Message-ID: <3D3A8E32.9050106@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 11:34:26 +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: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: 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 , > richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >>A number of interesting issues are raised by >>the appeal below. >> >>One of them is whether the EBU anti-fielding >>regulation is legal. The reg appears to >>contradict L12C2. >> > > > I really do get fed up with the EBU regulating this particular action. > It is clear to the whole world (with the exception of the EBU L&E) that > partner is 90% likely to be the one who's at it. Sheer bridge expectancy > is that it costs to double in this position. Furthermore if it is the > 1NT overcaller who is having the joke he'll know where he's going. I > don't want to have to guess at the three level what to do when I can > tell partner that I have a near opener with a club suit NOW. > > As Toggy said "don't seek to punish the opponents until you've exhausted > the possibilities of your own strain". > > It's interesting to note that almost to a man the rank and file players > at the YC bid 2C here, and don't even think there's a logical > alternative. > > I certainly don't. cheers john > I really don't think this is true. Have you gone around with the hand and asked them? I would have thought I would count as a rank and file YC player. I would certainly double, and I remember a very similar hand a number of years ago when a player was accused of fielding a psyche after bidding 2C rather than doubling. The TD on duty *did* go around a large number of players in the bar, the vast majority *did* say they would double, and the psyche *was* judged to have been fielded. Gordon Rainsford London -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 21 22:08:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6LC7qh23063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 22:07:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6LC7NH23015 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 22:07:24 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6LBr2b06848 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 12:53:02 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 12:53 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: > >> A number of interesting issues are raised by > >> the appeal below. > >> > >> One of them is whether the EBU anti-fielding > >> regulation is legal. The reg appears to > >> contradict L12C2. > > > >It should be illegal, but the EBU is on a crusade to eliminate > psyching >from the game and the WBF will allow any corruption of the > laws if it is >crafted to fit the words of law 40. > > It is a pity when you can often talk sense that you should talk such > utter bollocks here. You know perfectly well that the EBU is not on > such a crusade, and trying to confuse people in other jurisdictions as > to the reasons for this regulation and the logic behind it demeans you. David, if I knew my statement to be untrue I wouldn't have made. There is evidence to support my case: 1) The attitude of Grattan Endicott to psyches has been made clear to me over numerous posts in this forum. Experienced players tell me he has been trying to suppress psyching for years. 2) The EBU has issued no constructive guidance on how best to disclose knowledge of psychic tendencies within partnerships. 3) EBU appeals committees rule as "abnormal" calls that seem perfectly rational to a number of people. I believe that "abnormal" should mean - there is no real rationale for this bid *except* playing partner to have psyched. So that if bids A and B would both be understandable choices (the sort of calls we would say "of course these are LAs") there *should* be no question of either being deemed abnormal. It doesn't matter if B happens to cater to a particular psyche much better than A - that is *not* illegal according to the words of the EBU regulation. > Of course it is open to you to play systems different from standard, > and as John Probst is fond of pointing out, the YC system in this area > is non-standard. I hope that the reason for this is not in an attempt > to control psyches. While true it is not relevant here. I play standard Acol and 2C is natural and non-forcing. I would bid it on xxxx,x,xx,KJT9xx as well as on the actual hand. I even admit that with some partners I would double on AKxx,xx,xx,QJTxx - those partners are ones who espouse the "sound openers in third seat" philosophy. I regard double as a very inferior bid if one is of the "light 3rd hand" opening school (it was clear from the write-up that the partnership in question were of the latter belief). > But the majority of players double on something around 9 HCP, Perhaps the majority of players don't open all that light in third seat - perhaps they have poor judgement. I would be truly amazed if they didn't understand that 2C may frequently lead to a better result than double. > and a 2C bid shows a weaker hand. A typical 2C bid is > > xx > Kxxx > x > JTxxxx You may bid 2C with this hand, I would bid a non-forcing 3H showing my fit (3C as fit jump is fine if that is your agreement). I wouldn't call either choice (or pass, or 2H) "abnormal". 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 Jul 21 22:08:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6LC7qQ23062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 22:07:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6LC7NH23016 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 22:07:24 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6LBr3x06856 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 12:53:03 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 12:53 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: > >> Of course, one of these days a TD will tell us that we cannot > >> systemically agree to open hands this weak but that's a bridge we'll > >> cross when it happens. > > > >No they won't (or at least shouldn't). There can be no restrictions > on >opening hands within a K of average strength. > > As you know perfectly well there are such restrictions in the EBU. There are no restrictions on the opening bid if within a King of average strength. I am quite capable of reading the orange book and the laws of bridge thank you. There is a restriction on conventional continuations but if one is playing rule of 19 they do not apply. Your judgement will tell you that some "non rule of 19" hands are worth an opener anyway but that is to be expected. If I am dealt AKT987,JT9x,-,T9x I will probably judge it worth a 1S opener (in any seat). If partner splinters 4C I will cue bid 4D. These hands, with great intermediates, are hard to value by traditional methods and yet slam can be good opposite a perfect 4 count (xxxxx,A8xx,xxxx,-). Compared with say A65432,Q432,Q,43 (a rule of 19 hand!) it is so clearly much better that I can't believe one would not be permitted to use judgement in opening. > If you know you are deliberately playing an illegal system then I > really think you might consider shutting up now. If done deliberately > it is a serious offence. > I know that you seem to think the laws of Bridge should not apply to > you, but I am afraid that they do. I know the laws of bridge apply to me. It is the EBU/ACBL/WBF who have twisted Law 40D with the "conventional follow-ups are banned" approach (particularly crazy is to set the same minimum standard in 3rd seat as one does in 1st). I believe that anybody who thinks AKT987,JT9x,-,T9x should be restricted as a 1S opener doesn't understand the *game* of bridge - after which any understanding they might have of the laws is pretty moot! This hand wouldn't raise an eyebrow in the St John's Wood game. Basic Acol and damn few conventions - just like grandad used to play! If that approach is now illegal in EBU competition I pity us all. 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 Jul 21 23:36:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6LDa7R02372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 23:36:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6LDZlH02339 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 23:35:49 +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 17WGeK-000MSH-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:21:26 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 11:59:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article , David Stevenson > writes >> In my view if people wish to play 2C as strong and nearly forcing on >>up to an 11 count [probably more if they have not originally passed] >>then of course they may - but it is clearly alertable [perhaps not at >>the YC where you tell me the expectations are different from normal]. >> >> What worries me is that I wonder whether the YC players are only >>playing 2C in this strange way after a 3rd-in-hand opening. That is >>beginning to sound like a psychic control. >> >They'd be more inclined to bid 2C after a ferdinand, but I've seen the >call made in most seats - it's generally range 7-10 or a really decent >6-card suit KQTxxx perhaps. Most 11 counts won't get past opener. >Ferdinands are not all that common at the YC, I tried one recently on > xx KJTxx xx KJxx, but I'm pulling partner's double anyway. > >It seems to me that the whole problem lies with the fact that I legally >cannot psyche a 3-card suit in third seat without facing the >consequences of a rabid mob when partner sets about finding a sensible >contract on a misfitting hand and at the two level, rather than the >three level. > >It's a fundamental tenet of bridge that you should only seek to punish >the opponents once you *have* exhausted the possibilities of your own >strain, and the auction in question hasn't got remotely close to that. It is not a basic tenet of bridge in my view: it is just very poor bridge. If I hold an 11 count and it goes 1NT dbl pass to me then I pass, and my guess is that so do you. The basic tenet of bridge that I play is that if you do not seek to punish opponents then they will steal you blind. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 21 23:36:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6LDaEb02388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 23:36:15 +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 g6LDZlH02338 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 23:35:49 +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 17WGeK-000MSI-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:21:27 +0100 Message-ID: <6jdAoNExTpO9EwJs@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 12:03:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower writes >On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, David Stevenson wrote: >> If 2C in the YC is strong and forcing which your posts seems to >> suggest then bidding 2C is not fielding. However, this idea you have >> that because the YC plays it this way it is acceptable for players who >> do not play such a system [the majority of players, that is] seems >> strange. > >I haven't heard anyone suggest 2C was anything other than natural and >nonforcing without a good fit for opener. > >What you've heard several of us suggest is that opposite a normal >minimum 3rd seat opening (we know you aren't maximum, since our own hand >and RHO's 1NT bid account for 25+ HCP), we believe our 4-2-2-5 10-count >has less than an even chance of beating 1NTX. > > > >> If I open 1H on a 16 count third-in-hand, and you respond 2C over a >> 1NT overcall, of course I shall put the dummy down. Since you have >> denied a good 9 count why should I continue? > >You shouldn't. > >We aren't proposing a psychic control, we're just making the bridge >observation that the upper limit for a "weak but constructive" bid higher >opposite a third-seat opener than a first seat opener. It's essentially >the same argument as for 1S-P-P-X-P-2C having a higher upper limit than >1S-X-P-2C does. Weak but constructive? Who plays it as that? The norm as far as I am concerned is weak. >Okay, some of the comments suggesting the EBU is on a witch hunt might >have been exaggerated. The fact remains that some of us are deeply >offended to learn that a completely routine (for us, though not >you) action opposite a full but minimum third-seat opener becomes Red when >our partner has a weak hand. Red is supposed to mean a blatant deviation >from system in compensation for partner's detected psych. There are a lot of players who play 2C as weak. If players wish to play it some other way to allow for partner's weak but legal opening, that is fine: but now we have a disclosure problem because I have *never* seen these methods disclosed. Playing it in a way as to allow for partner's illegal opening is certainly not legal, and the method used by the sponsoring organisation to control it does not alter that fact one iota. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 22 00:35:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6LEZOm08328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 00:35:24 +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-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 g6LEZ0H08279 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 00:35:01 +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 17WHZV-0000EH-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 15:20:39 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:59:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: >> >> A number of interesting issues are raised by >> >> the appeal below. >> >> >> >> One of them is whether the EBU anti-fielding >> >> regulation is legal. The reg appears to >> >> contradict L12C2. >> > >> >It should be illegal, but the EBU is on a crusade to eliminate >> psyching >from the game and the WBF will allow any corruption of the >> laws if it is >crafted to fit the words of law 40. >> >> It is a pity when you can often talk sense that you should talk such >> utter bollocks here. You know perfectly well that the EBU is not on >> such a crusade, and trying to confuse people in other jurisdictions as >> to the reasons for this regulation and the logic behind it demeans you. > >David, if I knew my statement to be untrue I wouldn't have made. There is >evidence to support my case: >1) The attitude of Grattan Endicott to psyches has been made clear to me >over numerous posts in this forum. Experienced players tell me he has >been trying to suppress psyching for years. Codswallop. >2) The EBU has issued no constructive guidance on how best to disclose >knowledge of psychic tendencies within partnerships. The EBU has the view that since partners are not allowed to "know" their psychic tendency then they are unable to disclose them. Actually this view seems very prevalent world-wide. I personally do not agree with it, but I think the suggestion is that it is evidence they want to get rid of psyches as having no substance whatever. >3) EBU appeals committees rule as "abnormal" calls that seem perfectly >rational to a number of people. They do lots of things that a number of people disagree with. So? >I believe that "abnormal" should mean - there is no real rationale for >this bid *except* playing partner to have psyched. So that if bids A and >B would both be understandable choices (the sort of calls we would say "of >course these are LAs") there *should* be no question of either being >deemed abnormal. It doesn't matter if B happens to cater to a particular >psyche much better than A - that is *not* illegal according to the words >of the EBU regulation. Excellent. That is what the EBU says. >> Of course it is open to you to play systems different from standard, >> and as John Probst is fond of pointing out, the YC system in this area >> is non-standard. I hope that the reason for this is not in an attempt >> to control psyches. > >While true it is not relevant here. I play standard Acol and 2C is >natural and non-forcing. I would bid it on xxxx,x,xx,KJT9xx as well as on >the actual hand. I even admit that with some partners I would double on >AKxx,xx,xx,QJTxx - those partners are ones who espouse the "sound openers >in third seat" philosophy. I regard double as a very inferior bid if one >is of the "light 3rd hand" opening school (it was clear from the write-up >that the partnership in question were of the latter belief). The write-up did not say that. >> But the majority of players double on something around 9 HCP, > >Perhaps the majority of players don't open all that light in third seat - >perhaps they have poor judgement. I would be truly amazed if they didn't >understand that 2C may frequently lead to a better result than double. > >> and a 2C bid shows a weaker hand. A typical 2C bid is >> >> xx >> Kxxx >> x >> JTxxxx > >You may bid 2C with this hand, I would bid a non-forcing 3H showing my fit >(3C as fit jump is fine if that is your agreement). I wouldn't call >either choice (or pass, or 2H) "abnormal". I did not mean after a 1H opening, I meant it is a 2C bid after a 1S or 1D opening. Of course I raise in some way opposite a 1H or 1C opening. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 22 00:35:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6LEZY908344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 00:35:34 +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 g6LEZ0H08280 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 00:35:01 +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 17WHZV-0000EG-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 15:20:38 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:53:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: >> >> Of course, one of these days a TD will tell us that we cannot >> >> systemically agree to open hands this weak but that's a bridge we'll >> >> cross when it happens. >> > >> >No they won't (or at least shouldn't). There can be no restrictions >> on >opening hands within a K of average strength. >> >> As you know perfectly well there are such restrictions in the EBU. > >There are no restrictions on the opening bid if within a King of average >strength. I am quite capable of reading the orange book and the laws of >bridge thank you. There is a restriction on conventional continuations >but if one is playing rule of 19 they do not apply. Your judgement will >tell you that some "non rule of 19" hands are worth an opener anyway but >that is to be expected. > >If I am dealt AKT987,JT9x,-,T9x I will probably judge it worth a 1S opener >(in any seat). If partner splinters 4C I will cue bid 4D. These hands, >with great intermediates, are hard to value by traditional methods and yet >slam can be good opposite a perfect 4 count (xxxxx,A8xx,xxxx,-). Compared >with say A65432,Q432,Q,43 (a rule of 19 hand!) it is so clearly much >better that I can't believe one would not be permitted to use judgement in >opening. > >> If you know you are deliberately playing an illegal system then I >> really think you might consider shutting up now. If done deliberately >> it is a serious offence. >> I know that you seem to think the laws of Bridge should not apply to >> you, but I am afraid that they do. > >I know the laws of bridge apply to me. It is the EBU/ACBL/WBF who have >twisted Law 40D with the "conventional follow-ups are banned" approach >(particularly crazy is to set the same minimum standard in 3rd seat as one >does in 1st). I believe that anybody who thinks AKT987,JT9x,-,T9x should >be restricted as a 1S opener doesn't understand the *game* of bridge - >after which any understanding they might have of the laws is pretty moot! > >This hand wouldn't raise an eyebrow in the St John's Wood game. Basic >Acol and damn few conventions - just like grandad used to play! > >If that approach is now illegal in EBU competition I pity us all. No-one has suggested that approach is illegal, and I believe you are deliberately trying to wind us up to hide the problem. If you open a Rule of 17 hand in 3rd as a normal arrangement that is illegal. Giving obviously legal openings as examples in an attempt to obfuscate the issue does not affect this. I actively dislike an approach where a player psyches 3rd in hand regularly and when challenged produces non-psyches as an attempt to prove something. While I do not suggest that you do this, your writing has given the impression that you do so. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 22 07:02:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6LL1bE20222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 07:01:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ns1.telekom.ru (root@ns1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6LL1UH20218 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 07:01:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h52.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.52]) by ns1.telekom.ru (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g6LKl8v8011559 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 00:47:08 +0400 Message-ID: <3D3B2C2E.88200F57@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 01:48:30 +0400 From: vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [ru] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] TD code References: <20020719175201.XPDU6994.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@webmail.worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all? I'd like to turn your attention to the problem that is quite important (in my opinion). The Laws contain 93 Laws, 2 of them are devoted to AC, 13 of them (10, 12, 81-91) - to TD (there are also remarks about TD's obligation, mentioned in other Laws). So - a most of these Laws describe what players should do, what - shouldn't and what is the penalty. That's why the Laws may be named as Code for Players. In 1999 WBF adopted Code of Practice - in fact it is the Code for Appeal Committees. And it's high time (again - in my opinion) to work out Tournament Directors' Code (TD Code). I even dare to represent several ideas for project of its draft. The draft is too long for being sent directly to blml, so David Stevenson made me a favor and placed this draft (with my remarks) at the web-site: http://blakjak.com/blml_log.htm There are three files: .doc, .rtf and plain text file. I hope this theme may seem interest at least for several blml-ists. Best regards, Vitold -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 22 08:32:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6LMWB620261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:32:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6LMW2H20253 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:32:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6LMHf704728 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 23:17:41 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 23:17 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: > > Tim West-meads writes > >In-Reply-To: > >> >> A number of interesting issues are raised by > >> >> the appeal below. > >> >> > >> >> One of them is whether the EBU anti-fielding > >> >> regulation is legal. The reg appears to > >> >> contradict L12C2. > >> > > >> >It should be illegal, but the EBU is on a crusade to eliminate > >> psyching >from the game and the WBF will allow any corruption of the > >> laws if it is >crafted to fit the words of law 40. > >> > >> It is a pity when you can often talk sense that you should talk > > such > >> utter bollocks here. You know perfectly well that the EBU is not on > >> such a crusade, and trying to confuse people in other jurisdictions > > as > >> to the reasons for this regulation and the logic behind it demeans > > you. > > > >David, if I knew my statement to be untrue I wouldn't have made. > There is >evidence to support my case: > >1) The attitude of Grattan Endicott to psyches has been made clear to > me >over numerous posts in this forum. Experienced players tell me he > has >been trying to suppress psyching for years. > > Codswallop. I leave as an exercise to the reader the examination of previous posts by Grattan on the subject. As to what "experienced players" have told me - I was there, you weren't and I have accurately reported their sentiments. > >2) The EBU has issued no constructive guidance on how best to disclose > >knowledge of psychic tendencies within partnerships. > > The EBU has the view that since partners are not allowed to "know" > their psychic tendency then they are unable to disclose them. Actually > this view seems very prevalent world-wide. I personally do not agree > with it, but I think the suggestion is that it is evidence they want to > get rid of psyches as having no substance whatever. Grattan has said, in this forum, something like: "Because there are no disclosure arrangements relating to psyches they are always CPUs because they can never be properly disclosed". > >3) EBU appeals committees rule as "abnormal" calls that seem perfectly > >rational to a number of people. > > They do lots of things that a number of people disagree with. So? > > >I believe that "abnormal" should mean - there is no real rationale for > >this bid *except* playing partner to have psyched. So that if bids A > and >B would both be understandable choices (the sort of calls we would > say "of >course these are LAs") there *should* be no question of either > being >deemed abnormal. It doesn't matter if B happens to cater to a > particular >psyche much better than A - that is *not* illegal according > to the words >of the EBU regulation. > > Excellent. That is what the EBU says. That is what the EBU says in its words. It is not what it says by its actions. Do you really believe that bidding 2C on the given hand is not a logical alternative? Do you think that a bid can simultaneously be both "abnormal" and "LA"? > >> Of course it is open to you to play systems different from > > standard, > >> and as John Probst is fond of pointing out, the YC system in this > > area > >> is non-standard. I hope that the reason for this is not in an > > attempt > >> to control psyches. > > > >While true it is not relevant here. I play standard Acol and 2C is > >natural and non-forcing. I would bid it on xxxx,x,xx,KJT9xx as well > as on >the actual hand. I even admit that with some partners I would > double on >AKxx,xx,xx,QJTxx - those partners are ones who espouse the > "sound openers >in third seat" philosophy. I regard double as a very > inferior bid if one >is of the "light 3rd hand" opening school (it was > clear from the write-up >that the partnership in question were of the > latter belief). > > The write-up did not say that. Please David! The write-up contained the following words: comments attributed to the South player along the lines of "I have doubled before on a 10-count; partner was weak and it made" being entirely sufficient to justify a Red classification. If that doesn't make it clear that the North player is a "light openings in third" player what the hell does? Note: that "Partner was weak" gives no indication of "Partner didn't have hearts" so the conclusion drawn from the statement is ludicrous. > >> But the majority of players double on something around 9 HCP, > > > >Perhaps the majority of players don't open all that light in third > seat - >perhaps they have poor judgement. I would be truly amazed if > they didn't >understand that 2C may frequently lead to a better result > than double. > > > >> and a 2C bid shows a weaker hand. A typical 2C bid is > >> > >> xx > >> Kxxx > >> x > >> JTxxxx > > > >You may bid 2C with this hand, I would bid a non-forcing 3H showing my > fit >(3C as fit jump is fine if that is your agreement). I wouldn't > call >either choice (or pass, or 2H) "abnormal". > > I did not mean after a 1H opening, I meant it is a 2C bid after a 1S > or 1D opening. Of course I raise in some way opposite a 1H or 1C > opening. Apologies, but that was far from obvious. I may well bid 2C on this as well if non-vul - I'd want a better suit if vul. 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 Jul 22 08:32:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6LMWBG20262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:32:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6LMW3H20254 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:32:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6LMHgO04737 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 23:17:42 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 23:17 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: > >This hand wouldn't raise an eyebrow in the St John's Wood game. Basic > >Acol and damn few conventions - just like grandad used to play! > > > >If that approach is now illegal in EBU competition I pity us all. > > No-one has suggested that approach is illegal, and I believe you are > deliberately trying to wind us up to hide the problem. David. You suggested I was playing an illegal system because my openers are not strict "rule of 19". I offered you hand (AKT987,JT9x,-,T9x) that failed the rule of nineteen but that I would consider an opener. You describe that hand as an "obviously legal opening" - while this gives me concerns about how the EBU guidelines are written it does make it clear I am not playing an illegal system. > If you open a Rule of 17 hand in 3rd as a normal arrangement that is > illegal. It is, if, and only if, conventional responses are played, in contradiction to the OB regulation. The legality of the EBU regulation in relation to the laws of bridge has not, to my knowledge, been proven. Personally I am not sufficiently fond of featureless rule of 17 hands to wish to bring a test case. > Giving obviously legal openings as examples in an attempt to > obfuscate the issue does not affect this. > I actively dislike an approach where a player psyches 3rd in hand > regularly and when challenged produces non-psyches as an attempt to > prove something. While I do not suggest that you do this, your writing > has given the impression that you do so. Psyches and light openings are separate issues. I was responding to a point you made about agreements on light opening bids. Sure I psyche 3rd in hand openers now and again (i've even tried an HdW 1H with good results) but I can assure you that if I have psyched I will always say so and won't try and obscure the issue. I have two regular duplicate partners one of whom will very seldom detect my psyches while the other I trust implicitly to take normal actions until the psyche is exposed. Normal actions include those that cater to my (completely legal) style of light opening bids. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 22 17:15:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6M7E0l21780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 17:14:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6M7DoH21768 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 17:13:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.43.134] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17WX9N-0005sG-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 07:58:33 +0100 Message-ID: <003e01c2314d$bdde4ae0$f382403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:01:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > > > > > > > Codswallop. > > I leave as an exercise to the reader the > examination of previous posts by Grattan on > the subject. As to what "experienced players" > have told me - I was there, you weren't and I > have accurately reported their sentiments. > +=+ Ah, well Tim, think as you like. I have nothing to prove. David and I played together over an extended period; his opinion is mildly stated. Other former partners who read your words will enjoy the joke. As to the those whose 'sentiments' you quote, they will not include any who have sat with me on or in committee where the subject has arisen, nor those who have encountered my psyches as opponents or partners. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 23 02:20:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6MGIL603191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 02:18:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6MGIGH03187 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 02:18:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.40.24.72] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17WfeG-000FFi-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 17:03:00 +0100 Message-ID: <00c401c23199$16902d20$48182850@pacific> From: To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 17:01:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 5:03 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > > > Laws & Ethics Committee's comments: > > The L&E confirmed the Red classification of the following > psyche from the Brighton Summer Congress. > Mr Fleet had raise the question of whether it was > justifiable to deem an action "abnormal" if the > alternative, normal, action would not have been > considered to be an option by the player concerned. The > L&E was satisfied that such considerations did not apply > to the present case, comments attributed to the South > player along the lines of "I have doubled before on a > 10-count; partner was weak and it made" being entirely > sufficient to justify a Red classification. > In principle the test is objective in the sense that a > player's intention will not be taken into account, but > the standard of the player will be taken into account > where relevant. > +=+ And see WBFLC minutes of 30th August 2000, Item 8. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 23 04:29:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6MISbE03322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 04:28:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.tiscali.nl (rhea.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.178]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6MISUH03318 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 04:28:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from LNV (xs241-222-112.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.222.112]) by rhea.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id BC0C23B644; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:14:06 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002201c231ab$9731ff00$22fef1c3@LNV> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:06:52 +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 > > >> >> One of them is whether the EBU anti-fielding > > >> >> regulation is legal. The reg appears to > > >> >> contradict L12C2. > > >> > > > >> >It should be illegal, but the EBU is on a crusade to eliminate > > >> psyching >from the game and the WBF will allow any corruption of the > > >> laws if it is >crafted to fit the words of law 40. There is one way to keep me alert and responding for the moment: attacking the WBF still does it. Though the word 'craft' does not appear as a verb in my dictionary (due to the cheap price? or is the word as used 'corrupted'?), I have the feeling that it is not meant as a compliment. Is it possible to explain to me what we did wrong this time? Especially the word 'corruption' seems worth to be clarified. We are kind of allergic for those qualifications in the (bridge) world I prefer to be in. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 23 08:41:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6MMeOQ03430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 08:40:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6MMeJH03426 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 08:40:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id SAA10382 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 18:25:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA29825 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 18:25:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 18:25:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200207222225.SAA29825@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > >> >> One of them is whether the EBU anti-fielding > > > >> >> regulation is legal. The reg appears to > > > >> >> contradict L12C2. > > > >> > > > > >> >It should be illegal, but the EBU is on a crusade to eliminate > > > >> psyching >from the game and the WBF will allow any corruption of the > > > >> laws if it is >crafted to fit the words of law 40. > From: "Ton Kooijman" > Though the word 'craft' does not appear as a verb in my dictionary (due to > the cheap price? I was astonished to find that it does not appear in mine either. Fowler does not mention 'craft' in any sense, at least not in the obvious place. In spite of that, use of 'craft' as a verb is reasonably common in English. It means "make" or "build" or "construct" but signifies dexterity or skill in the process. Compare with "hand crafted." [This message is entirely a comment on English usage; I am taking no position on the substance of the argument.] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 23 09:39:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6MNdRj03460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 09:39:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx11.cluster1.charter.net (dc-mx11.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.8.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6MNdLH03456 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 09:39:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.159.141.95] (HELO abc) by mx11.cluster1.charter.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.9) with SMTP id 46562538 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:24:55 -0400 Message-ID: <005001c231d6$fb410560$0300a8c0@abc> From: "Al Kimel" To: References: <200207222225.SAA29825@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:24:51 -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 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: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > > > From: "Ton Kooijman" > > Though the word 'craft' does not appear as a verb in my dictionary (due to > > the cheap price? > > I was astonished to find that it does not appear in mine either. > Fowler does not mention 'craft' in any sense, at least not in the > obvious place. 'Craft' certainly appears in my dictionary, *American Heritage Dictionary*. It is identified as a transitive verb, signifying (1) "To make by hand" and (2) To make or construct (something) in a manner suggesting great care of ingenuity." -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 23 09:59:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6MNwZZ03479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 09:58:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6MNwTH03475 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 09:58:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from annescomputer ([62.255.4.6]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020722234405.WWPZ23840.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@annescomputer> for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 00:44:05 +0100 Message-ID: <001301c231d9$a8f83be0$0604ff3e@annescomputer> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: <200207222225.SAA29825@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 00:44:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I don't think the verb "to craft" has anything to do with the word "crafty" - cunning like a fox. To craft a bid is surely to manufacture from the materials available, a bid which is unique - out of the ordinary. To make a crafty bid is something different I am sure we will agree. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 11:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > > > > >> >> One of them is whether the EBU anti-fielding > > > > >> >> regulation is legal. The reg appears to > > > > >> >> contradict L12C2. > > > > >> > > > > > >> >It should be illegal, but the EBU is on a crusade to eliminate > > > > >> psyching >from the game and the WBF will allow any corruption of the > > > > >> laws if it is >crafted to fit the words of law 40. > > > From: "Ton Kooijman" > > Though the word 'craft' does not appear as a verb in my dictionary (due to > > the cheap price? > > I was astonished to find that it does not appear in mine either. > Fowler does not mention 'craft' in any sense, at least not in the > obvious place. > > In spite of that, use of 'craft' as a verb is reasonably common in > English. It means "make" or "build" or "construct" but signifies > dexterity or skill in the process. Compare with "hand crafted." > > [This message is entirely a comment on English usage; I am taking no > position on the substance of the argument.] > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 23 10:53:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6N0rO203520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 10:53:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx11.cluster1.charter.net (dc-mx11.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.8.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6N0rIH03515 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 10:53:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.196.230.145] (HELO oemcomputer) by mx11.cluster1.charter.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.9) with SMTP id 46599729 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:38:52 -0400 Message-ID: <039201c231e1$4911c860$91e6c418@charter.net> From: "Bill Bickford" To: References: <200207222225.SAA29825@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:38:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The following is copied from my Computer version of the American Heritage Dictionary: craft (kr²ft) n. 1. Skill in doing or making something, as in the arts; proficiency. See Synonyms at art1. 2. Skill in evasion or deception; guile. 3.a. An occupation or trade requiring manual dexterity or skilled artistry. b. The membership of such an occupation or trade; guild. 4., pl. craft. A boat, ship, or aircraft. --craft tr.v. craft·ed, craft·ing, crafts. 1. To make by hand. 2. Usage Problem. To make or construct (something) in a manner suggesting great care or ingenuity: “It was not the Chamber of Commerce that crafted the public policies that have resulted in a $26 billion annual subvention to the farmers” (William F. Buckley, Jr.). [Middle English, from Old English cræft.] --craft“er n. ———————————————————— USAGE NOTE: Craft has been used as a verb since the Old English period and was used in Middle English to refer specifically to the artful construction of a text or discourse. In recent years, crafted, the past participle of craft, has enjoyed a vogue as a participle referring to well-wrought writing. This may be a sign that the Jamesian conception of the literary muse has begun to yield to a Trollopian conception of literature as a kind of intellectual handicraft; or it may indicate little more than the desperation with which book reviewers seize on any novel adjective. In any event, the usage is more acceptable when applied to literary works than to other sorts of writing, and more acceptable as a participle than as a verb. It was acceptable to 73 percent of the Usage Panel in the phrase beautifully crafted prose. By contrast, only 35 percent of the Panel accepted the sentence The planners crafted their proposal so as to anticipate the objections of local businesses. Cheers....................../Bill Bickford ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > > > > >> >> One of them is whether the EBU anti-fielding > > > > >> >> regulation is legal. The reg appears to > > > > >> >> contradict L12C2. > > > > >> > > > > > >> >It should be illegal, but the EBU is on a crusade to eliminate > > > > >> psyching >from the game and the WBF will allow any corruption of the > > > > >> laws if it is >crafted to fit the words of law 40. > > > From: "Ton Kooijman" > > Though the word 'craft' does not appear as a verb in my dictionary (due to > > the cheap price? > > I was astonished to find that it does not appear in mine either. > Fowler does not mention 'craft' in any sense, at least not in the > obvious place. > > In spite of that, use of 'craft' as a verb is reasonably common in > English. It means "make" or "build" or "construct" but signifies > dexterity or skill in the process. Compare with "hand crafted." > > [This message is entirely a comment on English usage; I am taking no > position on the substance of the argument.] > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 23 13:56:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6N3tGV07902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:55:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6N3t2H07870 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:55:03 +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 g6N3eXp14180; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 23:40:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 23:35:31 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: Ton Kooijman cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <002201c231ab$9731ff00$22fef1c3@LNV> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 7/22/02, Ton Kooijman wrote: >Though the word 'craft' does not appear as a verb in my dictionary >(due to the cheap price? or is the word as used 'corrupted'?), I have >the feeling that it is not meant as a compliment. craft [kraft ] transitive verb (past craft·ed, past participle craft·ed, present participle craft·ing, 3rd person present singular crafts) 1.  make with skill:  to produce or create something with skill and care 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 Jul 23 18:31:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6N8Uk526475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 18:30:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6N8UbH26463 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 18:30:38 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6N8GCW23127 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 09:16:12 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 09:16 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: <002201c231ab$9731ff00$22fef1c3@LNV> > > > >> >It should be illegal, but the EBU is on a crusade to eliminate > > > >> psyching >from the game and the WBF will allow any corruption of > > > > the laws if it is >crafted to fit the words of law 40. > > Though the word 'craft' does not appear as a verb in my dictionary (due > to the cheap price? or is the word as used 'corrupted'?), I have the > feeling that it is not meant as a compliment. tr.v. craft·ed, craft·ing, crafts To make by hand. Usage Problem. To make or construct (something) in a manner suggesting great care or ingenuity: Your feeling was correct. We used to have a law which, on any normal reading, granted players the freedom to make light, but natural, opening bids: L40D. Regulation of Conventions The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions. Zonal organisations may, in addition, regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership's initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a king or more below average strength. Zonal organisations may delegate this responsibility. The WBF has allowed the EBU and ACBL (amongst others) to ride roughshod over this freedom. It is surely a corruption (twisting of intent) to say that these institutions can write a regulation which renders such an agreement almost unplayable by forbidding the subsequent use of any conventions. Had the WBF changed L40 to permit direct regulation of natural bids I would consider them misguided but honest. Allowing the law to be twisted is not an action that engenders even that degree of respect. Regards, Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 23 21:09:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6NB8MF04809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 21:08:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6NB8CH04796 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 21:08:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g6NArlf29517 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:53:47 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Jul 23 12:49:08 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KKFO2Q36WU001HAL@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:52:46 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:52:15 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:52:45 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: "'twm@cix.compulink.co.uk'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > > Though the word 'craft' does not appear as a verb in my > dictionary (due > > to the cheap price? or is the word as used 'corrupted'?), I > have the > > feeling that it is not meant as a compliment. > Your feeling was correct. > > We used to have a law which, on any normal reading, granted > players the > freedom to make light, but natural, opening bids: > > L40D. Regulation of Conventions > The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play > conventions. Zonal organisations may, in addition, regulate > partnership > understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the > partnership's > initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a > king or more > below average strength. Zonal organisations may delegate this > responsibility. > > The WBF has allowed the EBU and ACBL (amongst others) to ride > roughshod > over this freedom. Let us try to be accurate here. The WBF is not in a position to allow anything of this nature to either the EBU or the ACBL. And it didn't. What might have happened is that the ACBL or the EBU or others ask for the opinion of well respected people with also a position in the WBF about their opinion. And I was told that Kaplan for example was of the opinion that forbidding psyches on strong conventional opening bids is allowed under L40D. And someone searching for a 'yes' doesn't extend his research if Kaplan agrees. Personally I have the opinion that such an interpretation under L40D is not bizar, but certainly not in accordance with L40A, where it seems to me that the restriction for using psyches can only be found in an equal level of surprise for opponents and partner. I consider the description under 40A to have priority. If somebody had asked me to solve the problem of psyching such strong opening bids I would have said that making a regulation saying that the TD has to assume prior knowledge within the partnership in cases where the situation invites a player to make a psyche, brings psyching under control. That seems a better approach, using the only legal restriction for the use of a psyche. You might have noticed that regulations in the WBF now make some psyches brown sticker conventions (if they are protected by the system). This also seems not in accordance with the principle of what a psyche is. It certainly is not a convention. But being protected, it certainly invites players to use it. But when somebody had asked me whether L40D allows forbidding the use of conventions after a certain natural bid, my answer only could have been 'yes of course, what else can the meaning of 40D be?'. So it is up to the S.O. to make such regulation. And I really don't understand why you connect such a decision with corruption (twisting of intent). The intent of L40D related to powers given to S.O. is to keep bridge a nice, fair game, in which we try to solve the unsolvable problem of huge differences in bridge quality between participants in events. I am sure that these kind of regulations are made in an effort to control those problems. ton > It is surely a corruption (twisting of > intent) to say > that these institutions can write a regulation which renders such an > agreement almost unplayable by forbidding the subsequent use of any > conventions. > > Had the WBF changed L40 to permit direct regulation of natural bids I > would consider them misguided but honest. Allowing the law > to be twisted > is not an action that engenders even that degree of respect. > > Regards, > > Tim > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 23 23:46:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6NDjUP16234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 23:45:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6NDjNH16230 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 23:45:23 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6NDUwM24736 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:30:58 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:30 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: Ton wrote: > Let us try to be accurate here. The WBF is not in a position to allow > anything of this nature to either the EBU or the ACBL. The EBU and ACBL are, by the constitution of the WBF, duty bound to obey or withdraw. Of course the WBF is in a position to say "That is not permitted". > But when somebody had asked me whether L40D allows forbidding the use of > conventions after a certain natural bid, my answer only could have been > 'yes of course, what else can the meaning of 40D be?'. So it is up to > the S.O. to make such regulation And I would agree absolutely. If the SO says that splinters are not allowed after natural 1H openings that is their right. However that is not the situation. The SOs in question wanted to ban certain *ranges* for natural bids and found that they were forbidden by law from so doing. Rather than try and get the law changed they went seeking a loophole and discovered that a supine WBF would allow them to twist L40D. When I am told that an SO regulation under L40D could, while being condoned by the WBF, read: "No conventions are permitted in an auction which may contain a psychic bid." I believe the time has come to start shouting (and every 3-6 months I do!). How about "No conventions may be played by a pair using a weak NT". "No conventions after opening bids that may occasionally be weak" is just the thin end of the wedge. > And I really don't understand why you connect such a decision with > corruption (twisting of intent). The intent of L40D related to powers > given to S.O. is to keep bridge a nice, fair game, in which we try to > solve the unsolvable problem of huge differences in bridge quality > between participants in events. A worthy intent to be sure. However, when the EBU wrote: 12.2.1 Minimum opening bids. · The minimum agreement for opening 1-of-a-suit is Rule of 19, or 11 HCP; except · You may open a natural 1-of-a-suit that may be weaker than this by agreement, but only if you do not play any conventional calls thereafter. The intent was clearly to render unplayable a system involving light opening bids. Now I, and many others, believe that a hand like AKT987,JT9x,-,T9x is an obvious 1S opener. Do you think anyone reading the above regulation would believe that their partnership was permitted to agree to open it and play splinters/control showing cues? Do you think the authors of L40D intended that if your partnership agreed to open such a hand one would be prevented from cue-bidding the diamond void? Indeed one would be prevented from cue-bidding that D void even if the CA was added to the actual hand because one *might* have opened on the original! David Stevenson would have us believe that even a cue-bid showing an ace/king would be illegal. My background is from playing cut-in rubber bridge in a mixed standard game and I weep to think that the "Basic Acol" I learnt there is too complex for duplicate players, with the vast armoury of conventions most have available, to cope with. > I am sure that these kind of regulations > are made in an effort to control those problems. If the EBU was serious about addressing "huge differences in bridge quality between participants" why didn't they take a simpler, and more effective route "1 Level openings within a king of average strength that may not conform to the rule of 19 are alertable". It's not as if the opponents need *any* special defences to deal with these calls - they do need to know what sort hands might be held and the current regulations do very little to assist them on that front. 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 Wed Jul 24 00:58:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6NEvW217856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 00:57:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6NEvPH17852 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 00:57:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g6NEh1f29693 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:43:01 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Jul 23 16:38:19 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KKFW3TLG7M001H8D@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:42:43 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:42:12 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:42:43 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: "'twm@cix.compulink.co.uk'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Ton wrote: > > > Let us try to be accurate here. The WBF is not in a > position to allow > > anything of this nature to either the EBU or the ACBL. > > The EBU and ACBL are, by the constitution of the WBF, duty > bound to obey > or withdraw. Of course the WBF is in a position to say "That is not > permitted". I really don't think we are, and certainly not where regulations are within the legal interpretations of the laws. Even when special cases never were considered when writing those laws. Next question is whether we would exercise such power if we had it. I doubt that in these situations. And not because we should be afraid of withdrawals, though that needs consideration too, but because we give NBO's as much freedom as possibble, to coop with the problems they meet. Having 30 active NBO's certainly produces much more ideas and therewith developments, than a dictatorship ruling from above. I am quite sure that you wouldn't like that either. Your example > > > But when somebody had asked me whether L40D allows > forbidding the use of > > conventions after a certain natural bid, my answer only > could have been > > 'yes of course, what else can the meaning of 40D be?'. So > it is up to > > the S.O. to make such regulation > > And I would agree absolutely. If the SO says that splinters are not > allowed after natural 1H openings that is their right. > However that is > not the situation. The SOs in question wanted to ban certain > *ranges* for > natural bids and found that they were forbidden by law from so doing. > Rather than try and get the law changed they went seeking a > loophole and > discovered that a supine WBF would allow them to twist L40D. > > When I am told that an SO regulation under L40D could, while being > condoned by the WBF, read: "No conventions are permitted in > an auction > which may contain a psychic bid." We won't do so, since this bans any convention in any auction. Are you suggesting that the EBU might try to get rid of conventions using such regulation? Don't make them wiser than they already are. I believe the time has > come to start > shouting (and every 3-6 months I do!). How about "No > conventions may be > played by a pair using a weak NT". That is a legal regulation too! "No conventions after > opening bids > that may occasionally be weak" is just the thin end of the wedge. > > > And I really don't understand why you connect such a decision with > > corruption (twisting of intent). The intent of L40D related > to powers > > given to S.O. is to keep bridge a nice, fair game, in which > we try to > > solve the unsolvable problem of huge differences in bridge quality > > between participants in events. > The intent was clearly to render unplayable a system involving light > opening bids. Now I, and many others, believe that a hand like > AKT987,JT9x,-,T9x is an obvious 1S opener. What you have to do is convincing the EBU to change the regulation making it possible to open this hand 'normally'. They are reasonable people and only will uphold this approach if they think it necessary, which they can explain then, I assume. I wasn't aware of this consequence. I knew the EBU wanted to restrict the use of 8 - 10 NT openings, which certainly can create problems for less experienced opponents. ( I remember an English mixed pair playing the 10 - 12 NT in a European mixed championship. I was called at their table when the opponents felt damaged by the non-alert of such an opening. This 1 NT was not alertable according to the regulations, so I couldn't change the score. But then I asked this pair to start alerting this 1NT. And they really refused! After which I told them that with a new call from an future opponent they could expect severe measures. I am telling this to illustrate the 'hidden' reasons for people to use bidding weapons. This was disgusting.) What I would like you to remove from your writing is the implicit tone that you have to deal with a bunch of idiots in the EBU. I never met those, and have met quite a few EBU people. ton > If the EBU was serious about addressing "huge differences in bridge > quality between participants" why didn't they take a simpler, > and more > effective route "1 Level openings within a king of average > strength that > may not conform to the rule of 19 are alertable". It's not as if the > opponents need *any* special defences to deal with these > calls - they do > need to know what sort hands might be held and the current > regulations do > very little to assist them on that front. > > 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 Wed Jul 24 02:41:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6NGeNP17901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 02:40:23 +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 g6NGeEH17892 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 02:40:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.40.24.63] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17X2Tp-000FFV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 17:25:45 +0100 Message-ID: <003101c23265$543a7c80$3f182850@pacific> From: To: References: <200207222225.SAA29825@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 17:21:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 11:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > > I was astonished to find that it does not appear in mine either. > Fowler does not mention 'craft' in any sense, at least not in the > obvious place. > > In spite of that, use of 'craft' as a verb is reasonably common in > English. It means "make" or "build" or "construct" but signifies > dexterity or skill in the process. Compare with "hand crafted." > +=+ Collins English Dictionary, seventh meaning, "vb.to make or fashion with skill" The Chambers' Dictionary: "vt. to make or construct, esp. with careful skill." The New Oxford Dictionary: "verb: to exercise skill in making". If you will use these inferior tools! :-) And I like the 'esp.' in the Chambers version since in current common usage the word will sometimes refer to the making of something without any special thought that there is abnormal skill involved ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 24 02:41:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6NGeOH17902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 02:40:24 +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 g6NGeFH17894 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 02:40:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.40.24.63] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17X2Tn-000FFV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 17:25:44 +0100 Message-ID: <003001c23265$533eb760$3f182850@pacific> From: To: References: Subject: [BLML] Some facts and my involvement with them (was EBU Appeals 2001). Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 17:15:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 11:52 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > > > > The WBF has allowed the EBU and ACBL (amongst > > others) to ride roughshod over this freedom. > > > Let us try to be accurate here. The WBF is not in a > position to allow anything of this nature to either the > EBU or the ACBL. And it didn't. What might have > happened is that the ACBL or the EBU or others > ask for the opinion of well respected people with also > a position in the WBF about their opinion. And I was > told that Kaplan for example was of the opinion that > forbidding psyches on strong conventional opening > bids is allowed under L40D. > > ton > +=+ To keep the record accurate, let me draw attention yet once again to the *fact* that the European Bridge League did address a *formal* enquiry to the WBF Laws Committee as to whether the law allowing it to regulate conventions empowered it to ban them in some or any circumstances.The committee responded with a blunt uncompromising "yes". I can attest to this as I was the EBL officer to whom was delegated the task of approaching the Committee and obtaining its reply, and who therefore addressed the enquiry to the Committee. When a law says that someone "may regulate" or "has powers to establish" (or indeed, "may vary") and does not qualify the power given either by reference to another part of the laws or otherwise, the power is unrestricted. In saying this I am quoting the decision of a joint meeting of the WBF Executive Committee and the WBF Rules & Regulations Committee in Geneva 1990. That joint meeting reaffirmed what the WBFLC had agreed many years previously (and which it again acknowledged in its meeting of 1st September 1998 in the following minute: ........<< 10. The Committee again acknowledged the Geneva ruling that the condition in Law 80F applies to regulations made under Law 80F but not to regulations made under 40D, 80E, or other powers to regulate granted in the Laws. A consequence of this ruling is, as the Committee has previously confirmed, that powers to regulate conventions are unrestricted and include the power to ban conventions in given circumstances. >>...... ). -------------------------------------------------------- So far as powers of regulation are concerned, and the regulation of conventions is a key example, the WBF has not allowed anyone to 'ride roughshod' over anything. Twice it has taken a considered look at the language of the laws and has determined the meaning of statements that are simple, unambiguous, and unequivocally expressed. Any who wish to fulminate against the laws as they are should not target 'the WBF' but rather take aim at those who wrote them with intent as they are written. Kaplan did believe approximately as ton has said; he persuaded drafters and committee under his leadership to ensure that his beliefs were preserved in the laws. In this matter his beliefs are also mine. Engaged in the exercise there were enough others of like sympathies to ensure the smooth consummation of his aims. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ p.s. I trust no mist has gathered over the above paragraphs :-)) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 24 03:27:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6NHRBU17985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 03:27:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6NHR6H17981 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 03:27:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id AE8A326A00D2; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 10:12:42 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: [BLML] Craft (was EBU Appeals 2001) Message-Id: <230702204.36762@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 10:12:44 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I may have come late to this, but the word "craft" (both as noun and verb) has its roots in Old English, German and High Norse words (craeft, Kraft, kraptr) meaning skill or strength. In former days, the English word "crafty" was a term of approbation - it meant skilful. The question of how it has now come to mean devious, underhand, cunning is a puzzle to etymologists. But to "craft" is to make skilfully, and a "craftsman" is one who uses skill and care in his work. There is no connection other than by assonance with the word "graft" (another etymological puzzle is why this word is associated in England with hard work, in America with financial corruption). 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 Jul 24 03:28:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6NHSiN17999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 03:28:44 +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 g6NHScH17995 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 03:28:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6NHED909239 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 18:14:13 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 18:14 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: Ton wrote: > > > > > Let us try to be accurate here. The WBF is not in a > > position to allow > > > anything of this nature to either the EBU or the ACBL. > > > > The EBU and ACBL are, by the constitution of the WBF, duty > > bound to obey or withdraw. Of course the WBF is in a position to say > > "That is not permitted". > > > I really don't think we are, and certainly not where regulations are > within the legal interpretations of the laws. Even when special cases > never were considered when writing those laws. The WBFLC is (as I understand it) empowered to issue binding "interpretations" of the law if it so chooses. "L40D should not be used to restrict natural bids within a King or psychic actions" is certainly within the remit. > Next question is whether we would > exercise such power if we had it. I doubt that in these situations. And > not because we should be afraid of withdrawals, though that needs > consideration too, but because we give NBO's as much freedom as > possibble, to coop with the problems they meet. Having 30 active NBO's > certainly produces much more ideas and therewith developments, than a > dictatorship ruling from above. I am quite sure that you wouldn't like > that either. Some of us look the WBF to protect us from the dictatorship of our SOs - much as others look to an international court to protect them from their soi-disant democratic governments (I exaggerate a bit!). > Your example > > > > > > > > But when somebody had asked me whether L40D allows > > forbidding the use of > > > conventions after a certain natural bid, my answer only > > could have been > > > 'yes of course, what else can the meaning of 40D be?'. So > > it is up to > > > the S.O. to make such regulation > > > > And I would agree absolutely. If the SO says that splinters are not > > allowed after natural 1H openings that is their right. > > However that is > > not the situation. The SOs in question wanted to ban certain > > *ranges* for > > natural bids and found that they were forbidden by law from so doing. > > Rather than try and get the law changed they went seeking a > > loophole and > > discovered that a supine WBF would allow them to twist L40D. > > > > When I am told that an SO regulation under L40D could, while being > > condoned by the WBF, read: "No conventions are permitted in > > an auction which may contain a psychic bid." > > We won't do so, since this bans any convention in any auction. Are you > suggesting that the EBU might try to get rid of conventions using such > regulation? Don't make them wiser than they already are. No. It would have the effect of banning psyches - something many pairs would be willing to sign up to in order to play their conventions. How about "No conventions may be played by a pair using a weak NT". > That is a legal regulation too! Which is really scary. > > The intent was clearly to render unplayable a system involving light > > opening bids. Now I, and many others, believe that a hand like > > AKT987,JT9x,-,T9x is an obvious 1S opener. > > What you have to do is convincing the EBU to change the regulation > making it possible to open this hand 'normally'. They are reasonable > people and only will uphold this approach if they think it necessary, > which they can explain then, I assume. This is the forum I generally use when failing to persuade. There's also a slim chance of persuading the WBF to pull the EBU into line. > I wasn't aware of this consequence. I knew the EBU wanted to restrict > the use of 8 - 10 NT openings, which certainly can create problems for > less experienced opponents. Agreed. However I consider "creating problems for opponents" (experienced or not) a vital part of the game. > ( I remember an English mixed pair playing the 10 - 12 NT in a European > mixed championship. I was called at their table when the opponents felt > damaged by the non-alert of such an opening. This 1 NT was not alertable > according to the regulations, so I couldn't change the score. But then I > asked this pair to start alerting this 1NT. And they really refused! They should not have. I might have suggested drawing opponents attention specifically before each round rather than an alert. > After which I told them that with a new call from an future opponent > they could expect severe measures. I am telling this to illustrate the > 'hidden' reasons for people to use bidding weapons. This was > disgusting.) I am completely against using poor disclosure as a weapon against opponents. > What I would like you to remove from your writing is the implicit tone > that you have to deal with a bunch of idiots in the EBU. I never met > those, and have met quite a few EBU people. Those I have met are not idiots - were that the case the issue could be resigned to the dustbin. They are intelligent people who do idiotic things at times - hence the frustration in my tone. 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 Jul 24 04:12:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6NICDo18047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 04:12:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6NIC8H18043 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 04:12:08 +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 KAA19749; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 10:51:55 -0700 Message-Id: <200207231751.KAA19749@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 23 Jul 2002 18:14:00 BST." Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 11:02:27 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote: > Some of us look the WBF to protect us from the dictatorship of our SOs - > much as others look to an international court to protect them from their > soi-disant democratic governments (I exaggerate a bit!). So who protects us from the dictatorship of the WBF or an international court? Space aliens? In fact, someone who agrees with the SO's position on a particular bidding restriction and disagrees with the WBF's position could say that they look to their SO to protect them from the dictatorship of the WBF. I don't see why their position would _a priori_ have any less merit than yours. -- 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 Jul 24 07:16:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6NLG6i18134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 07:16:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from orngca-mls03.socal.rr.com (orngca-mls03.socal.rr.com [66.75.160.18]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6NLG0H18130 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 07:16:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from irv (cpe-66-74-18-75.dc.rr.com [66.74.18.75]) by orngca-mls03.socal.rr.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.3) with SMTP id g6NL1Zs02573 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:01:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002701c2328c$6ca10f60$6501a8c0@irv> From: "Irv Kostal" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:03:40 -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 Please excuse me for emerging from Lurkland with a stupid question, if it IS a stupid question, but I feel compelled to bring up a point. It seems to me an assertion is being made by Ton that is very questionable, and yet no one has had any reaction to it at all. Ton says, near the end of the post below, " The intent of L40D related to powers given to S.O. is to keep bridge a nice, fair game, in which we try to solve the unsolvable problem of huge differences in bridge quality between participants in events. I am sure that these kind of regulations are made in an effort to control those problems." I feel compelled to ask, what problems? Is it a problem that Hamman is a hugely better player than I am? For me, perhaps it is, but not for Bob, and not, so far as I can see, for the WBF. The reason they fail to "solve the unsolvable" is, there is no problem in the first place! Should we be telling Tiger Woods that if he insists on using (say) a graphite driver he's not allowed to carry a Pitching Wedge? Now I'm sure the WBF, and at least some of the participants in this discussion feel there is a problem; I wish someone would explain it to me. Irv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: ; Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 3:52 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > > > > > > > Though the word 'craft' does not appear as a verb in my > > dictionary (due > > > to the cheap price? or is the word as used 'corrupted'?), I > > have the > > > feeling that it is not meant as a compliment. > > > > Your feeling was correct. > > > > We used to have a law which, on any normal reading, granted > > players the > > freedom to make light, but natural, opening bids: > > > > L40D. Regulation of Conventions > > The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play > > conventions. Zonal organisations may, in addition, regulate > > partnership > > understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the > > partnership's > > initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a > > king or more > > below average strength. Zonal organisations may delegate this > > responsibility. > > > > The WBF has allowed the EBU and ACBL (amongst others) to ride > > roughshod > > over this freedom. > > > Let us try to be accurate here. The WBF is not in a position to allow > anything of this nature to either the EBU or the ACBL. And it didn't. What > might have happened is that the ACBL or the EBU or others ask for the > opinion of well respected people with also a position in the WBF about their > opinion. And I was told that Kaplan for example was of the opinion that > forbidding psyches on strong conventional opening bids is allowed under > L40D. And someone searching for a 'yes' doesn't extend his research if > Kaplan agrees. Personally I have the opinion that such an interpretation > under L40D is not bizar, but certainly not in accordance with L40A, where it > seems to me that the restriction for using psyches can only be found in an > equal level of surprise for opponents and partner. I consider the > description under 40A to have priority. > If somebody had asked me to solve the problem of psyching such strong > opening bids I would have said that making a regulation saying that the TD > has to assume prior knowledge within the partnership in cases where the > situation invites a player to make a psyche, brings psyching under control. > That seems a better approach, using the only legal restriction for the use > of a psyche. You might have noticed that regulations in the WBF now make > some psyches brown sticker conventions (if they are protected by the > system). This also seems not in accordance with the principle of what a > psyche is. It certainly is not a convention. But being protected, it > certainly invites players to use it. > > But when somebody had asked me whether L40D allows forbidding the use of > conventions after a certain natural bid, my answer only could have been 'yes > of course, what else can the meaning of 40D be?'. So it is up to the S.O. to > make such regulation. > And I really don't understand why you connect such a decision with > corruption (twisting of intent). The intent of L40D related to powers given > to S.O. is to keep bridge a nice, fair game, in which we try to solve the > unsolvable problem of huge differences in bridge quality between > participants in events. I am sure that these kind of regulations are made in > an effort to control those problems. > > ton > > > > > > It is surely a corruption (twisting of > > intent) to say > > that these institutions can write a regulation which renders such an > > agreement almost unplayable by forbidding the subsequent use of any > > conventions. > > > > Had the WBF changed L40 to permit direct regulation of natural bids I > > would consider them misguided but honest. Allowing the law > > to be twisted > > is not an action that engenders even that degree of respect. > > > > Regards, > > > > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 24 08:07:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6NM7VQ18192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 08:07:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout04.sul.t-online.com (mailout04.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.18]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6NM7PH18188 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 08:07:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd11.sul.t-online.de by mailout04.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17X7aR-0003ON-04; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 23:52:55 +0200 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.225.56.214]) by fwd11.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 17X7aB-06xAgaC; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 23:52:39 +0200 Message-ID: <3D3DD01A.9020704@t-online.de> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 23:52:26 +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 To: Irv Kostal CC: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: <002701c2328c$6ca10f60$6501a8c0@irv> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Irv Kostal wrote: > Please excuse me for emerging from Lurkland with a stupid question, if it IS > a stupid question, but I feel compelled to bring up a point. It seems to me > an assertion is being made by Ton that is very questionable, and yet no one > has had any reaction to it at all. > > Ton says, near the end of the post below, " The intent of L40D related to > powers given to S.O. is to keep bridge a nice, fair game, in which we try to > solve the unsolvable problem of huge differences in bridge quality between > participants in events. I am sure that these kind of regulations are made in > an effort to control those problems." > > I feel compelled to ask, what problems? Is it a problem that Hamman is a > hugely better player than I am? For me, perhaps it is, but not for Bob, and > not, so far as I can see, for the WBF. The reason they fail to "solve the > unsolvable" is, there is no problem in the first place! Should we be > telling Tiger Woods that if he insists on using (say) a graphite driver he's > not allowed to carry a Pitching Wedge? > > Now I'm sure the WBF, and at least some of the participants in this > discussion feel there is a problem; I wish someone would explain it to me. > > Irv > Hi Irv, the problem doesn`t lie with Hamman or with you or me, it`s the countless weaker players who don`t understand that psyching isn`t cheating. Let`s face it: people who psych or whose partner regularly psyches will more often get it right than the people we sometimes refer to as palookas (or patzer, or whatever). Sure, it`s part of the game, but it`s not part of the game these people want to play. And they are the majority, if not in ability but in numbers. NBO´s all over the world are faced with the task of getting people like Mrs.Guggenheim and Tim West-Meads (just for example, you get my point) to play Bridge together. No easy task. The Mrs. Guggenheims of this world don`t like to play against habitual (or even occasional) psychers. Well, they don`t like to do so hereabouts, maybe it`s different elsewhere, but I don`t really think so. Beginners and people who didn`t learn to play the game in 30 years (but enjoy the game nevertheless) don`t really understand psyches (this is to be expected of beginners, at least), and it diminishes their enjoyment of the game. Now what is an NBO supposed to do? Lose a lot of players from the silent majority, who may vote with their feet by leaving organised bridge, or antagonising a small number of people (like Tim or Wayne, to name only a couple of outspoken players)? It´s a very difficult (impossible may be a better word) task to keep millions of people happy, but in my voew you have to humour the majority if you can do so without changing the game beyond recognition. It has been done with other games (be it football/soccer, table tennis, volleyball, you name it), but it remains something akin to equilibristics. You can`t get it right for that many people, someone will complain whatever you do, so you should do what is best for bridge (if the WBF or various NBO`s succed is another matter). Best regards Matthias -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 24 08:23:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6NMMbX18209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 08:22:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6NMMWH18205 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 08:22:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.13.44] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17X7p0-000HU0-00; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 23:07:58 +0100 Message-ID: <001001c23295$d9716b40$2c0de150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Irv Kostal" , "BLML" References: <002701c2328c$6ca10f60$6501a8c0@irv> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 23:08:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 10:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > Now I'm sure the WBF, and at least some of the participants > in this discussion feel there is a problem; I wish someone > would explain it to me. > +=+ It really is very simple, Irv. Certain authorities are using powers given to them which they are appointed to exercise as they judge best for the good of the game and its population. In any society there are those who have an antipathy to authority and the exercise of it; and they argue against it, or against the judgement of those whose task, duty, it is to make the judgement. They have the problem. More mysterious is the compulsion that makes us debate with them when there is never a chance their condition can be altered. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 24 13:02:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6O31o218345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:01:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bean.epix.net (bean.epix.net [199.224.64.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6O31iH18341 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:01:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (hbge-216-37-227-210.dsl.hbge.epix.net [216.37.227.210]) by bean.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g6O2lG9D008929 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 22:47:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Craft (was EBU Appeals 2001) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 22:47:16 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <230702204.36762@webbox.com> In-Reply-To: <230702204.36762@webbox.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 10:12:44 -0700, David Burn wrote: >There is no connection other than by assonance >with the word "graft" (another etymological puzzle is why this >word is associated in England with hard work, in America with >financial corruption). > Speaking as an Englishman who emigrated to the USA since early 1997, "graft" is but one example among many. Churchill never spoke a truer word. Brian. (who had to go through an English comprehension test at the behest of the INS earlier today, at my conveniently-located INS office more than 200 miles away, so before our American readers start complaining about this post, I'm *allowed* to be a bit tetchy about the subject for a day or two). -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 24 13:49:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6O3n9718377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:49:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6O3n4H18373 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:49:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (hbge-216-37-227-210.dsl.hbge.epix.net [216.37.227.210]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g6O3YcBA001391 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 23:34:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Craft (was EBU Appeals 2001) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 23:34:38 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <230702204.36762@webbox.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 Tue, 23 Jul 2002 22:47:16 -0400, I wrote: > >Speaking as an Englishman who emigrated to the USA since early >1997, "graft" is but one example among many. Churchill never >spoke a truer word. > Before someone points it out to me, yes, I realise my English looks like it *needs* testing from the above quote. Damn. I changed one part of what I wrote, and missed the associated change. I should know better than to write e-mails after a 450-mile round trip. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 24 17:14:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6O7DhH18481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:13:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6O7DbH18477 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:13:38 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6O6xBj09800 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 07:59:11 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 07:59 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: <200207231751.KAA19749@mailhub.irvine.com> Adam wrote: > So who protects us from the dictatorship of the WBF or an > international court? Space aliens? I have no idea, though I seem to recall that custard comes into it somewhere. > In fact, someone who agrees with the SO's position on a particular > bidding restriction and disagrees with the WBF's position could say > that they look to their SO to protect them from the dictatorship of > the WBF. I don't see why their position would _a priori_ have any > less merit than yours. A priori it wouldn't. However the constitution of world bridge makes the WBF the arbiters/final protectors - in much the same way that the ECHR is supposed to protect individuals in the EU. 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 Jul 24 18:41:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6O8eWf18517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 18:40:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6O8eQH18513 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 18:40:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.29.143] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17XHSw-0001Fm-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 09:25:51 +0100 Message-ID: <004a01c232ec$2bc9a0a0$5246e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" References: <002701c2328c$6ca10f60$6501a8c0@irv> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 09:27:45 +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: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 10:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > > Ton says, near the end of the post below, " The > intent of L40D related to powers given to S.O. is > to keep bridge a nice, fair game, in which we try > to solve the unsolvable problem of huge differences > in bridge quality between participants in events. > I am sure that these kind of regulations are > made in an effort to control those problems." > > I feel compelled to ask, what problems? Is it > a problem that Hamman is a hugely better player > than I am? For me, perhaps it is, but not for Bob, > and not, so far as I can see, for the WBF. The > reason they fail to "solve the unsolvable" is, there > is no problem in the first place! Should we be > telling Tiger Woods that if he insists on using > (say) a graphite driver he's not allowed to carry > a Pitching Wedge? > +=+ When argument is put in moderated terms it is not objectionable. But I doubt the parallel you suggest; whilst I am not a golfer I do believe its authorities would have the powers needed to ban graphite clubs if they judged such a ban to be good for the game and, given direct powers, they would have no need to adopt the alternative that you suggest. Whether psyches are desirable in certain situations is a matter of judgement; fair debate on the question is acceptable. But the authorities that ban psyches in certain situations do have the powers that they use, and to make the judgement. Personally I would not ban psyches of conventions generally, but in some tournaments I could be persuaded that it is appropriate to ban psyches of (and following) Brown Sticker conventions or Multi, much as the EBU banned use of the Watson double by a player in association with his psyche. (I have not checked whether the ban is still in force). The percipient will have observed that by extrapolation Law 40D would also empower unrestricted regulation of "partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership's initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a King or more below average strength". The Law 40D distinction between this and the 'use' of conventions is noteworthy. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 24 20:12:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6OABhN18623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 20:11:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6OABYH18615 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 20:11:35 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6O9v8604675 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:57:08 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:57 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: <3D3DD01A.9020704@t-online.de> Matthias wrote: > NBO´s all over the world > are faced with the task of getting people like Mrs.Guggenheim and Tim > West-Meads (just for example, you get my point) to play Bridge > together. No easy task. The Mrs. Guggenheims of this world don`t like > to play against habitual (or even occasional) psychers. Mrs Guggenheim is a rubber bridge player (you can still meet her at my club). She is used to encountering psyches and while they sometimes give her poor results she is used to that (most things do). She will also take great delight when an opponent's psyche backfires and she gets a good score (although she will still hesitantly ask her partner where she went wrong). Mrs Guggenheim and I can play together quite happily. We had a group of beginner's at my club recently (including my wife) and I would play with them now and again. I psyched, and taught them a bit about dealing with it. I suggested situations in which they might consider psyching against good opponents (they could see how it would be useful weapon - and their expert opponents wouldn't expect it!). I also taught them about ethical obligations in the face of UI (sure most couldn't work out what specific UI suggested, but they understood the principal). I have taught them the basics of thinking about what their hands are worth rather than counting points. I have taught my wife about disclosure for when we play duplicate together and, within the limitations of her knowledge, she is a damn sight more forthcoming than most. Someday someone else can teach them fripperies like playing transfers with a weak NT, or Cappeletti, or .... The group now forms three regular tables at the club* and I have a reputation for eccentric (though often successful) bidding. The game is not of a very high standard but it is fun! *In large part due to their regular teacher whose syllabus was somewhat more conventional, but they tell me I helped too. The players at your club could be taught about the beauty, and art, of psyching and dealing with psyches - it wouldn't take long providing the right attitude is adopted. I am of the opinion that the regulations adopted by governing bodies actually reinforce the suspicion of psyches and that the whole thing has become a vicious circle. 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 Jul 24 20:12:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6OABgc18622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 20:11:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6OABXH18614 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 20:11:34 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6O9v7K04656 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:57:07 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:57 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: <001001c23295$d9716b40$2c0de150@dodona> > +=+ It really is very simple, Irv. Certain authorities are > using powers given to them which they are appointed > to exercise as they judge best for the good of the game > and its population. Substitute "abusing" for "using" and you have it in a nutshell. > In any society there are those who > have an antipathy to authority and the exercise of it; > and they argue against it, or against the judgement of > those whose task, duty, it is to make the judgement. Of course. When one passionately disagrees with those in authority it is natural, and right, that one should protest against it. Should I remain silent when I believe the authorities are harming the game I love? > They have the problem. More mysterious is the > compulsion that makes us debate with them when > there is never a chance their condition can be altered. Sure I regard my chances of seeing you realise your mistakes as being tiny but one does hold out a small hope that your condition can be alerted. I console myself with the fact that those in authority at least have a moral duty to listen to those of us who aren't. Had the EBU come to me saying "Many of our members feel that psyches are somewhat akin to cheating and this may drive them from the game" I would have been appalled. "What are you doing to help educate these players?" I ask. "Nothing" they say. Strange how I can then begin to understand their problem! Perhaps I am arrogant to believe that "I am right and those in power are collectively wrong". Perhaps we should all just accept that a group of people in power will always both know best *and* act in the interests of those they represent. It is not as if history would teach us anything different! The administrators are, I acknowledge, mostly trying their best to perform a very difficult and complex task - it is surely inevitable that they will sometimes make mistakes (just as inevitable is that a few bad apples will be acting out of self interest rather than for their constituents). Their task is also relatively thankless. I tend not to comment much on the things I think they do right but I have met, for example, DWS and I know we are about 90% in agreement on most aspects of the game - which doesn't stop us arguing vociferously in this forum about the other 10%. It's not personal even though I know he sometimes takes it that way. 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 Jul 24 21:38:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6OBbwX18666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:37:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6OBbrH18662 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:37:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id AE2FAFFE00FA; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 04:23:27 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Message-Id: <240702205.15807@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 04:23:30 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim wrote: >Substitute "abusing" for "using" and you have it in a nutshell. A sheep, as Abraham Lincoln once remarked, would have four legs even if you called its tail a leg, for calling a tail a leg does not make it one. By the same token, calling the use of power an abuse of power does not make it one. You need to provide some justification, a word which (to save you the trouble of looking it up) is not synonymous with bile. >Of course. When one passionately disagrees with those in authority it is natural, and right, that one should protest against it. No, it isn't. The cause of one's disagreement must first be rational. >Should I remain silent when I believe the authorities are harming the game I love? They aren't. They are telling you that you can't open nine counts, even though they look to you like "obvious opening bids". Suppose a piece of wood 4.5 inches wide looked to you like an obvious cricket bat. Would "the authorities" allow you to go out to bat with it? They would not, for it is against the rules. Would you consider it natural and right to protest against this? Now, the maximum width of a cricket bat is entriely arbitrarily set at four and a quarter inches. It would make absolutely no sense at all to complain about this. If you don't like it, you don't have to play cricket. The minimum standard for an opening bid that may be played together with a set of conventions is entirely arbitrarily set in accordance with the Rule of 19. And it makes absolutely no sense to complain about this either. If you don't like it, you don't have to play bridge. >Sure I regard my chances of seeing you realise your mistakes as being tiny They are not mistakes, any more than the tail of a sheep is a leg. They are rules, and like any rule of any game, they are arbitrary. They are not particularly justifiable, but nor is the requirement that a bat be 4.25 inches wide at the most. However, the fact that they are not justifiable does not mean that they are mistakes - it simply means that no justification for them is needed. >but one does hold out a small hope that your condition can be alerted. Oh, I am always willing to consider the possibility that changes should be made. I have even made one or two of them. But I have required as a mandate something more than the petulant bleating of one who, unwilling to adjust his game in order to play by the rules, demands that the rules be adjusted to encompass the way he plays. Such arrogance would be insufferable, were it not faintly amusing. >I console myself with the fact that those in authority at least have a moral duty to listen to those of us who aren't. We know. We listen. We even reply. But there comes a point at which, since those of you who aren't in authority do not consider that the moral duty to listen is reciprocal, we become a trifle weary of the entire business. >Had the EBU come to me saying "Many of our members feel that psyches are somewhat akin to cheating and this may drive them from the game" I would have been appalled. To the best of my knowledge, the EBU has not as yet seen any particular need to do this. My knowledge, however, may be incomplete, for... >"What are you doing to help educate these players?" I ask. "Nothing" they say. Strange how I can then begin to understand their problem! I am having some difficulty with the above, since there appears to have been a shift in tense and mood whose significance is unclear to me. Do you assert that in fact, the EBU having come to you and expressed the views of its membership, you have conducted the above dialogue? Or is this merely another exercise in the renaming of tails? >Perhaps I am arrogant to believe that "I am right and those in power are collectively wrong". It may be so. That the possibility occurs to you at all is, at any rate, a hopeful sign. >Perhaps we should all just accept that a group of people in power will always both know best *and* act in the interests of those they represent. Well, it would be rather difficult for us to act in the interests both of people who want to open nine counts and people who don't want to play against people who open nine counts. So what we do is, we count those in the first group, and we count those in the second group, and then we... but I have the impression that I may be attempting to explain an unnecessarily esoteric concept here. >The administrators are, I acknowledge, mostly trying their best to perform a very difficult and complex task No, no. We are too busy attempting, with almost no effort at all, to cause irreparable damage to the game by finding ever more devious ways to stop a minority of people from doing what a majority does not want them to do. I thought everybody knew that. >it is surely inevitable that they will sometimes make mistakes Whereas it is, of course, inconceivable that our critics will. Perhaps we are both in the wrong jobs. >Their task is also relatively thankless. We're not actually in it for the gratitude, which is perhaps as well. >I tend not to comment much on the things I think they do right Curiously enough, neither does anyone else. >but I have met, for example, DWS and I know we are about 90% in agreement on most aspects of the game Some cheerful news at last. 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 Jul 24 22:34:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6OCYOa18793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:34:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6OCYIH18789 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:34:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from central-city-carrier-station.mit.edu (CENTRAL-CITY-CARRIER-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.7.72]) by pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id IAA25239 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 08:19:52 -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 IAA01345 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 08:17:27 -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 IAA24155 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 08:07:54 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "richard willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 08:07:55 -0400 Organization: mit Message-ID: <000801c2330a$bebef3b0$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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <240702205.15807@webbox.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >David Burn wrote >Well, it would be rather difficult for us to act in the interests >both of people who want to open nine counts and people who don't >want to play against people who open nine counts. So what we do >is, we count those in the first group, and we count those in the >second group, and then we... but I have the impression that I may >be attempting to explain an unnecessarily esoteric concept here. I have a few quick questions: The first series is addressed to David: How did you perform this count? When did it take place? What was the sampling methodology? I would dearly love to see the survey and the raw data. Most notably, I'd be very interested if you cross correlated the answers versus membership age. The second question is addressed to the list at large. So long as we are involved in surveys, I'd be curious in knowing how many participants on this list believe that Zonal Authorities should be allowed use law 40D to ban light openings? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 24 23:46:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6ODkPE18840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 23:46:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6ODkKH18836 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 23:46:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id AC4A1272019A; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 06:31:54 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Message-Id: <240702205.23515@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 06:31:57 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard wrote: >I have a few quick questions: > >The first series is addressed to David: > >How did you perform this count? >When did it take place? >What was the sampling methodology? >I would dearly love to see the survey and the raw data. >Most notably, I'd be very interested if you cross correlated the answers versus membership age. The description of a "count" was an ellipsis for the process by which the membership of the EBU makes its wishes known to the Board and the various Committees whose task is to turn those wishes into policies. If you are interested in the structure of the Union and how it works, there is some information available at www.ebu.co.uk - I do not intend to get into a detailed description here. But in essence: The EBU is divided into County organisations. Counties send delegates to the Council of the Union, which meets (roughly) four times a year with representatives of the Board, the full-time staff, and the various Committees. Policy decisions are taken by Council - the idea is that the wishes of the membership are ascertained at local level by the counties themselves, and Council delegates are mandated to vote in accordance with the wishes of their members. The central organisation does not conduct referendums. It tries, but the only medium by which it could do it is the bi-monthly magazine, and experience has shown that if you put a survey in this, about six people out of 28,000 answer it, and they are all known lunatics in any case. In the case of Laws and Ethics policy, the process may work proactively or responsively as far as the Committee is concerned. For example, when considering the licensing category for multi-purpose opening two bids, the Committee wished to put all of them into a restricted category. But the wish of Council, expressed by the members through the delegates, was that the popular version of the Multi 2D opening should be an exception, placed in a general category. So we did this - a singularly stupid decision in my view, but my view is of no relevance. If the Committee wishes to make a policy decision on its own initiative, that decision must be ratified by Council, whose delegates will seek the opinion of the members before any new policy can be enacted. Now, you may think that this is a somewhat inexact way to run a democracy, and I would not strongly disagree with you. But I have attended a number of meetings at County level, and I have not failed to be impressed by the diligence with which delegates to Council pursue the task of finding out what the membership wants and telling the central organisation about it. When we proposed that the Rule of 19 be relaxed, or even abolished (since it was not clear to us that it actually accorded with the Laws of the game at that time), we were told in no uncertain terms that the membership found it useful, that it was easy to understand, and that regulations based upon it would be readily accepted. We believed this. We have been given no reason to revise our belief in the intervening years. >The second question is addressed to the list at large. So long as we are involved in surveys, I'd be curious in knowing how many participants on this list believe that Zonal Authorities should be allowed use law 40D to ban light openings? I don't quite understand this question. There is no way in which Law 40D can be used to ban "light openings" unless by this you mean opening bids on 0-7 hcp. It can be used to render light openings impracticable by banning the use of conventions in conjunction with light openings; if that is what is meant, then my own view is that Zonal Authorities should not be allowed to use it in this way. A Zonal Authority is responsible for running tournaments at Zonal level; at such tournaments, the use of any and all bidding methods should (subject to proper disclosure) be permitted. However, I believe that Sponsoring Organisations should have the power to use Law 40D in this way if they perceive the (de facto) abolition of "light openings" as a positive step in the development of bridge within their remit. If the question is: should ZAs ban HUMs, my answer is "No". 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 Jul 25 00:28:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6OESDq18883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 00:28:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6OES7H18878 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 00:28:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (hbge-216-37-227-210.dsl.hbge.epix.net [216.37.227.210]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g6OEDfBA003702 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:13:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:13:41 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: <4mctjuscsffge52lsq77qbh40bcjmb88k8@4ax.com> References: <240702205.23515@webbox.com> In-Reply-To: <240702205.23515@webbox.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 06:31:57 -0700, David Burn wrote: > >In the case of Laws and Ethics policy, the process may work proactively >or responsively as far as the Committee is concerned. For example, >when considering the licensing category for multi-purpose opening >two bids, the Committee wished to put all of them into a restricted >category. But the wish of Council, expressed by the members through >the delegates, was that the popular version of the Multi 2D opening >should be an exception, placed in a general category. So we did >this - a singularly stupid decision in my view, but my view is >of no relevance. David, >From first hand knowledge and experience, I can tell you that news of the exception made for the multi 2D was received with a large sigh of relief by a number of those unfortunate enough to reside in a county which allowed no restricted licence events. Yes, of course logic suggests that it should be in the same group as other multi 2 openers, but then logic would also suggest that those who wanted to play a multi 2D might have some county events in which it was permitted. 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 Jul 25 02:25:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6OGOhX18963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 02:24:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6OGOaH18958 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 02:24:37 +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 MAA12745 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 12:10:09 -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 MAA07395 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 12:10:09 -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 MAA23493 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 12:10:09 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "richard willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 12:10:10 -0400 Organization: mit Message-ID: <000f01c2332c$95bffc80$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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <240702205.23515@webbox.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi David Thanks for taking the time to provide so complete an answer. I would like to make a couple comments. I doing so, I am extrapolating from my own experiences with the ACBL. I am not positive whether these necessarily map onto the EBU. I expect that if I am wrong, people will make appropriate comments. Lack of information is one of the most significant problems facing organizations. Without information, it is virtually impossible to have an effective decision making process. In particular, membership organizations that draw much of their leadership from the rank and file have a disturbing tendency to fall into a "group think" mode. The leadership develops a consensus view and then self selects successors that will perpetuate these policies. Business organizations have equivalent problems, typically made manifest when the engineering and marketing groups become too far removed from their customer base and begins to assume that they know best what the customer wants. The description of a "count" was an ellipsis for the process by which the membership of the EBU makes its wishes known to the Board and the various Committees whose task is to turn those wishes into policies. If you are interested in the structure of the Union and how it works, there is some information available at www.ebu.co.uk - I do not intend to get into a detailed description here. But in essence: The EBU is divided into County organisations. Counties send delegates to the Council of the Union, which meets (roughly) four times a year with representatives of the Board, the full-time staff, and the various Committees. Policy decisions are taken by Council - the idea is that the wishes of the membership are ascertained at local level by the counties themselves, and Council delegates are mandated to vote in accordance with the wishes of their members. The central organisation does not conduct referendums. It tries, but the only medium by which it could do it is the bi-monthly magazine, and experience has shown that if you put a survey in this, about six people out of 28,000 answer it, and they are all known lunatics in any case. In the case of Laws and Ethics policy, the process may work proactively or responsively as far as the Committee is concerned. For example, when considering the licensing category for multi-purpose opening two bids, the Committee wished to put all of them into a restricted category. But the wish of Council, expressed by the members through the delegates, was that the popular version of the Multi 2D opening should be an exception, placed in a general category. So we did this - a singularly stupid decision in my view, but my view is of no relevance. If the Committee wishes to make a policy decision on its own initiative, that decision must be ratified by Council, whose delegates will seek the opinion of the members before any new policy can be enacted. Now, you may think that this is a somewhat inexact way to run a democracy, and I would not strongly disagree with you. But I have attended a number of meetings at County level, and I have not failed to be impressed by the diligence with which delegates to Council pursue the task of finding out what the membership wants and telling the central organisation about it. When we proposed that the Rule of 19 be relaxed, or even abolished (since it was not clear to us that it actually accorded with the Laws of the game at that time), we were told in no uncertain terms that the membership found it useful, that it was easy to understand, and that regulations based upon it would be readily accepted. We believed this. We have been given no reason to revise our belief in the intervening years. >The second question is addressed to the list at large. So long as we are involved in surveys, I'd be curious in knowing how many participants on this list believe that Zonal Authorities should be allowed use law 40D to ban light openings? I don't quite understand this question. There is no way in which Law 40D can be used to ban "light openings" unless by this you mean opening bids on 0-7 hcp. It can be used to render light openings impracticable by banning the use of conventions in conjunction with light openings; if that is what is meant, then my own view is that Zonal Authorities should not be allowed to use it in this way. A Zonal Authority is responsible for running tournaments at Zonal level; at such tournaments, the use of any and all bidding methods should (subject to proper disclosure) be permitted. However, I believe that Sponsoring Organisations should have the power to use Law 40D in this way if they perceive the (de facto) abolition of "light openings" as a positive step in the development of bridge within their remit. If the question is: should ZAs ban HUMs, my answer is "No". 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 Jul 25 02:28:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6OGRs618982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 02:27:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6OGRiH18973 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 02:27:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.40.42.26] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17XOkX-0003AA-00; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:12:30 +0100 Message-ID: <004f01c2332c$bb0d8c00$441e2850@pacific> From: To: , "David Burn" References: <240702205.23515@webbox.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:48:04 +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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 2:31 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > >experience has shown that if you put a survey in > this, about six people out of 28,000 answer it, > and they are all known lunatics in any case. > +=+ and, of course, their views are already known to blml subscribers +=+ > > > Now, you may think that this is a somewhat inexact way to run > a democracy, and I would not strongly disagree with you. > +=+ Very like, indeed, standard experience of democracy +=+ > > >The second question is addressed to the list at large. > So long as we are involved in surveys, I'd be curious in knowing > how many participants on this list believe that Zonal Authorities > should be allowed use law 40D to ban light openings? > > I don't quite understand this question. > +=+ And I do not quite understand the following response +=+ > > A Zonal Authority is responsible for running tournaments > at Zonal level; at such tournaments, the use of any and all > bidding methods should (subject to proper disclosure) be > permitted. If the question is: should ZAs ban HUMs, my > answer is "No". > +=+ This seems to assume that all Zonal tournaments are exclusively for expert players, or those who wish to play an expert game. It is not my belief that all Z1 tournaments necessarily fit this description, nor do I believe the (2003) First European Open Championships in Menton will do so. (See the information about Menton on the internet at www.eurobridge.org or at www.worldbridge.org or yet again at www.bridge.ecats.co.uk ) I would suggest there is justification for streaming of Zonal tournaments, just as the EBU levels of tournaments are justified. This is not to argue that the respective Zones have necessarily judged the categorization well - but then, I have seen it argued that such judgements are subjective and that the appointed authorities are entitled to exercise the judgement that they are in part appointed to exercise. ooooooooooooooooooooo ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 25 02:28:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6OGRrY18981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 02:27:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6OGRjH18974 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 02:27:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.40.42.26] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17XOkZ-0003AA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:12:31 +0100 Message-ID: <005001c2332c$bbde97a0$441e2850@pacific> From: To: "Bridge Laws" References: <240702205.15807@webbox.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:08:21 +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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 >> > Such arrogance would be insufferable, were it not > faintly amusing. > +=+ faintly? I find the whole dialogue hilarious. +=+ > > >Perhaps I am arrogant to believe that "I am right > and those in power are collectively wrong". > > It may be so. That the possibility occurs to you at > all is, at any rate, a hopeful sign. > +=+ I would find "much virtue here in if" +=+ > > We're not actually in it for the gratitude, which is > perhaps as well. > > >but I have met, for example, DWS and I know > >we are about 90% in agreement on most aspects > >of the game > > Some cheerful news at last. > +=+ Oh, I don't know that DWS will be greatly cheered by an association gratuitously extended to him in his absence. Perhaps he would prefer to claim it for himself. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 25 02:37:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6OGaqB19001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 02:36:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6OGakH18997 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 02:36:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6OGMHH13608 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:22:17 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:22 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: <240702205.15807@webbox.com> David Burn wrote: > >Substitute "abusing" for "using" and you have it in a nutshell. > > A sheep, as Abraham Lincoln once remarked, would have four legs > even if you called its tail a leg, for calling a tail a leg does > not make it one. By the same token, calling the use of power > an abuse of power does not make it one. Grattan called it "use", I called it "abuse". Both are matters of opinion and depend solely on whether one agrees with what those in power are trying to do. Tails/legs are pretty well defined items (perhaps one day a sheep will grow feet at the end of their tails and confuse the issue). Abstract concepts such as use/abuse can only ever be opinions in the minds of the various observers. > >Should I remain silent when I believe the authorities are harming > >the game I love? > > They aren't. They are telling you that you can't open nine counts, > even though they look to you like "obvious opening bids". I can make any opening bid I like. They are telling me I can't agree (explicitly or implicitly) with my partners how good a non-rule of 19 hand has to be before opening it. They are also, implicitly, telling players that "rule of 19" or "HCP" are the right ways to evaluate hands. Both these things are, IMO, harmful to the game. OK I have just re-read the law. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps I *am* allowed to agree to open any hand that is "stronger" than both K,KQ,J432,765432 and QJ QJ QJ Q765432. If so I apologise unreservedly for wasting everyone's time - these hands are probably below the L40D minimum anyway (although I would ask that this be clarified in the next OB). > Suppose > a piece of wood 4.5 inches wide looked to you like an obvious > cricket bat. Would "the authorities" allow you to go out to bat > with it? They would not, for it is against the rules. Would you > consider it natural and right to protest against this? If I passionately believed that the lack of a 4.5 inch bat was damaging the game then of course I would protest. Of course if they told me I couldn't use my 4.25 inch wide bat "because it looks too big" or "is too metallic" I would protest a damn sight more. Of course using inches to measure width is pretty absolute as things go. If the rules of cricket specified "no more than the width of the umpire's palm" one might find some difficulty. Using "within a king of average strength" is pretty arbitrary too - and while I don't think it is actually necessary it is sufficiently tolerant that I can live with it. > And it makes absolutely no sense to complain about this either. If > you don't like it, you don't have to play bridge. I have many alternatives. I can continue complaining and play bridge in the meantime. I can play in level 1 events where all "simple old-fashioned Acol" openings are permitted. I can play in clubs with more enlightened approaches. > >Sure I regard my chances of seeing you realise your mistakes > as being tiny > > They are not mistakes, any more than the tail of a sheep is a > leg. They are rules, and like any rule of any game, they are > arbitrary. The fact that they are arbitrary doesn't mean they can't be wrong. The TCCB could arbitrarily change the maximum width of a cricket bat to 4.25cm and I would consider it a mistake (I doubt I would be alone). > >but one does hold out a small hope that your condition can be > alerted. > > Oh, I am always willing to consider the possibility that changes > should be made. I have even made one or two of them. But I have > required as a mandate something more than the petulant bleating > of one who, unwilling to adjust his game in order to play by > the rules, demands that the rules be adjusted to encompass the > way he plays. Such arrogance would be insufferable, were it not > faintly amusing. I *dislike* having to adjust my game to compete in EBU competitions, I rail about the rules and hope that they will be changed. I am, however, willing to change my game to play by the rules - and I do so. I avoid discussing "minimum opening" opening requirements with my many partners and if one notices me opening on non rule of 19 hands (very few of which qualify for one of my openers) I will stop doing it with that partner. In my opinion opponents would be better served if I did discuss, agree, and disclose my approach. But hey, the rules won't let me do that so I don't. > >I console myself with the fact that those in authority at least > have a moral duty to listen to those of us who aren't. > > We know. We listen. We even reply. But there comes a point at > which, since those of you who aren't in authority do not consider > that the moral duty to listen is reciprocal, we become a trifle > weary of the entire business. > >Had the EBU come to me saying "Many of our members feel that > psyches are somewhat akin to cheating and this may drive them > from the game" I would have been appalled. > > To the best of my knowledge, the EBU has not as yet seen any > particular need to do this. My knowledge, however, may be incomplete, > for... > > >"What are you doing to help educate these players?" I > ask. "Nothing" they say. Strange how I can then begin to understand > their problem! > > I am having some difficulty with the above, since there appears > to have been a shift in tense and mood whose significance is > unclear to me. Apologies. The change in tense was careless. As I said elsewhere I believe the EBU has acted towards eliminating psyches rather than trying to educate its members about them. > >Perhaps I am arrogant to believe that "I am right and those > in power are collectively wrong". > > It may be so. That the possibility occurs to you at all is, at > any rate, a hopeful sign. Hopefully the possibility that I am right will also occur to those in power. > >Perhaps we should all just accept that a group of people in > power will always both know best *and* act in the interests of > those they represent. > > Well, it would be rather difficult for us to act in the interests > both of people who want to open nine counts and people who don't > want to play against people who open nine counts. So what we > do is, we count those in the first group, and we count those > in the second group, and then we... but I have the impression > that I may be attempting to explain an unnecessarily esoteric > concept here. A simplistic approach like counting players on every issue (even if it ever actually occurred) would not necessarily lead to a well formed opinion on what is "good for the game" overall. One might even find that teaching the players who "don't open 9 counts" how to evaluate "which 9 counts are worth an opening bid" would be in their interests after all. > >The administrators are, I acknowledge, mostly trying their best > to perform a very difficult and complex task > > No, no. We are too busy attempting, with almost no effort at > all, to cause irreparable damage to the game by finding ever > more devious ways to stop a minority of people from doing what > a majority does not want them to do. I thought everybody knew > that. That possibility did occur, I had hoped I was wrong to even think it. What a shame! > >it is surely inevitable that they will sometimes make mistakes > > Whereas it is, of course, inconceivable that our critics will. > Perhaps we are both in the wrong jobs. Of course your critics will make mistakes too. Perhaps obtaining complete homogeneity in bidding, hand evaluation, and play will lead to a more popular and thriving game and should be the goal for which we all strive. Personally I think the game would be the poorer for 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 Thu Jul 25 02:53:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6OGq7d19036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 02:52:07 +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 g6OGq1H19032 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 02:52:01 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6OGbYM24331 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:37:34 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:37 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: <005001c2332c$bbde97a0$441e2850@pacific> Grattan wrote: > > >but I have met, for example, DWS and I know > > >we are about 90% in agreement on most aspects > > >of the game > > > > Some cheerful news at last. > > > +=+ Oh, I don't know that DWS will be greatly > cheered by an association gratuitously extended > to him in his absence. Perhaps he would prefer > to claim it for himself. +=+ The association was not intended to cheer David. He can of course deny it if he wishes. I did, in my original post, clearly dissociate him from a sufficient percentage of my opinions that he need not be ashamed. Tim 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 Jul 25 03:20:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6OHJrH19102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 03:19:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6OHJlH19098 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 03:19:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from central-city-carrier-station.mit.edu (CENTRAL-CITY-CARRIER-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.7.72]) by pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id NAA12531 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:05:21 -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 NAA15302 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:05:21 -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 NAA18929 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:05:21 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "richard willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:05:21 -0400 Organization: mit Message-ID: <000101c23334$4b8d69b0$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 In-Reply-To: <240702205.23515@webbox.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk BTW, one last comment >The central organisation does not conduct referendums. It tries, but >the only medium by which it could do it is the bi-monthly magazine, >and experience has shown that if you put a survey in this, about six >people out of 28,000 answer it, and they are all known lunatics in any case. There are a wide variety of ways to improve survey response rates. Some do have the unfortunate effect of introducing small amounts of bias into the system, however, its possible to compensate. As an example. Use your organization's web site for membership surveys. Provide some kind of compensation for completing the survey form. As an example: Three lucky winner's will be drawn from random and win a game with "Bridge Celebrity of choice". The ACBL is using a similar mechanism here the US, raffling away the chance to play bridge with Larry Cohen. [Of course, this being the ACBL, they are using the raffle to funnel people into the highly expensive patron membership program. I am sure that they would ever consider using this for anything as mundane as increasing the response rate to a membership survey.] As I mentioned, this does introduce bias. In this case, respondants will be heavily weighted towards computer owners. However, it is possible to correct for bias. In a similar fashion. Distribute membership forms at Bridge Congresses. Players must return surveys to get free food/other goodies. Once again, you will introduce bias. In this case, players who have withdrawn from organized bridge can't be surveyed. However, here once again information is a GOOD thing. Its really disappointing to see our leaders saying that its too difficult to get good information. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 25 03:46:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6OHjs619126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 03:45:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6OHjlH19122 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 03:45:48 +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 g6OHYax19878 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 18:34:36 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 18:29:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: <240702205.15807@webbox.com> <005001c2332c$bbde97a0$441e2850@pacific> In-Reply-To: <005001c2332c$bbde97a0$441e2850@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <005001c2332c$bbde97a0$441e2850@pacific>, gester@lineone.net writes > >Grattan Endicott----------------------------------------------------- >"I am pleased to announce that the two >governments and the political parties in >Northern Ireland have reached agreement." > ~ George Mitchell, 11th April 1998. >oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Burn" >To: >Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 12:23 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > > >>> >> Such arrogance would be insufferable, were it not >> faintly amusing. >> >+=+ faintly? I find the whole dialogue hilarious. +=+ there is a fundamental problem that the Laws clearly say: " .. a player may make any call or play .. " Tim and I play a lot together. We both accept that full disclosure is paramount regarding our knowledge of our partner's tendencies. Nonetheless, if our agreement is that 1NT is 12-14, and we always bid as though partner has 12-14, how can we disclose to opponents that partner's 1NT might possibly be mildly off-centre? Our agreement is clearly 12-14. Our bidding system (such as it is) is based on 12-14. All we can do is to alert our opponents to the fact that in our experience (but not as an agreement) the 1NT can be mildly off-centre from time to time. If our agreements *catered* for this then we would indeed be playing an illegal convention, but our agreements specifically don't, and we bend over backwards to ensure that there can be no suggestion of fielding. If we don't alert our opponents then we can quite rightly be deemed to have a CPU, but it is both Tim's and my belief that we meet all requirements of the Laws and of the Regulations by acting as we do. Where are we going wrong? As for psyching, our frequencies are both so low that it does genuinely come as a surprise, so I have no ethical concerns here at all, except I know that partner does it perhaps once in 5 sessions. >> >> >Perhaps I am arrogant to believe that "I am right >> and those in power are collectively wrong". >> >> It may be so. That the possibility occurs to you at >> all is, at any rate, a hopeful sign. >> >+=+ I would find "much virtue here in if" +=+ >> >> We're not actually in it for the gratitude, which is >> perhaps as well. >> >> >but I have met, for example, DWS and I know >> >we are about 90% in agreement on most aspects >> >of the game >> >> Some cheerful news at last. >> >+=+ Oh, I don't know that DWS will be greatly >cheered by an association gratuitously extended >to him in his absence. Perhaps he would prefer >to claim it for himself. +=+ > > Look, we all know and accept that David's interpretation of the Law and Regulation is amongst the best in the World. But, as does Tim, I fight him tooth and nail on perhaps two or three points (some of Tim's are different from some of mine) where I believe that alternative interpretations are both available and valid. Sometimes David convinces me that my interpretations are flawed, sometimes he doesn't. We totally disagree about LA's in one or two well rehearsed auctions, and we occasionally disagree about the difference between "an agreement" which is a systemic understanding and "a known partnership tendency" which is what we observe partner doing over time - even if we don't like it, and which in no way is part of our systemic understanding. As for the sarcastic tone of the replies, well, it doesn't achieve much does it? cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 25 05:05:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6OJ5BU19166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 05:05:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6OJ55H19162 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 05:05:06 +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 OAA27746 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:50:39 -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 OAA22519 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:50:38 -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 OAA10809 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:50:38 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "richard willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:50:38 -0400 Organization: mit Message-ID: <000901c23343$00cc4e50$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 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote >> And it makes absolutely no sense to complain about this either. If you >> don't like it, you don't have to play bridge. And Tim replied >I have many alternatives. I can continue complaining and play bridge in >the meantime. I can play in level 1 events where all "simple >old-fashioned Acol" openings are permitted. I can play in clubs with more >enlightened approaches. And I will add the following: I can think of another option. Take deliberate acts to destroy the Zonal Authority. Hope that something better will rise from the ashes. In the United States, the most cost effective way for a small group to do so would be through legal action, most likely involving tournament director compensation. I still haven't figured out where the ACBL is most vulnerable, however, the organization has clearly made mistakes over time. (Anyone have a better suggestion?) The reason that individuals like Tim, Eric, and myself post frequently on this types of topics is that we have deep-felt beliefs that the Zonal authorities where we live consistently make major mistakes. Some of us hold out the hope that there are avenues of exploration with the WBF that could be used to reform the system. If these avenues do not exist, so be it. There are other methods to effect change. Some more drastic than others. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 25 07:30:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6OLU0V19225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 07:30:00 +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-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6OLTtH19221 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 07:29:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.86.113] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17XTSy-000Egq-00; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:14:40 +0100 Message-ID: <003101c23357$a9ac2e00$7156e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "David Burn" References: <240702205.23515@webbox.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:16:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 2:31 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > > The EBU is divided into County organisations. Counties send > delegates to the Council of the Union, which meets (roughly) > four times a year > +=+ That is to say 'three'? :-) +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 25 16:49:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6P6lYL19455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:47:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6P6lSH19451 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:47:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.15.45] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17XcB8-000PI7-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 07:32:50 +0100 Message-ID: <000401c233a5$8db0f480$2d0fe150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <240702205.15807@webbox.com> <005001c2332c$bbde97a0$441e2850@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 01:21:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 ............ \x/ ............ > > there is a fundamental problem that the Laws clearly say: > > " .. a player may make any call or play .. " > +=+ the general in 40A is qualified by the specific present in the following sections of Law 40 and in Law 75. +=+ > > Tim and I play a lot together. We both accept that full > disclosure is paramount regarding our knowledge of our > partner's tendencies. Nonetheless, if our agreement is > that 1NT is 12-14, and we always bid as though partner > has 12-14, how can we disclose to opponents that > partner's 1NT might possibly be mildly off-centre? Our > agreement is clearly 12-14. Our bidding system (such > as it is) is based on 12-14. > > All we can do is to alert our opponents to the fact that > in our experience (but not as an agreement) the 1NT > can be mildly off-centre from time to time. If our > agreements *catered* for this then we would indeed > be playing an illegal convention, but our agreements > specifically don't, and we bend over backwards to > ensure that there can be no suggestion of fielding. If > we don't alert our opponents then we can quite rightly > be deemed to have a CPU, but it is both Tim's and > my belief that we meet all requirements of the Laws > and of the Regulations by acting as we do. > > Where are we going wrong? > +=+ If you know from partnership experience in what way a call may be "off-centre" when occasionally it is, opponents are entitled to the knowledge also. The act of *fielding* is *evidence* of a CPU - it does not constitute the crime. Avoiding fielding is not a duty to opponents: the duty to opponents is to disclose fully, avoiding fielding is a duty to self. +=+ > As for psyching, our frequencies are both so low > that it does genuinely come as a surprise, so I > have no ethical concerns here at all, except I > know that partner does it perhaps once in 5 > sessions. > >> ............ \x/ .......... > > > Look, we all know and accept that David's > interpretation of the Law and Regulation is > amongst the best in the World. > +=+ He is very good. Within my ken I rate seven, eight, maybe nine better - but of course there are areas of the world where I lack knowledge of the people. All said, at the end of the day it is corporate authority that defines. +=+ > > As for the sarcastic tone of the replies, well, it > doesn't achieve much does it? > +=+ Catharsis.. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 26 00:35:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6PEZ4a19760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 00:35:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6PEYvH19756 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 00:34:58 +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 QAA12667; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:18:11 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA27664; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:20:08 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020725160507.00a818e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:28:52 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] What should I explain ? Cc: piret@dice.ucl.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 Dear blmlists, Here is a problem I encountered at the Deauville tournament. I'm not sure whether I solved it right. Please let me know. KQ10xxx 10 AJxxx A Jxxxx A Kxx AQJx Qx Kxx xxx KQxxx x xxxxx 109x J109x N E S W 2C* p 2D** p 2S*** 2NT p * either weak, 54+ majors, or several strong types ** relay, either with H preference or strong (2H would mean "no preference") *** 5+ spades, about 4 LT Now, East, after asking all the information, bid 2NT. He intended it as natural, but perhaps he didn't understand my partner had a strong hand (this opening is now spreading, but very few play the 2S rebid as strong). After my pass, West came out of his doze and alerted. He also explained it as "minors" (I did'nt ask). I could have called the TD, but since I wanted to pass anyway, it would only be WOMBAT (remember some recent posts). I just told him I sticked to my pass. However, everyone could feel uncertainty in his explanation. West bid 3C, to play in his mind. Partner bid 3D. Now East asks about the 3D bid. If East indeed holds the minors, 3D should show 64 majors (with 54, if you feel like acting, double ; with 55, bid 3H). If East's 2SA was natural, 3D is natural. In the heart of my heart, I know that partner guessed that the explanation was wrong (he is entitled to, isn't he ?) and bid a natural 3D. But how should I explain it ? I solved the problem by answering "well, we all know your bid is somehow uncertain. If 2NT was minors, then 3D is 64, and if it was natural, then it is natural". Apart from being correct in a logical sense, it placed the blame where it should be, ie in EW's knowledge of the system and West's antics. But is is correct in the Lawful sense ? a) as the scene went b) if West's alert was timely and he only responded to an enquiry ? Please note that East did the right thing, answering 3H to partner's "Stayman". This is a good contract, but West went on with 3NT, which I doubled (the worst hand I ever had for a penalty double), and East now tried 4C, doubled for -1. Thank you for your comments. 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 Jul 26 06:23:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6PKK7r19936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 06:20:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6PKK1H19932 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 06:20:02 +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 g6PK8a524091 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 12:08:36 -0800 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 12:03:13 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] The history of the Beer Card Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I apologize in advance for the lack of bridge laws related content; but I feel confident that this list contains both people who are curious about the origins of this tradition, and people who have played with it to know where it came from. I have been reading "The Bridge Magicians", a collection of brilliant plays by Polish experts, recently. It includes a hand played at a congress in the early 1980s where the last trick was won with the D7. The commentary in the text reads something like "Were this hand played today he would claim both his contract and a beer, but the 'beer card' was unknown in those days." Can anyone on the list tell us when, where, or how the 'beer card' tradition got started? The only thing like it I know of in any other card game is the declaration of "Spitze" in Skat: Skat, for those not familiar, is played with a 32-card pack, and each contract has a base value and a 'multiplier' which depends on how solid your trumps are, whether you announce an intention to take all the tricks, whether you play with your hand exposed, and so on. One of the optional rules is that you can expose the seven of trumps (the lowest trump) before you play to the first trick, gaining an additional multiplier-point if you win the last trick with that card, but failing in your contract if you're forced to play it sooner. Browsing on the web before making this post, a google search revealed the the beer card rule apparently is beginning to spill over into spades. I did not, however, find any useful information about the origin of it. 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 Jul 26 06:36:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6PKZ1c19949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 06:35:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu (col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu [128.206.7.129]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6PKYvH19945 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 06:34:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] ([128.206.98.1]) by col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Thu, 25 Jul 2002 15:20:28 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000901c23343$00cc4e50$9f06ba12@Herot> References: Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 15:41:44 -0500 To: , BLML From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jul 2002 20:20:28.0387 (UTC) FILETIME=[B7985B30:01C23418] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >David Burn wrote > >>> And it makes absolutely no sense to complain about this either. If >you >>> don't like it, you don't have to play bridge. > >And Tim replied > >>I have many alternatives. I can continue complaining and play bridge >in >>the meantime. I can play in level 1 events where all "simple >>old-fashioned Acol" openings are permitted. I can play in clubs with >more >>enlightened approaches. > >And I will add the following: > >I can think of another option. Take deliberate acts to destroy the >Zonal Authority. >Hope that something better will rise from the ashes. > >In the United States, the most cost effective way for a small group to >do so would be through legal action, most likely involving tournament >director compensation. I still haven't figured out where the ACBL is >most vulnerable, however, the organization has clearly made mistakes >over time. (Anyone have a better suggestion?) > >The reason that individuals like Tim, Eric, and myself post frequently >on this types of topics is that we have deep-felt beliefs that the Zonal >authorities where we live consistently make major mistakes. Some of us >hold out the hope that there are avenues of exploration with the WBF >that could be used to reform the system. > >If these avenues do not exist, so be it. >There are other methods to effect change. >Some more drastic than others. > >-- The Committee for an Open & Improved ACBL used to work on trying to straighten out the ACBL, but they seem to have gone inactive. Their web site is still up at http://home.maine.rr.com/timg/coi/ REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 26 17:29:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6Q7Q8C20217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 17:26:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6Q7Q2H20213 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 17:26:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g6Q7BVf28549 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 09:11:31 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jul 26 09:06:46 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KKJN77WM9S001KXF@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 09:11:19 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 09:10:48 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 09:11:18 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: "'Robert E. Harris'" , rwilley@sloan.mit.edu, BLML Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >And Tim replied > > > >>I have many alternatives. I can continue complaining and > play bridge > >in > >>the meantime. Robert: > >And I will add the following: > > > >I can think of another option. Take deliberate acts to destroy the > >Zonal Authority. > >Hope that something better will rise from the ashes. September is coming up again! > > > >In the United States, the most cost effective way for a > small group to > >do so would be through legal action, ????? >> most likely involving tournament > >director compensation. I still haven't figured out where the ACBL is > >most vulnerable, In Memphis I assume >> however, the organization has clearly made mistakes > >over time. (Anyone have a better suggestion?) you should start trying to find somebody who hasn't made mistakes over time. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 27 02:22:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6QGL0d20506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 02:21:00 +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-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 g6QGKsH20502 for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 02:20:55 +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 17Y7bh-00097M-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 17:06:22 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 17:04:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] The history of the Beer Card References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower writes > >I apologize in advance for the lack of bridge laws related content; but I >feel confident that this list contains both people who are curious about >the origins of this tradition, and people who have played with it to know >where it came from. > >I have been reading "The Bridge Magicians", a collection of brilliant >plays by Polish experts, recently. It includes a hand played at a congress >in the early 1980s where the last trick was won with the D7. The >commentary in the text reads something like "Were this hand played today >he would claim both his contract and a beer, but the 'beer card' was >unknown in those days." > >Can anyone on the list tell us when, where, or how the 'beer card' >tradition got started? I think it was Denmark in the early sixties. Certainly it was known in England in the eighties. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 27 08:39:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6QMbdW20677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 08:37:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6QMbQH20663 for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 08:37:27 +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 17YDU0-0005jS-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 23:22:55 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:23:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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 >As I said elsewhere I >believe the EBU has acted towards eliminating psyches rather than trying >to educate its members about them. Well, you have said so, but I have no idea what you mean. Your only basis for this, as far as I remember, is that you said that some player or other had told you Grattan was against psyches, and have written a little more about Grattan. But I really have no idea what you mean by this, and I think it is time you put up or shut up. In what way has the EBU made any effort to stop psyching? As for educating the players, are you sure it is the EBU's responsibility to teach people how to play? Anyway, is it the Laws- people's responsibility? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 27 08:39:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6QMbdN20675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 08:37:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6QMbOH20659 for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 08:37:25 +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 17YDU0-0005jQ-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 23:22:53 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:20:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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 >DWS wrote: >> >This hand wouldn't raise an eyebrow in the St John's Wood game. Basic >> >Acol and damn few conventions - just like grandad used to play! >> >If that approach is now illegal in EBU competition I pity us all. >> No-one has suggested that approach is illegal, and I believe you are >> deliberately trying to wind us up to hide the problem. >David. You suggested I was playing an illegal system because my openers >are not strict "rule of 19". I offered you hand (AKT987,JT9x,-,T9x) that >failed the rule of nineteen but that I would consider an opener. You >describe that hand as an "obviously legal opening" - while this gives me >concerns about how the EBU guidelines are written it does make it clear I >am not playing an illegal system. Let us start again. When playing in the EBU at Level 3 [similar rules apply at Level 4 but one point weaker] the agreement you have with your partner as to what constitutes a 1 of a suit opening bid either [1] only includes hands of Rule of 19 or stronger, or [2] only includes hands of 8 HCP or stronger, and no conventions whatever are played after a 1 of a suit opening bid. These are agreements, and the fact that a pair very occasionally opens a hand that has excellent distribution, but does not quite come under the pair's basic agreements does not prove that this pair does not follow the agreement. In other words, normal common sense and judgement applies. >> If you open a Rule of 17 hand in 3rd as a normal arrangement that is >> illegal. > >It is, if, and only if, conventional responses are played, in >contradiction to the OB regulation. The legality of the EBU regulation in >relation to the laws of bridge has not, to my knowledge, been proven. >Personally I am not sufficiently fond of featureless rule of 17 hands to >wish to bring a test case. Proven? Nothing is proven. The legality of Law 25A is not "proven". It is just something that players in the EBU follow. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 27 08:39:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6QMbdC20676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 08:37:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6QMbPH20660 for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 08:37:25 +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 17YDU0-0005jR-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 23:22:54 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:22:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: >Ton wrote: >> > >> > > Let us try to be accurate here. The WBF is not in a >> > position to allow >> > > anything of this nature to either the EBU or the ACBL. >> > >> > The EBU and ACBL are, by the constitution of the WBF, duty >> > bound to obey or withdraw. Of course the WBF is in a position to say >> > "That is not permitted". >> >> >> I really don't think we are, and certainly not where regulations are >> within the legal interpretations of the laws. Even when special cases >> never were considered when writing those laws. > >The WBFLC is (as I understand it) empowered to issue binding >"interpretations" of the law if it so chooses. "L40D should not be used >to restrict natural bids within a King or psychic actions" is certainly >within the remit. True. But they have not. >> Next question is whether we would >> exercise such power if we had it. I doubt that in these situations. And >> not because we should be afraid of withdrawals, though that needs >> consideration too, but because we give NBO's as much freedom as >> possibble, to coop with the problems they meet. Having 30 active NBO's >> certainly produces much more ideas and therewith developments, than a >> dictatorship ruling from above. I am quite sure that you wouldn't like >> that either. > >Some of us look the WBF to protect us from the dictatorship of our SOs - >much as others look to an international court to protect them from their >soi-disant democratic governments (I exaggerate a bit!). What you seem to want is for the powers to re-arrange matters so that we can follow what Tim West-meads wants, and not what a lot of other players want. It may be right to do so, but the fact that you wish to do so in a back-door method makes me doubt very much that you are. It is easy to criticise the people that run the game in this country, but they have approved the methods we use. You wish to get the WBF to over-rule the EBU because you believe the democratic method has produced the wrong answer. You argument is unconvincing. Perhaps you should try persuading the powers they have got it wrong rather than trying to *force* them to change apparently for your benefit. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 27 08:39:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6QMbfH20678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 08:37:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6QMbOH20658 for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 08:37:25 +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 17YDU0-0005jN-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 23:22:53 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:11:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: <002701c2328c$6ca10f60$6501a8c0@irv> In-Reply-To: <002701c2328c$6ca10f60$6501a8c0@irv> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Irv Kostal writes >Please excuse me for emerging from Lurkland with a stupid question, if it IS >a stupid question, but I feel compelled to bring up a point. It seems to me >an assertion is being made by Ton that is very questionable, and yet no one >has had any reaction to it at all. > >Ton says, near the end of the post below, " The intent of L40D related to >powers given to S.O. is to keep bridge a nice, fair game, in which we try to >solve the unsolvable problem of huge differences in bridge quality between >participants in events. I am sure that these kind of regulations are made in >an effort to control those problems." > >I feel compelled to ask, what problems? Is it a problem that Hamman is a >hugely better player than I am? For me, perhaps it is, but not for Bob, and >not, so far as I can see, for the WBF. The reason they fail to "solve the >unsolvable" is, there is no problem in the first place! Should we be >telling Tiger Woods that if he insists on using (say) a graphite driver he's >not allowed to carry a Pitching Wedge? I dunno much about golf, but surely there is a rule about the maximum number of clubs a player is allowed? That is the equivalent regulation to ones about system, and it is interesting that golf accepts it if it is so clearly wrong. :) -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 27 09:58:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6QNvuf20747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 09:57:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6QNvoH20743 for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 09:57:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (hbge-216-37-205-123.dsl.hbge.epix.net [216.37.205.123]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2002072401/PL) with SMTP id g6QNhIEo007663 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:43:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:43:18 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <002701c2328c$6ca10f60$6501a8c0@irv> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:11:15 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Irv Kostal writes >>Please excuse me for emerging from Lurkland with a stupid question, if it IS >>a stupid question, but I feel compelled to bring up a point. It seems to me >>an assertion is being made by Ton that is very questionable, and yet no one >>has had any reaction to it at all. >> >>Ton says, near the end of the post below, " The intent of L40D related to >>powers given to S.O. is to keep bridge a nice, fair game, in which we try to >>solve the unsolvable problem of huge differences in bridge quality between >>participants in events. I am sure that these kind of regulations are made in >>an effort to control those problems." >> >>I feel compelled to ask, what problems? Is it a problem that Hamman is a >>hugely better player than I am? For me, perhaps it is, but not for Bob, and >>not, so far as I can see, for the WBF. The reason they fail to "solve the >>unsolvable" is, there is no problem in the first place! Should we be >>telling Tiger Woods that if he insists on using (say) a graphite driver he's >>not allowed to carry a Pitching Wedge? > > I dunno much about golf, but surely there is a rule about the maximum >number of clubs a player is allowed? > > That is the equivalent regulation to ones about system, and it is >interesting that golf accepts it if it is so clearly wrong. :) > I disagree that the two are equivalent. You are correct that the laws of golf define a maximum number of clubs, you are not allowed to carry more than 14. Each of those clubs must conform to certain regulations, which seems to me to be the equivalent of an NCBO defining what meanings may be assigned to an opening bid. However, there is nothing in golf making the use of any specific club dependent on the use (or non-use) of another club, so that a club is either legal or it is not. This is the point that I believe Irv is making. To get a true equivalent to the barring of all conventional continuations to certain opening bids under L40D, the laws of golf would have to include something like "If you use a particularly unusual club for your tee shot, you may only use a putter to complete the rest of that hole." Of course, there is nothing remotely resembling such a rule in golf. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 27 17:25:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6R7OTX20956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 17:24:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6R7ONH20952 for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 17:24:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (22.58-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.58.22]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6R79l809400 for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 09:09:47 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D424736.8070101@skynet.be> Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 09:09:42 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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 David, David Stevenson wrote: [snip] > > Let us start again. When playing in the EBU at Level 3 [similar rules > apply at Level 4 but one point weaker] the agreement you have with your > partner as to what constitutes a 1 of a suit opening bid either > [1] only includes hands of Rule of 19 or stronger, or > [2] only includes hands of 8 HCP or stronger, and no conventions > whatever are played after a 1 of a suit opening bid. > > These are agreements, and the fact that a pair very occasionally opens > a hand that has excellent distribution, but does not quite come under > the pair's basic agreements does not prove that this pair does not > follow the agreement. In other words, normal common sense and judgement > applies. > > Please tell me David, how one defines common sense and judgment. When a player opens a hand that does not conform to the rule of 19, in a normal systemic one of his longest suit, how are you going to rule whether that opening is part of his agreement or not ? Sorry David, "normal common sense" is not compatible with the rule of 19. Personally, I don't believe a rule of 19 is needed. After all, what is the bad thing about weak openings ? But when an SO thinks it wise to put a rule of 19 into the regulations, I interpret this as making it illegal to open a hand that does not conform in any way that "describes" the hand. I don't accept arguments such as number of tens, interesting voids and the like. -- 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 Jul 28 04:52:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6RIpHW21216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 04:51:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smarthost4.mail.uk.easynet.net (smarthost4.mail.uk.easynet.net [212.135.6.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6RIpCH21212 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 04:51:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from tnt-15-57.easynet.co.uk ([212.134.26.57] helo=k6b8p4) by smarthost4.mail.uk.easynet.net with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17YWQg-000J0K-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 19:36:38 +0100 From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Revoke with own last card Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 19:35:31 +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 After you have played to a trick and turned your card over, you may still inspect your own last card subject to the provisions of Law 66B. I assume one of the principal reasons for this Law is to allow you to check for a possible revoke. Thus, if declarer won the trick, but has not led to the next trick, this Law permits you to inspect your own last card enabling you, if you have revoked, to announce this 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, the revoke 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 followed the wording in L66A and allowed a player to inspect his own last card *so long as his side has not played or led to the next trick*. Such a change would also accord with the general principle that any rights a side has at any time should cease only with an action by that side and not by an action of opponents. This seems to be a clear improvement with no obvious disadvantage - am I missing something? 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 Jul 28 06:29:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6RKSd321257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 06:28:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6RKSYH21253 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 06:28:34 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6RKE0922083 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 21:14:00 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 21:13 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: > >Some of us look the WBF to protect us from the dictatorship of our SOs > - >much as others look to an international court to protect them from > their >soi-disant democratic governments (I exaggerate a bit!). > > What you seem to want is for the powers to re-arrange matters so that > we can follow what Tim West-meads wants, and not what a lot of other > players want. I do not believe I am alone in wanting different rules on this issue. I know a lot (maybe even a majority) of players would like psyches to me made illegal - I think that would spoil the game. So yes, I believe the powers should do what I think is right even though I know that many disagree with me. I feel the same way about our government if that is any consolation. > It may be right to do so, but the fact that you wish to do so in a > back-door method makes me doubt very much that you are. It is not a "back door" method. I believe that when the WBF issued the interpretation that "L40D gives SOs the power to render psyches/light openings unplayable by placing restrictions on when conventions are used subsequently" they were wrong. I don't believe that the EBU will change it's interpretation while that WBF interpretation exists. However, when I write here I am talking to anyone who will listen. I genuinely believe that the original authors of L40D never intended that, for example: "No conventions may be played in any EBU competition unless the pair is playing a weak NT" would be a legitimate restriction. > It is easy to criticise the people that run the game in this country, > but they have approved the methods we use. You wish to get the WBF to > over-rule the EBU because you believe the democratic method has produced > the wrong answer. Democratic methods frequently produce wrong answers. Autocratic methods frequently produce right answers. Personally I think the structure of the EBU (and WBF) is oligarchic rather than democratic. I criticise when people in power do things with which I disagree - what is so surprising about that? > You argument is unconvincing. Perhaps you should try > persuading the powers they have got it wrong rather than trying to > *force* them to change apparently for your benefit. With the exception of weak 2s I play simple old-fashioned Acol - a system I could play in Level 1 events! As the rules now stand I can't actually play this system at levels 2,3 or 4. I would like to be able to discuss with my partner the minimum suit-texture/hand quality for light bids. I know that if I play regularly with a partner we will, inevitably, develop an implicit understanding about what hands are worth opening - I hate the position it puts me in. Sure I can hide behind "We play rule of 19 openings but my judgement told me this was worth 1S". In reality, were you my partner, you would already know that - and I would know you would probably bid the hand the same way. That makes me very uncomfortable. If the OB explicitly said (when the rule of 19 was invoked) that such mutual judgements were both permitted and disclosable I would be slightly happier. If AKT987,JT9x,-T9x is an "obvious 1S opener" then my partnerships should be allowed to agree that this is the case without having to forego splinters/Blackwood etc. 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 Sun Jul 28 09:02:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6RN0em21326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 09:00:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g6RN0VH21319 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 09:00:31 +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 17YaJr-000Koy-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:45:58 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 10:46:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: <3D424736.8070101@skynet.be> In-Reply-To: <3D424736.8070101@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 >Hello David, > >David Stevenson wrote: > >[snip] > > >> >> Let us start again. When playing in the EBU at Level 3 [similar rules >> apply at Level 4 but one point weaker] the agreement you have with your >> partner as to what constitutes a 1 of a suit opening bid either >> [1] only includes hands of Rule of 19 or stronger, or >> [2] only includes hands of 8 HCP or stronger, and no conventions >> whatever are played after a 1 of a suit opening bid. >> >> These are agreements, and the fact that a pair very occasionally opens >> a hand that has excellent distribution, but does not quite come under >> the pair's basic agreements does not prove that this pair does not >> follow the agreement. In other words, normal common sense and judgement >> applies. >> >> > > >Please tell me David, how one defines common sense and judgment. Whenever a competent Director or AC member makes a judgement he uses common sense and judgement. >When a player opens a hand that does not conform to the rule of 19, in >a normal systemic one of his longest suit, how are you going to rule >whether that opening is part of his agreement or not ? Using my judgement, of course. >Sorry David, "normal common sense" is not compatible with the rule of 19. It is not compatible wiht the rule: it is compatible with giving a ruling and judging what a player's agreement is. >Personally, I don't believe a rule of 19 is needed. After all, what >is the bad thing about weak openings ? >But when an SO thinks it wise to put a rule of 19 into the >regulations, I interpret this as making it illegal to open a hand that >does not conform in any way that "describes" the hand. I don't accept >arguments such as number of tens, interesting voids and the like. You may interpret it this way, but fortunately we do not see that saying people are not playing something when they are is desirable. If a pair plays a particular thing then saying they do not because you refuse to use normal bridge judgement does not seem a good way to give rulings. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 28 09:02:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6RN0ea21327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 09:00:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g6RN0UH21318 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 09:00:31 +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 17YaJr-000Koz-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:45:56 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 10:51:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: <002701c2328c$6ca10f60$6501a8c0@irv> 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 Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:11:15 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>Irv Kostal writes >>>Please excuse me for emerging from Lurkland with a stupid question, if it IS >>>a stupid question, but I feel compelled to bring up a point. It seems to me >>>an assertion is being made by Ton that is very questionable, and yet no one >>>has had any reaction to it at all. >>> >>>Ton says, near the end of the post below, " The intent of L40D related to >>>powers given to S.O. is to keep bridge a nice, fair game, in which we try to >>>solve the unsolvable problem of huge differences in bridge quality between >>>participants in events. I am sure that these kind of regulations are made in >>>an effort to control those problems." >>> >>>I feel compelled to ask, what problems? Is it a problem that Hamman is a >>>hugely better player than I am? For me, perhaps it is, but not for Bob, and >>>not, so far as I can see, for the WBF. The reason they fail to "solve the >>>unsolvable" is, there is no problem in the first place! Should we be >>>telling Tiger Woods that if he insists on using (say) a graphite driver he's >>>not allowed to carry a Pitching Wedge? >> I dunno much about golf, but surely there is a rule about the maximum >>number of clubs a player is allowed? >> >> That is the equivalent regulation to ones about system, and it is >>interesting that golf accepts it if it is so clearly wrong. :) >I disagree that the two are equivalent. Well, I would not have used golf as an analogy. But if we are going to, let's get it right, ok? >You are correct that the laws of golf define a maximum number of >clubs, you are not allowed to carry more than 14. Each of those >clubs must conform to certain regulations, which seems to me to >be the equivalent of an NCBO defining what meanings may be >assigned to an opening bid. > >However, there is nothing in golf making the use of any specific >club dependent on the use (or non-use) of another club, so that a >club is either legal or it is not. This is the point that I >believe Irv is making. But you are wrong. If you have 14 clubs, and you wish to add another, you can only do so by removing one, so adding definitely depends on another. Similarly the Swedes allow a certain complexity of bridge conventions by giving each convention so many dots, and then allowing a maximum number of dots - a direct analogy. >To get a true equivalent to the barring of all conventional >continuations to certain opening bids under L40D, the laws of >golf would have to include something like "If you use a >particularly unusual club for your tee shot, you may only use a >putter to complete the rest of that hole." Of course, there is >nothing remotely resembling such a rule in golf. So? Golf was not a great analogy. But golf, like bridge and other sports and mindsports, has limits to the total complexity permitted. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 28 12:05:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6S24mL21394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:04:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6S24hH21390 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:04:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (hbge-216-37-205-123.dsl.hbge.epix.net [216.37.205.123]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2002072401/PL) with SMTP id g6S1o9Eo005561 for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 21:50:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 21:50:09 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: <8li6ku8o0iaevb8jt1d2pgho48m81pn529@4ax.com> References: <002701c2328c$6ca10f60$6501a8c0@irv> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 10:51:11 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > > Well, I would not have used golf as an analogy. But if we are going >to, let's get it right, ok? > Sure. >> >>However, there is nothing in golf making the use of any specific >>club dependent on the use (or non-use) of another club, so that a >>club is either legal or it is not. This is the point that I >>believe Irv is making. > > But you are wrong. If you have 14 clubs, and you wish to add another, >you can only do so by removing one, so adding definitely depends on >another. Yes. This is what is meant by a maximum of 14. However, within that maximum number, you can have *any* combination of clubs that you wish. There is no rule in golf saying that if you choose to place a certain club in your bag, you cannot choose various other clubs. *That* is a direct analogy to the use of L40D to bar conventions after a light opening bid, not the maximum number of clubs. >Similarly the Swedes allow a certain complexity of bridge >conventions by giving each convention so many dots, and then allowing a >maximum number of dots - a direct analogy. > For the Swedish system to be a direct analogy, every convention would have to have the same number of dots. From your description, it doesn't sound like this is the case. However, I'll agree that it's getting closer than the EBU system, for example. >>To get a true equivalent to the barring of all conventional >>continuations to certain opening bids under L40D, the laws of >>golf would have to include something like "If you use a >>particularly unusual club for your tee shot, you may only use a >>putter to complete the rest of that hole." Of course, there is >>nothing remotely resembling such a rule in golf. > > So? Golf was not a great analogy. But golf, like bridge and other >sports and mindsports, has limits to the total complexity permitted. > See above. I don't think golf is that close an analogy either, but as you said at the start, if we're going to use golf, let's get it right, eh? Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 28 17:23:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6S7Mmg21528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 17:22:48 +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 g6S7MgH21524 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 17:22:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6S788A24131 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 08:08:08 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 08:08 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: > >As I said elsewhere I > >believe the EBU has acted towards eliminating psyches rather than > trying >to educate its members about them. > > Well, you have said so, but I have no idea what you mean. Your only > basis for this, as far as I remember, is that you said that some player > or other had told you Grattan was against psyches, and have written a > little more about Grattan. > > But I really have no idea what you mean by this, and I think it is > time you put up or shut up. In what way has the EBU made any effort to > stop psyching? > As for educating the players, are you sure it is the EBU's > responsibility to teach people how to play? No, I'm not sure. I am aware that the EBU has developed a concept for teaching called "Standard English" and, at the very least, promotes it to teachers (perhaps even certifies such teachers). I have not seen the course content with regard to making psyches and coping with those of the opponents but I'll bet you tenner it is skimpy/non-existent. (I'll be at Brighton to pay up if necessary). > Anyway, is it the Laws-people's responsibility? If the EBU has made regulations on psyching partially because a number of members feel that "psyches are unfair" then surely it is the lawmakers job to educate those members - who else is responsible for the laws not being understood. 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 Jul 28 17:49:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6S7n1d21546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 17:49:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6S7muH21542 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 17:48:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (195.58-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.58.195]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6S7YIZ05483 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 09:34:18 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D439E75.6020904@skynet.be> Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 09:34:13 +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] EBU Appeals 2001 References: <3D424736.8070101@skynet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David, look at it from the TD's point of view. I'm sure you're able to do this. David Stevenson wrote: >>But when an SO thinks it wise to put a rule of 19 into the >>regulations, I interpret this as making it illegal to open a hand that >>does not conform in any way that "describes" the hand. I don't accept >>arguments such as number of tens, interesting voids and the like. >> > > You may interpret it this way, but fortunately we do not see that > saying people are not playing something when they are is desirable. If > a pair plays a particular thing then saying they do not because you > refuse to use normal bridge judgement does not seem a good way to give > rulings. > A pair open AKxxxx Qxx xx xx with one spade. What is their agreement ? They'll say that they stick to the rule of 19, but why then did they open this hand ? How can they maintain that, by agreement, their openings conform to the rule of 19, when they just show you that they don't. As TD, you simply cannot accept this ! Now compare with AKxxxxxx - xxx xx while I do accept that this hand is worth "more" than the previous one, the "rule of 19" is a simple one. This hand cannot be opened either. Doing so is evidence that the (agreed) minimum values for a one-level opening do not conform to the rule of 19. Now, as I've said before, I see no reason why an SO should wish to ban people opening either hand with 1Sp. But if they think they should, and try to do so with the use of a "rule of xx", then that is what I shall apply, and no amount of "common sense and judgment" may be added or subtracted to the number xx. The rule is "rule of 19", not "rule of 19 with common sense". If that is the rule, the SO should say so, and I shall hang up my TD band since I will not be able to use that rule. > -- 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 Jul 28 20:33:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6SAWHA21612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 20:32:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rebecca.tiscali.nl (rebecca.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.181]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6SAWBH21608 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 20:32:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from LNV (unknown [195.241.192.75]) by rebecca.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 4A8EF440BD5; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:17:36 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <006601c23620$080bce40$74fbf1c3@LNV> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:15:18 +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 > If the EBU has made regulations on psyching partially because a number of > members feel that "psyches are unfair" then surely it is the lawmakers job > to educate those members - who else is responsible for the laws not being > understood. What about 'those who don't understand?' This statement is not less accurate than yours. ton > > 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 Jul 29 01:56:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6SFtoj21742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 01:55:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rebecca.tiscali.nl (rebecca.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.181]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6SFtjH21738 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 01:55:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from LNV (unknown [195.241.192.119]) by rebecca.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id A54F746CE82; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 17:41:10 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <007c01c2364d$3c2bf290$74fbf1c3@LNV> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Brambledown" , "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Revoke with own last card Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 17:26:50 +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: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 8:35 PM Subject: [BLML] Revoke with own last card > After you have played to a trick and turned your card over, you may still > inspect your own last card subject to the provisions of Law 66B. > > I assume one of the principal reasons for this Law is to allow you to check > for a possible revoke. Thus, if declarer won the trick, but has not led to > the next trick, this Law permits you to inspect your own last card enabling > you, if you have revoked, to announce this 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, the revoke 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 followed the wording in > L66A and allowed a player to inspect his own last card *so long as his side > has not played or led to the next trick*. Such a change would also accord > with the general principle that any rights a side has at any time should > cease only with an action by that side and not by an action of opponents. > > This seems to be a clear improvement with no obvious disadvantage - am I > missing something? May be you are, but it sounds as a useful suggestion. It does solve the problem you described which we discussed in BLML some time ago. I don't know which problem it creates, probably there is own. I know this because our famous football (soccer) player and coach Johan Cruyff once spoek the now famous words in his Amsterdam dialect: 'every advantage has its disavantage'. We never get rid of that one again. ton > > Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 29 03:13:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6SHAEt21815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 03:10:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6SHA9H21811 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 03:10:09 +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 SMTP id g6SGtWL25242 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:55:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Re: Can dummy claim Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:55:32 -0400 From: Ed Reppert To: Bridge Laws Organization: Phoenix Rising Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge Message-ID: <280720021255311854%ereppert@rochester.rr.invalid> Posted-And-Mailed: yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit References: <2e63kug0772plpj1vjp756a9egshr2mg2o@4ax.com> User-Agent: Thoth/1.5.1 (Carbon/OS X) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]] [posted to r.g.b and mailed to blml for consideration of the point regarding "contestants" in the claim law.] In article <2e63kug0772plpj1vjp756a9egshr2mg2o@4ax.com>, Verne Smith wrote: > Can I as dummy, claim before the opening lead? This is actually a fairly interesting question. First, the location of Law 68 (regarding claims) in the body of the laws indicates that it is part of the play, which starts (see Law 41) when the opening lead is faced. (NB: the opening lead is *made*, and may not be withdrawn without permission of the director, when the card is placed *face* *down* on the table. Also Law 41.) So before the opening lead is faced, *nobody* can claim. (The opposite position *could* be taken, since the claim law (68) does not explicitly refer to the timing of a claim.) Assuming the opening lead has been faced, what then? Well, Law 68 refers to *contestants*. The contestant, in a pairs game, is the pair. So one might infer that dummy can claim. (Since the contestant in a teams event is the entire team, one might infer that any team member, including a non-playing captain or one from a pair playing at the other table, can claim. That could get interesting. :) However, regarding dummy, there are Laws 42 and 43. 42 defines for dummy specific rights, and Law 43 defines limitations "subject to the rights specified in Law 42". Law 42 does not specify a right to claim, and Law 43 says that "Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer." Claiming is certainly "communicating about the play", so the answer to your question is no, dummy may not claim. One other detail: prior to the opening lead being faced the play hasn't started, so dummy isn't actually dummy yet. So *if* a claim is permitted prior to the start of the play (I don't believe it is), any contestant, including a _prospective_ dummy, can make it. -- 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 Mon Jul 29 06:13:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6SKBGu21893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 06:11:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6SKBBH21889 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 06:11:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.64.160.213] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17Yu90-000OBb-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 20:55:59 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01c23671$5288da20$d5a0403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <002701c2328c$6ca10f60$6501a8c0@irv> <8li6ku8o0iaevb8jt1d2pgho48m81pn529@4ax.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 08:14:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 2:50 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > > >>To get a true equivalent to the barring of all conventional > >>continuations to certain opening bids under L40D, the > > laws of golf would have to include something like "If you > > use a particularly unusual club for your tee shot, you may > > only use a putter to complete the rest of that hole." Of > > course, there is nothing remotely resembling such a rule > > in golf. > > +=+ This dialogue is missing the fundamental point. The question is not *what* regulations the Swedes, the English, the EBL, the ACBL, or the WBF, or any other authority imposes. The question is *whether* the laws provide the powers to make the regulation. The arbiter of the meaning of the laws is the WBF and this has confirmed that unrestricted power exists for SOs to regulate conventions. Blmlists may argue around the desirability of this or that, but the judgement and the decision as to what regulation is desirable lies with the SO. The thread is yet another exercise in futility; the bodies in question exist to control the way in which bridge is played in tournaments and they are entitled to do 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 Jul 29 07:37:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6SLY1r21928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:34:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bean.epix.net (bean.epix.net [199.224.64.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6SLXuH21924 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:33:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (hbge-216-222-238-87.dsl.hbge.epix.net [216.222.238.87]) by bean.epix.net (8.12.1/2002072401/PL) with SMTP id g6SLJKqn009557 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 17:19:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 17:19:19 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <002701c2328c$6ca10f60$6501a8c0@irv> <8li6ku8o0iaevb8jt1d2pgho48m81pn529@4ax.com> <000d01c23671$5288da20$d5a0403e@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000d01c23671$5288da20$d5a0403e@dodona> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 08:14:28 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: > Blmlists may argue around the desirability of this or >that, but the judgement and the decision as to what >regulation is desirable lies with the SO. The thread is >yet another exercise in futility; the bodies in question >exist to control the way in which bridge is played in >tournaments and they are entitled to do so. That does not (and should not, IMHO) prevent subscribers to the list from stating their opinions that things should be other than as they currently are, and subsequently attempting to justify those opinions if someone else wishes to debate the subject. If you disagree, then I recommend that you set up a moderated mailing list, where you or your appointee(s) can screen the messages before they are posted, and reject the ones which you regard as "futile". Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 29 07:37:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6SLYBX21934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:34:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6SLY5H21930 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:34:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.152.87]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020728211930.ZEJF5047.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 22:19:30 +0100 Message-ID: <010301c2367c$7f856b50$579868d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] TD code Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 22:19:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Vitold: And it's high time (again - in my opinion) to work out Tournament Directors' Code (TD Code). I even dare to represent several ideas for project of its draft,,,David Stevenson ,,, favour,,,at the web-site: http://blakjak.com/blml_log.htm Nigel: Thank you. Seems like an excellent set of proposals. I ejoyed your remarks -- hilarious anecdotes, contrasting your recommendations with current practice -- please supply more. Thanks again, Nigel --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.380 / Virus Database: 213 - Release Date: 24/07/2002 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 29 08:13:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6SM9to21967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 08:09:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6SM9mH21958 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 08:09:48 +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 17Yw0H-0001su-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 22:55:12 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 00:45:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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 >DWS wrote: >> It may be right to do so, but the fact that you wish to do so in a >> back-door method makes me doubt very much that you are. > >It is not a "back door" method. I believe that when the WBF issued the >interpretation that "L40D gives SOs the power to render psyches/light >openings unplayable by placing restrictions on when conventions are used >subsequently" they were wrong. Maybe so, but when you are trying to change what is permitted to be played, and when your national authority makes that determination, it is a back-door method in my view to try to get another organisation to force the national authority to do something different because you do not like it. [s] > I genuinely believe >that the original authors of L40D never intended that, for example: >"No conventions may be played in any EBU competition unless the pair is >playing a weak NT" would be a legitimate restriction. That's not relevant: similarly we have found people playing things that were certainly not intended by the people who wrote the regs in the Orange book. But where such methods are embraced even when not intended then they are permitted. Similarly L40D applies in the way that has been laid down whether that was the original intention of the drafters or not. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 29 08:13:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6SM9uA21968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 08:09:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6SM9nH21961 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 08:09:50 +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 17Yw0P-0001sr-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 22:55:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 00:48:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Revoke with own last card References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown writes >After you have played to a trick and turned your card over, you may still >inspect your own last card subject to the provisions of Law 66B. > >I assume one of the principal reasons for this Law is to allow you to check >for a possible revoke. Thus, if declarer won the trick, but has not led to >the next trick, this Law permits you to inspect your own last card enabling >you, if you have revoked, to announce this 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, the revoke 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 followed the wording in >L66A and allowed a player to inspect his own last card *so long as his side >has not played or led to the next trick*. Such a change would also accord >with the general principle that any rights a side has at any time should >cease only with an action by that side and not by an action of opponents. > >This seems to be a clear improvement with no obvious disadvantage - am I >missing something? I do not suggest the method is better or worse, but I doubt the reason given. In my view it will come as a great surprise that anyone thinks inspection of one's own last card is anything to do with a revoke. I am confident that it was introduced because people could not remember who had won the last trick! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 29 12:29:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6T2Qpl22102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:26:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6T2QjH22098 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:26:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g6T2CAB27530 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 19:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006801c236a5$3a945aa0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Abolition of ACs X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 19:08:01 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The ACBL BoD voted in its Washington NABC meeting to do away with ACs in ACBL events, effective January 1, 2004. The delay in effectivity is to provide time for the education of TDs, who will probably be expected to confer with peers, the DIC, and "expert" consultants when making a difficult ruling. The exact procedures for that are yet to be determined, but they will no doubt resemble the procedures for "TD Panels" now in place for the handling of appeals in regionally-rated events at NABCs. The TD Panels seem to do the job about as well as the ACs that are used for NABC+ events (maybe a little better, going by the recently-published Las Vegas NABC Appeals casebook). 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 Jul 29 12:56:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6T2suI22122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:54:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from out004.verizon.net (out004pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.142]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6T2spH22118 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:54:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from jayapfelbaum ([151.201.232.172]) by out004.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.09 201-253-122-126-109-20020611) with SMTP id <20020729024010.YVFI10030.out004.verizon.net@jayapfelbaum> for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 21:40:10 -0500 Message-ID: <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> From: "Jay Apfelbaum" To: Subject: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 22:34:23 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I oppose abolishing bridge appeals committees. Here is the text of a letter I sent to the ACBL Board of Directors to explain the reasons for my opposition. I also point out the Board of Governors asked the Board of Directors to reconsider this decision. I apologize in advance for the length of this post. My original letter included the text of some laws. The text of these laws is omitted here. Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA **************************************** I understand the Board of Directors will consider abolishing bridge appeal committees at its meeting during the Summer NABC in Washington, D.C. Please distribute this letter to each member of the Board. I am opposed to the above motion, and write this letter to explain my reasons in the hope the Board will find them persuasive. Here is the text of the motion: Management is instructed to develop and implement procedures consistent with the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge which will give the Director-in-Charge of a tournament (or his or her designee) the responsibility for making a final adjudication of an appeal of a director's ruling at that tournament. My background in bridge includes 21 years as a tournament director, three years as a member of your body (1995-1997), and Appeals Administrator for the Reno NABC (Spring 1998). While a member of your body, I authored the Handbook for Bridge Appeals Committees. In addition, I have served on or chaired many bridge appeals committees. For convenience, below is the most recent text of Law 93. My reading of this Law is that the Board has the power to abolish bridge appeals committees through the loophole in Law 93(A). As a former tournament director, I am familiar with how they make bridge judgment rulings. This includes, for example, extraneous information cases (Law 16) and claims. The common element here is that any delay in making a ruling does not delay the normal progression of the game. Players play more hands while waiting for a ruling. In these cases, the tournament director assigned to “the floor” get the facts from the players. He or she then discusses them with the senior director(s) before making a ruling. The senior director(s) rely on the accuracy and completeness of the floor director’s recitation of the facts. This approach succeeds if the floor director can get all the relevant facts and accurately relay them to the senior director(s). This is a major weakness, because the floor director has only the briefest time to gather the facts. The time constraints make this task very difficult to accomplish on a consistent basis. As Appeals Administrator, frequent member of bridge appeals committees and author of the current Handbook for Bridge Appeals Committees, I am familiar with how a committee should handle an appeal. Both sides testify in an unhurried environment. The hearing takes place after the game so it will not be unduly disrupted. The contestants may present the facts, and the committee members may question the contestants. Having participated in the bridge appeals process from several perspectives, I make the following observations: ****An appeals committee obtains a more complete picture of the facts. ****The members of an appeals committee are, as a group, superior bridge players to Tournament Directors. ****Tournament Directors are, as a group, more knowledgeable about the Laws than the members of an appeals committee. The current appeals practice uses a group of volunteers. All of these volunteers are qualified and well-intentioned. Frequently, these volunteers have a potential conflict of interest in deciding an appeal. The volunteer might be a contestant in the same event. Possibly, the volunteer has a previous or potential financial relationship with one of the persons involved in the appeal or be a competing professional. Current procedure calls for these people to withdraw when they see a conflict, but this is largely a subjective test. I suggest that it would be better to eliminate committee members with either a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict rather than eliminate the appeals committee altogether. As with any subjective process, many decisions are controversial. Some of these include an appeal from the 1991 Las Vegas NABC (failure to alert Stayman when it did not promise a major suit) and the 1996 Miami NABC (contestant accurately explaining a bid when she knew her hand did not conform to the explanation). There also were several controversial decisions during the past two years. However, merely because a decision is controversial does not mean it is wrong. At the time of the 1991 decision, ACBL regulations required contestants to alert Stayman if it did not promise a major suit. Bridge is evolving, and this case lead ACBL to remove the alert requirement for Stayman. The player in the 1996 decision explained the meaning of her bid, but knew that her hand was different than the explanation. The committee upheld her actions, even commending her ethics, and today it is clear that we are to explain only our understandings. Parenthetically, I should point out that baseball umpires are not infallible. Although it is rare, their decisions are overruled. The most famous example is the “pine tar” bat used by George Brett when he hit a home run late in a baseball game between the Kansas City Royals and the New York Yankees. The umpires ruled the bat illegal and called Brett out. That ruling ended the game. The Commissioner overruled the call, reinstated the home run, and the teams completed the game two months later. More recently, during the 2002 NBA playoffs (between Sacramento Kings and Los Angeles Lakers) the referees failed to rule that a shot was taken late. Television replays showed that time ran out before the ball left his hand. The shot counted when it should have been disallowed, and the two points scored was the margin of victory. This shot did not happen at the end of the fourth quarter, however. It appears the NBA will allow instant replay starting next season so this error cannot be repeated. Back to bridge, most of the complaints surrounding appeals committees are that they are no better and sometimes worse than the director rulings. I suggest that is not the case. The appeals casebooks compare the relative merits of the decisions of appeals committees as against the director rulings, but all the recent casebooks base this evaluation on different criteria. A quick reading of the panel comments shows countless examples praising the director for ruling in favor of the non-offending side, and leaving it up to the appeals committee to sort out the complex issues. The fact is that bridge players are more likely to have a wider experience than tournament directors in dealing with extraneous information situations. The player sees instances where the guilty pair gets a poor result, something the tournament director does not see. This tends to warp the view of tournament directors. One example is the hesitation before bidding. The bridge player will see examples where one player hesitates and the partner overbids. The only time a director will see this is when the contract makes. The player will see many cases where the contract goes down - something a director hardly ever sees. It is natural for a tournament director to underestimate the frequency of these occasions. I include Law 16A (see below) for your convenience. The express language is that the extraneous information has to demonstrably suggest an action. The player’s more comprehensive experience provides a better picture of what may or may not be demonstrably suggested. The game of bridge will benefit from having bridge players decide appeals. Their insights may result in a controversial decision, but this body can use their rationale as a tool to improve our game. The tournament directors who sit on appeal committees do not play the game frequently enough to make the same contribution. Even though there will be the occasionally “wrong” decision, I suggest that the game will benefit in the long run. The best way to reduce the number of problems in handling bridge appeals is to establish a stronger set of guidelines for potential committee members to avoid a conflict of interest. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Very truly yours, Jay M. Apfelbaum -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 29 16:22:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6T6L3p22195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:21:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6T6KwH22191 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:20:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g6T66MB10918 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 23:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007801c236c5$f2705320$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 23:05:27 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Jay Apfelbaum" > The current appeals practice uses a group of volunteers. All of these > volunteers are qualified and well-intentioned. Well intentioned, no doubt. Qualified? Not all, by a long shot. The Las Vegas Fall NABC appeals casebook shows that only a little over 50% of cases decided by ACs ended with good decisions (12 out of 23). The TD panels did a little better (11 out of 19). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 29 17:00:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6T6wtr22219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:58:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6T6woH22215 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:58:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.2.229] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17Z4G8-000Jew-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:44:01 +0100 Message-ID: <001c01c236cb$cbb9af00$e502e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <002701c2328c$6ca10f60$6501a8c0@irv> <8li6ku8o0iaevb8jt1d2pgho48m81pn529@4ax.com> <000d01c23671$5288da20$d5a0403e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:46:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 10:19 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 08:14:28 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > > Blmlists may argue around the desirability of this or > >that, but the judgement and the decision as to what > >regulation is desirable lies with the SO. The thread is > >yet another exercise in futility; the bodies in question > >exist to control the way in which bridge is played in > >tournaments and they are entitled to do so. > > That does not (and should not, IMHO) prevent > subscribers to the list from stating their opinions that > things should be other than as they currently are, and > subsequently attempting to justify those opinions if > someone else wishes to debate the subject. > > If you disagree, then I recommend that you set up a > moderated mailing list, where you or your appointee(s) > can screen the messages before they are posted, > and reject the ones which you regard as "futile". > > Brian. > +=+ No. I do not disagree with this. On the other hand, it signifies equally that when I think the discussion is unrealistic, or that contributors make false assertions, I am entitled to say so also. You will find that not only do I try to keep the discussions in the real world, but also ton and kojak from their different angles regularly make similar efforts. So do others. In this thread, for example, David Stevenson has been battling strongly with people who are arguing not about what they think ought to be the case, but about what they say, wrongly, is the case. It is legitimate to start from actuality and argue for change; it is futile to argue that things are what empowered authority has decreed they are not. ~ 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 Jul 29 17:39:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6T7dQI22241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:39:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6T7dKH22237 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:39:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.28.51] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17Z4sz-0006dg-00; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 08:24:09 +0100 Message-ID: <004801c236d1$754de860$e502e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Jay Apfelbaum" References: <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 08:17:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 3:34 AM Subject: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees > I oppose abolishing bridge appeals committees. Here is > the text of a letter I sent to the ACBL Board of Directors > to explain the reasons for my opposition. I also point out > the Board of Governors asked the Board of Directors to > reconsider this decision. > +=+ I think the letter a good one. My personal view is that appeals committees do a different job from Directors and call for different qualities, to which I add that in my book a principle of justice requires that appeals be to an independent body. Directors may too easily be disposed to hang together*. However, I think it is a matter for the ACBL how they handle appeals. A strong principle of mine is that we should not try to impose by law our own personal policies in matters that should be allowed to vary from place to place; such policies are properly left to regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [* they should perhaps be hung separately from ACs :-) ] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 29 20:03:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TA32p22316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:03:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6TA2tH22312 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:02:56 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6T9mIL20191 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:48:18 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:48 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: > Tim West-meads writes > >DWS wrote: > > >> It may be right to do so, but the fact that you wish to do so in a > >> back-door method makes me doubt very much that you are. > > > >It is not a "back door" method. I believe that when the WBF issued > the >interpretation that "L40D gives SOs the power to render > psyches/light >openings unplayable by placing restrictions on when > conventions are used >subsequently" they were wrong. > > Maybe so, but when you are trying to change what is permitted to be > played, and when your national authority makes that determination, it is > a back-door method in my view to try to get another organisation to > force the national authority to do something different because you do > not like it. So if the government did something I didn't like it would be a "back-door" method to take a case to the European Court? Is it a back door method to lobby for change at the European Parliament if I feel my own government is entrenched in their current approach? If anyone has used a "back door" it was the EBU when they used an ambiguous loophole in L40D to legislate light openings out of the game! Had the EBU stuck to "within a king of average strength" we would not be having this argument. Indeed had the EBU identified certain conventions, such as Drury, that they felt gave "light openers" too great an advantage I could at least sympathise with that approach. Where I think it comes off the rails is to say that pairs taking this approach can't use the almost universally played conventions (Blackwood, cue-bids, fsf) - their opponents will be familiar with all of these! > > I genuinely believe > >that the original authors of L40D never intended that, for example: > >"No conventions may be played in any EBU competition unless the pair > is >playing a weak NT" would be a legitimate restriction. > > That's not relevant: Of course it is relevant. I am trying to help the WBF (et al) see that they have interpreted L40D wrongly in giving such powers to the SO. Perhaps some members of the SO would think that the *intent* of the lawmakers was an important consideration. Judges in the UK will seek to determine the intent of legislators when interpreting ambiguous laws. (And we know this law is ambiguous because otherwise the EBU/ACBL would not have felt the need to seek an interpretation from the WBF in the first place). > similarly we have found people playing things > that were certainly not intended by the people who wrote the regs in the > Orange book. But where such methods are embraced even when not intended > then they are permitted. Similarly L40D applies in the way that has > been laid down whether that was the original intention of the drafters > or not. L40D currently applies according to the interpretation issued by the WBF. What exactly am I supposed to do when I think the WBF issues such an interpretation and the EBU uses it as an opportunity to introduce legislation that, IMO, demeans the game? The internet provides a forum for me to put over my point of view and I use it. I do so openly, although with little real hope of success. I do so because I care deeply about the game (as, obviously, do you - but that is no reason why we should agree). Maybe one day the effort will all be too much and I will stop fighting for what I believe in, until then I will keep trying. 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 Jul 29 20:36:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TAa1n22337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:36:01 +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-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 g6TAZtH22333 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:35:56 +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 17Z7eM-0003Qo-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 11:21:15 +0100 Message-ID: <75sv$EBoVHR9EwR4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 23:51:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: <3D424736.8070101@skynet.be> <3D439E75.6020904@skynet.be> In-Reply-To: <3D439E75.6020904@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, look at it from the TD's point of view. >I'm sure you're able to do this. Why not? I am talking about how we rule! >David Stevenson wrote: > >>>But when an SO thinks it wise to put a rule of 19 into the >>>regulations, I interpret this as making it illegal to open a hand that >>>does not conform in any way that "describes" the hand. I don't accept >>>arguments such as number of tens, interesting voids and the like. >> You may interpret it this way, but fortunately we do not see that >> saying people are not playing something when they are is desirable. If >> a pair plays a particular thing then saying they do not because you >> refuse to use normal bridge judgement does not seem a good way to give >> rulings. >A pair open AKxxxx Qxx xx xx with one spade. >What is their agreement ? I do not know from one time. OK, I'll ask you a similar question. A pair opens xxx Jxxx xx Qxxx with one spade. What is their agreement? My answer is we cannot tell from one hand: your answer is [apparently] that 1S is either natural or shows 3 HCP, 3 spades. >They'll say that they stick to the rule of 19, but why then did they >open this hand ? Why did the pair psyche with the example I gave? Perhaps we should ask them? >How can they maintain that, by agreement, their openings conform to >the rule of 19, when they just show you that they don't. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but one deviation [or psyche, or misbid] proves nothing. >As TD, you simply cannot accept this ! >Now compare with >AKxxxxxx - xxx xx >while I do accept that this hand is worth "more" than the previous >one, the "rule of 19" is a simple one. This hand cannot be opened >either. Doing so is evidence that the (agreed) minimum values for a >one-level opening do not conform to the rule of 19. Evidence, perhaps. But not sufficient evidence for a ruling. >Now, as I've said before, I see no reason why an SO should wish to ban >people opening either hand with 1Sp. But if they think they should, >and try to do so with the use of a "rule of xx", then that is what I >shall apply, and no amount of "common sense and judgment" may be added > or subtracted to the number xx. A pity, because when you apply judgement you are a good TD. >The rule is "rule of 19", not "rule of 19 with common sense". If that >is the rule, the SO should say so, and I shall hang up my TD band >since I will not be able to use that rule. If you are not prepared to use judgement in your rulings then you should. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 29 20:46:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TAk9M22354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:46:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6TAk3H22350 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:46:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g6TAVQf07657 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:31:27 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Jul 29 12:26:43 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KKO11W2JV4001NTO@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:31:03 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:30:32 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:30:55 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: "'twm@cix.compulink.co.uk'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Is there anything new added to this thread last weeks? I still read the same (partly wrong) arguments, so it might be wise to repeat my of course right reaction on some aspects once more. Read between your lines please. > > >> It may be right to do so, but the fact that you wish > to do so in a > > >> back-door method makes me doubt very much that you are. Strange remark, many useful changes result from activities via back doors. Weak attack. > > > > > >It is not a "back door" method. I believe that when the > WBF issued > > the >interpretation that "L40D gives SOs the power to render > > psyches Did we give this interpretation for psyches as well? That seems impossible to me. /light >openings unplayable by placing restrictions on when > > conventions are used >subsequently" they were wrong. May I ask you to be more accurate in your choice of words. It seems not defendable to me to say that we were wrong when we said that an S.O. is allowed to ban conventions in certain situations. That is what L40D tells us. You don't need an interpretation even, just read the words. That EBU and ACBL asked for one probably has to do with guys as you who started protesting. Kind of proof. So an S.O has that authority. Whether they should use it this way is another issue. There you may use the word 'wrong' when you don't like it. But that is a personal opinion for which you might try to find support. > > So if the government did something I didn't like it would be > a "back-door" > method to take a case to the European Court? Is it a back > door method to > lobby for change at the European Parliament if I feel my own > government is > entrenched in their current approach? Who cares? You used a legal method. If anyone has used a > "back door" it > was the EBU when they used an ambiguous loophole in L40D to legislate > light openings out of the game! Who cares, they used a legal method. > I am trying to help the WBF (et > al) see that > they have interpreted L40D wrongly in giving such powers to the SO. Did you ask us whether we feel this as 'helping'? > Perhaps some members of the SO would think that the *intent* of the > lawmakers was an important consideration. Judges in the UK > will seek to > determine the intent of legislators when interpreting ambiguous laws. > (And we know this law is ambiguous because otherwise the > EBU/ACBL would > not have felt the need to seek an interpretation from the WBF > in the first > place). I have to nail you for this. Such reasoning comes from laziness. I have had at least 15 issues on our WBF LC agenda in the last three years because BLML-ers thought the laws to be ambiguous, where the LC didn't see any ambiguity. We just try be client oriented. This is one more case, the laws being completely clear. You might be right that the lawmakers didn't think of this possibility when they made this law, but that is another issue. My experience tells me that it is simply impossible to be prepared for the whole range of inventive creativity players and S.O may demonstrate. That is why laws should show a general approach, not being able to cover all kind of details; there are too many of those. will all be > too much and I will stop fighting for what I believe in, > until then I will > keep trying. > > Tim That is OK and even worth admiration, but try using another stroke. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 29 20:54:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TAs8T22366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:54:08 +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-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 g6TAs3H22362 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:54:03 +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 17Z7vx-000533-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 11:39:26 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 11:38:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees References: <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> In-Reply-To: <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jay Apfelbaum writes >I oppose abolishing bridge appeals committees. Here is the text of a letter >I sent to the ACBL Board of Directors to explain the reasons for my >opposition. I also point out the Board of Governors asked the Board of >Directors to reconsider this decision. > >I apologize in advance for the length of this post. My original letter >included the text of some laws. The text of these laws is omitted here. [s] >This approach succeeds if the floor director can get all the relevant facts >and accurately relay them to the senior director(s). This is a major >weakness, because the floor director has only the briefest time to gather >the facts. The time constraints make this task very difficult to accomplish >on a consistent basis. On the other hand, evidence taken in the heat of the moment tends to be more accurate than when players are in an AC some hours later. They have had time to reflect, consider what serves their interests best, and firm their decisions. [s] >The current appeals practice uses a group of volunteers. All of these >volunteers are qualified and well-intentioned. Frequently, these volunteers >have a potential conflict of interest in deciding an appeal. The volunteer >might be a contestant in the same event. Possibly, the volunteer has a >previous or potential financial relationship with one of the persons >involved in the appeal or be a competing professional. Current procedure >calls for these people to withdraw when they see a conflict, but this is >largely a subjective test. I suggest that it would be better to eliminate >committee members with either a conflict of interest or the appearance of a >conflict rather than eliminate the appeals committee altogether. I do not believe that anyone believes "conflict of interest" creates any problems whatever. It is just a nice arguing point for a contestant who has lost an appeal. [s] >Back to bridge, most of the complaints surrounding appeals committees are >that they are no better and sometimes worse than the director rulings. I >suggest that is not the case. The appeals casebooks compare the relative >merits of the decisions of appeals committees as against the director >rulings, but all the recent casebooks base this evaluation on different >criteria. A quick reading of the panel comments shows countless examples >praising the director for ruling in favor of the non-offending side, and >leaving it up to the appeals committee to sort out the complex issues. That must have been a *very* quick reading: I think the case-books make it clear that, like the rest of the world, ACBL TDs are making a greater effort to get it right, and are relying less on ACs. Overall, I believe that judgement rulings for TDs at event level or higher in the more forward areas of the world are probably something like 65% to 70% correct. For ACs they are probably something like 75% to 85% correct. The big question, it seems to me, is whether the cumbersome appeals process is really worth it for 10% improvement. [s] >The game of bridge will benefit from having bridge players decide appeals. >Their insights may result in a controversial decision, but this body can use >their rationale as a tool to improve our game. The tournament directors who >sit on appeal committees do not play the game frequently enough to make the >same contribution. While this is often true, more and more around the world bridge players are involved in the rulings, and the ACBL new approach includes using bridge players in the process. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 29 20:55:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TAtMK22378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:55:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6TAtHH22374 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:55:18 +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 17Z7xA-0007Sa-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 11:40:41 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 11:39:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees References: <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <004801c236d1$754de860$e502e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <004801c236d1$754de860$e502e150@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >+=+ I think the letter a good one. My personal view is > that appeals committees do a different job from > Directors and call for different qualities, to which I add >that in my book a principle of justice requires that >appeals be to an independent body. Directors may too >easily be disposed to hang together*. > However, I think it is a matter for the ACBL how >they handle appeals. A strong principle of mine is that >we should not try to impose by law our own personal >policies in matters that should be allowed to vary from >place to place; such policies are properly left to >regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >[* they should perhaps be hung separately from ACs :-) ] In the rogues gallery? Or could you mean hanged? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 29 21:36:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TBa0522401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 21:36:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6TBZsH22397 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 21:35:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (103.53-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.53.103]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6TBLEA23893 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 13:21:14 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D452525.3080607@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 13:21:09 +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] EBU Appeals 2001 References: <3D424736.8070101@skynet.be> <3D439E75.6020904@skynet.be> <75sv$EBoVHR9EwR4@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: > Herman De Wael writes > >>David, look at it from the TD's point of view. >>I'm sure you're able to do this. >> > > Why not? I am talking about how we rule! > > > >>A pair open AKxxxx Qxx xx xx with one spade. >>What is their agreement ? >> > > I do not know from one time. OK, I'll ask you a similar question. > > A pair opens xxx Jxxx xx Qxxx with one spade. What is their > agreement? > The problem about psyches and the rule of 19 is a different one. Surely you understand that these two examples are not alike ? > My answer is we cannot tell from one hand: your answer is [apparently] > that 1S is either natural or shows 3 HCP, 3 spades. > > >>They'll say that they stick to the rule of 19, but why then did they >>open this hand ? >> > > Why did the pair psyche with the example I gave? Perhaps we should > ask them? > Because this is a psyche. My example is not a deliberate misrepresentation. The two are not the same and I don't like you using one problem to solve another one. > >>How can they maintain that, by agreement, their openings conform to >>the rule of 19, when they just show you that they don't. >> > > Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but one deviation [or psyche, or > misbid] proves nothing. > Don't you see that with a rule interpretation like that, there can be no rule. Do you keep track of how many times a pair have broken the rule of 19? Surely not. > >>As TD, you simply cannot accept this ! >>Now compare with >>AKxxxxxx - xxx xx >>while I do accept that this hand is worth "more" than the previous >>one, the "rule of 19" is a simple one. This hand cannot be opened >>either. Doing so is evidence that the (agreed) minimum values for a >>one-level opening do not conform to the rule of 19. >> > > Evidence, perhaps. But not sufficient evidence for a ruling. > But when can you find enough evidence then? David, there is no sense in making a regulation like this if you cannot ever use it. > >>Now, as I've said before, I see no reason why an SO should wish to ban >>people opening either hand with 1Sp. But if they think they should, >>and try to do so with the use of a "rule of xx", then that is what I >>shall apply, and no amount of "common sense and judgment" may be added >>or subtracted to the number xx. >> > > A pity, because when you apply judgement you are a good TD. > Don't you see the difference here ? "A pair is not authorized to use a system by which they can agree to open one of a suit with a hand that does not comply with a particular minimum, a minimum which can only be judged by people with bridge judgment". This is the regulation like you are now saying it is. > >>The rule is "rule of 19", not "rule of 19 with common sense". If that >>is the rule, the SO should say so, and I shall hang up my TD band >>since I will not be able to use that rule. >> > > If you are not prepared to use judgement in your rulings then you > should. > I'm not only talking about TDs, also about players. I'm looking at that hand as player, and I want to open it. I cannot do so without first asking the judgment about whether my system will be classed HUM or not. That is no good regulation. > -- 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 Jul 29 21:45:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TBiwY22418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 21:44:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6TBirH22414 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 21:44:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.40.30.101] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17Z8iz-0005jO-00; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:30:06 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c236f3$02079780$651e2850@pacific> From: To: "Kooijman, A." , "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:26:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:30 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > > Did we give this interpretation for psyches as well? > That seems impossible to me. > +=+ Ton has several times made it known he is not in agreement with this. He has been very consistent about it. However, the EBL bases its regulation that forbids a psyche of any conventional opening bid in pairs tournaments on confirmation from the WBFLC that they have the right to do so. The EBL actually was already operating such a ban when it decided (around 1984) to ask the WBFLC for its confirmation of the EBL's view; the ACBL also relies upon this interpretation of the law for its own ban on certain psyches; the EBU has a ban on psyches associated with a Watson Double. We have only to start talking about removing this right to stir up a real hornet's nest.+=+ > > > we know this law is ambiguous because otherwise > > the EBU/ACBL would not have felt the need to > > seek an interpretation from the WBF > > in the first > > place). > > My experience tells me that it is simply impossible to > be prepared for the whole range of inventive creativity > players and S.O may demonstrate. That is why laws > should show a general approach, not being able to > cover all kind of details; there are too many of those. > +=+ I share this view. If we can agree principles in the laws it is for regulation to establish the methods by which they are applied. ~ 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 Jul 29 22:11:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TCBHn22444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 22:11:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6TCBBH22440 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 22:11:12 +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 HAA11738 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:56:36 -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 HAA25255 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:56:31 -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 HAA05781 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:56:25 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "richard willey" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:56:25 -0400 Organization: mit Message-ID: <000801c236f6$fa41b4a0$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: <000b01c236f3$02079780$651e2850@pacific> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Could someone please define a "Watson" double. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 29 23:10:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TD9qw22571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:09:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6TD9gH22567 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:09:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g6TCt5f00526 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:55:05 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Jul 29 14:50:22 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KKO636OM30001MSP@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:54:52 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:54:21 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:54:46 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: "'gester@lineone.net'" , "Kooijman, A." , Bridge Laws Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > > > Did we give this interpretation for psyches as well? > > That seems impossible to me. > > > +=+ Ton has several times made it known he is not > in agreement with this. He has been very consistent > about it. Yes, but I wasn't talking about that. The message I reacted on did say that somebody had interpreted something with the result that conventions may not be used when a psyche is given. That is what I couldn't believe; with good reasons don't you think? However, the EBL bases its regulation that > forbids a psyche of any conventional opening bid in > pairs tournaments on confirmation from the WBFLC > that they have the right to do so. The EBL actually > was already operating such a ban when it decided > (around 1984) to ask the WBFLC for its > confirmation of the EBL's view; the ACBL also relies > upon this interpretation of the law for its own ban on > certain psyches; the EBU has a ban on psyches > associated with a Watson Double. We have only to > start talking about removing this right to stir up a > real hornet's nest.+=+ I don't know how terrible that feels (a hornet is ? With a temperature of more than 30 degrees celcius = touching the ninetees, it sounds like one of the better ice creams) , but here I agree with all those who deem it wise to reconsider opinions and previous decisions if we feel that they were not right. Which brings me to a proposal: let us not discuss this psyche decision, but let us make laws in which this is covered in a more general way. What I like to discuss is the interpretation which seems to say that an S.O. may decide to give automatic penalties in case a player makes a misbid in a convention. That in my opinion is not in accordance with the laws and to base this interpretation on law 40D: 'may regulate the use' sounds not convincing to me. I am not talking about the wisdom of those doing so in case the laws do allow them, but that could be discussed also. ton > > > > > we know this law is ambiguous because otherwise > > > the EBU/ACBL would not have felt the need to > > > seek an interpretation from the WBF > > > in the first > > > place). > > > > My experience tells me that it is simply impossible to > > be prepared for the whole range of inventive creativity > > players and S.O may demonstrate. That is why laws > > should show a general approach, not being able to > > cover all kind of details; there are too many of those. > > > +=+ I share this view. If we can agree principles in the > laws it is for regulation to establish the methods by which > they are applied. ~ 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 Jul 29 23:15:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TDFMU22588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:15:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6TDFHH22584 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:15:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6TD0fW23588 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:00:41 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:00 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: > Is there anything new added to this thread last weeks? > I still read the same (partly wrong) arguments, so it might be wise to > repeat my of course right reaction on some aspects once more. Read > between > your lines please. > > > > > >> It may be right to do so, but the fact that you wish > > to do so in a > > > >> back-door method makes me doubt very much that you are. > > Strange remark, many useful changes result from activities via back > doors. Weak attack. > > > > > > > > >It is not a "back door" method. I believe that when the > > WBF issued > > > the >interpretation that "L40D gives SOs the power to render > > > psyches > > Did we give this interpretation for psyches as well? That seems > impossible to me. I'm afraid you did. When you gave gave an interpretation removing any restrictions on the regulation of conventions on SOs you also surrendered to them the power to make regulations like: "Blackwood may not be used as a convention by pairs wishing to employ psychic bids." Pairs can choose, either they retain the freedom to psyche by foregoing Blackwood or they retain Blackwood and forego their right to psyche. > May I ask you to be more accurate in your choice of words. It seems not > defendable to me to say that we were wrong when we said that an S.O. is > allowed to ban conventions in certain situations. That is what L40D > tells us. Had you said "an S.O. is allowed to ban conventions in certain situations" I would not disagree. Implicit in this statement is "the SO is not allowed to ban conventions in certain other situations". L40D should, IMO, be read as "The minimum strength of opening bids (provided within a king of average strength) is *not* a criterion on which SOs should base the regulation of conventions". Under the current "completely unfettered" interpretation the EBU could make the following restriction:- Blackwood may not be used by players who are one or more of; a) Jewish (this one could probably be challenged through civil action). b) Non-Members of the EBU c) Below the rank of Regional Master d) Users of the Losing Trick Count e) Playing a strong NT f) Have ever been recorded as psyching in an EBU competition g) Called Tim West-Meads While I do not suggest that the EBU would wish to make such regulations (although the last would amuse me, the others don't apply to me AFAIK) I suggest that it is just plain wrong for the WBF to grant such powers to the SO. Bridge is becoming an increasingly international game. Almost every day I play with people from all over the world and I strongly believe that setting tighter boundaries around what SOs can/can't do to regulate conventions would be "a good thing". I am happy to believe that the WBF was unaware of the full implications of what SOs might be permitted to do when they issued their interpretation. In summary when I said "wrong" I had chosen my word carefully. I also think the WBF got it "wrong" with L25B. Many others have said the same thing about L25B. > So an S.O has that authority. Whether they should use it this way is > another issue. The SO currently has that authority *because* of the interpretation given by the WBF. If the WBF does not believe that the authority should be employed in these ways then I think it was wrong to grant it. > There you may use the word 'wrong' when you don't like > it. But that is a personal opinion for which you might try to find > support. Right and wrong in such things is always a personal opinion - what else can it be? I *am* trying to find support, perhaps my writing is at times too emotional/abrasive to do so effectively but I continue to try. I believe one or two people on this list agree with much of what I say but since the majority of readers are pretty silent one way or the other I have no idea whether I am actually achieving anything. > If anyone has used a > > "back door" it > > was the EBU when they used an ambiguous loophole in L40D to legislate > > light openings out of the game! > > Who cares, they used a legal method. I care, twice over. Firstly I think it would have been better if their method had never been legal. Secondly I think they used a method which, while granted legality, goes against the spirit the laws attempt to enshrine (and against the spirit of "Acol" come to that). And yes I do realise that these "spirits" are, yet again, nebulous matters of personal opinion. 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 Mon Jul 29 23:17:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TDH1T22600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:17:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6TDGtH22596 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:16:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g6TD2Jf03139 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:02:19 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Jul 29 14:57:36 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KKO6B4V8IA001N70@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:01:17 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:00:46 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:01:09 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: "'rwilley@sloan.mit.edu'" , "'Bridge Laws'" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Could someone please define a "Watson" double. Wasn't his double Sherlock Holmes? sorry, predictable, I have done better. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 29 23:28:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TDSgv22613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:28:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6TDSbH22609 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:28:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-7.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.7] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17ZALZ-0002PE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:14:01 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020729091247.00b391c0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:16:20 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 In-Reply-To: <200207222225.SAA29825@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:25 PM 7/22/02, Steve wrote: > > From: "Ton Kooijman" > > Though the word 'craft' does not appear as a verb in my dictionary > (due to > > the cheap price? > >I was astonished to find that it does not appear in mine either. >Fowler does not mention 'craft' in any sense, at least not in the >obvious place. > >In spite of that, use of 'craft' as a verb is reasonably common in >English. It means "make" or "build" or "construct" but signifies >dexterity or skill in the process. Compare with "hand crafted." JFTR it's in my dictionary (Random House Unabriged): "Craft v.t.: To make or manufacture (an object, objects, product, etc.) with skill and careful attention to detail." >[This message is entirely a comment on English usage; I am taking no >position on the substance of the argument.] Ditto. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 29 23:31:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TDUuO22625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:30:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6TDUkH22621 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:30:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g6TDG9f05505 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:16:09 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Jul 29 15:11:25 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KKO6T3U3RC001MFB@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:15:46 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:15:15 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:15:43 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: "'twm@cix.compulink.co.uk'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Did we give this interpretation for psyches as well? That seems > > impossible to me. > > I'm afraid you did. When you gave gave an interpretation > removing any > restrictions on the regulation of conventions on SOs you also > surrendered > to them the power to make regulations like: > "Blackwood may not be used as a convention by pairs wishing to employ > psychic bids." Pairs can choose, either they retain the > freedom to psyche > by foregoing Blackwood or they retain Blackwood and forego > their right to > psyche. Goood Heavens, let us listen to Grattan who gave the S.O. all the power they want to regulate conventions. Is this one of the possible and legal outcomes of that freedom of power? Is such a apparently quoted sentence ever written on a piece of paper? And should I have known that 'we' have sanctioned this? Without jeopardising my withdrawal yet, I need to tell you that I am in some amazement. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 29 23:56:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TDuNh22643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:56:23 +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-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 g6TDuIH22639 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:56:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.64.2] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17ZAmB-000Dv6-00; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:41:32 +0100 Message-ID: <001901c23706$1dd31760$0240e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <004801c236d1$754de860$e502e150@dodona> <001001c23700$2a8879b0$6401a8c0@hare> Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:44:10 +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 Do you mean that if the committees are all men > the directors must all be women??? :-)) or perhaps > you just mean they should all be "hanged" together > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan Endicott" > To: ; "Jay Apfelbaum" > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 3:17 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees > > > [* they should perhaps be hung separately from ACs :-) ] > > +=+ Sloppy indeed. I was thinking "out to dry" - but it was early morning when I typed it. If the law allows it criminals are hanged, but juries are hung. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 00:13:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TECWt22664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:12:32 +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 g6TECRH22660 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:12:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-7.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.7] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17ZB20-0001o4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:57:52 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020729095135.00b3e100@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:00:11 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 In-Reply-To: <000101c23334$4b8d69b0$9f06ba12@Herot> References: <240702205.23515@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 01:05 PM 7/24/02, rwilley wrote: >In a similar fashion. >Distribute membership forms at Bridge Congresses. Players must return >surveys to get free food/other goodies. >Once again, you will introduce bias. In this case, players who have >withdrawn from organized bridge can't be surveyed. However, here once >again information is a GOOD thing. > >Its really disappointing to see our leaders saying that its too >difficult to get good information. A few weeks ago I got a call from someone at the medical practice with which my doctor is affiliated. She was surveying patients' opinions of their doctors in the practice, and asked me if I would characterize my doctor as competent. I said that of course I would. I also pointed out that there was no chance whatsoever that anyone she surveyed would say that their doctor was incompetent, since they were surveying patients, and anyone who felt that their doctor was incompetent would change doctors, and would not be on her lists of their patients. She didn't understand what I was talking about. Our local bridge organizations regularly survey players at their tournaments, but they are, of course, getting the same kinds of results as, inevitably, was the case for this survey of opinions about doctors. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 00:51:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TEpVa22687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:51:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6TEpNH22679 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:51:23 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6TEakR28763 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:36:46 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:36 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: Ton wrote: > > I'm afraid you did. When you gave gave an interpretation > > removing any restrictions on the regulation of conventions on SOs you > > also surrendered to them the power to make regulations like: > > "Blackwood may not be used as a convention by pairs wishing to employ > > psychic bids." > Goood Heavens, let us listen to Grattan who gave the S.O. all the power > they want to regulate conventions. Is this one of the possible and legal > outcomes of that freedom of power? Is such a apparently quoted sentence > ever written on a piece of paper? The quotes exist to show an example of how a regulation could be written. It is no different to "Blackwood may not be used as a convention by pairs wishing to employ light opening psychic bids." which is a subset of the EBU restrictions. In March (see Psychs and the rule of eighteen) we discussed the Austrian regulation: Psychic bids The Rule of 18 In all pairs tournaments an opening of 1 of a suit in first or second hand must follow the "rule of 18": the sum of the HCP and the length of the 2 longest suits must be at least 18. Unsupported honours in short suits may be counted for full value. In novice games this rule also applies in third seat. Three-card major openings are also forbidden in such games. This is true in both club and A-level events. It was established that this regulation applied to the calls themselves - *not* just the agreements. Subsequently Grattan wrote: > Secondly, I think the Austrians are merely wrong in > the way they approach their regulation. Their words > need to link to the potential for fewer than eight points > and/or to 'conventional' rather than Rule of Eighteen. So yes. I did listen to Grattan and it was he would made it clear to me that "Blackwood may not be used by....." would be considered within the powers granted to SOs. > And should I have known that 'we' have sanctioned this? Yes, I believe you should. > Without jeopardising my withdrawal yet, I need to tell you that I am in > some amazement. I too am amazed that the WBFLC managed to grant such wide-ranging (unrestricted even) powers to SOs, particularly with regard to psyches and light openings, without realising they had done so. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 00:51:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TEpWY22688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:51:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6TEpOH22680 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:51:24 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6TEalC28789 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:36:47 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:36 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: > Yes, but I wasn't talking about that. The message I reacted on did say > that somebody had interpreted something with the result that conventions > may not be used when a psyche is given. That is what I couldn't believe; > with good reasons don't you think? Perhaps because the minutes of the WBFLC (sept 98) say "A consequence of this ruling is, as the Committee has previously confirmed, that the powers to regulate conventions are unrestricted and include the power to ban conventions in given circumstances." And if these powers are indeed "unrestricted" then there is *nothing* to stop these regulations being used to render psyches unplayable (just as the EBU has done with light openings). I will be delighted if the WBF now feels that such "unrestricted" powers are undesirable. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 00:56:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TEtxn22707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:55:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from out002.verizon.net (out002pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.141]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6TEtsH22703 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:55:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from jayapfelbaum ([151.201.233.19]) by out002.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.09 201-253-122-126-109-20020611) with SMTP id <20020729144113.CZAG9228.out002.verizon.net@jayapfelbaum> for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:41:13 -0500 Message-ID: <002201c2370d$f783aea0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> From: "Jay Apfelbaum" To: References: <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:41:02 -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 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: (extensive snipping) > >Back to bridge, most of the complaints surrounding appeals committees are > >that they are no better and sometimes worse than the director rulings. I > >suggest that is not the case. The appeals casebooks compare the relative > >merits of the decisions of appeals committees as against the director > >rulings, but all the recent casebooks base this evaluation on different > >criteria. A quick reading of the panel comments shows countless examples > >praising the director for ruling in favor of the non-offending side, and > >leaving it up to the appeals committee to sort out the complex issues. > > That must have been a *very* quick reading: I think the case-books > make it clear that, like the rest of the world, ACBL TDs are making a > greater effort to get it right, and are relying less on ACs. > > Overall, I believe that judgement rulings for TDs at event level or > higher in the more forward areas of the world are probably something > like 65% to 70% correct. For ACs they are probably something like 75% > to 85% correct. The big question, it seems to me, is whether the > cumbersome appeals process is really worth it for 10% improvement. In a word, "YES." If we want the best decisions possible. No process can be perfect, but I could never justify choosing a process KNOWING it is inferior without first exploring all possible ways to improve the better one first. For example, what if the parties could choose to let the TD's handle the appeal? Suppose an appeal would go to an AC unless the parties agreed the TD's would handle it. Would that eliminate the "cumbersome" aspect? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 01:06:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TF6Cl22723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:06:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6TF67H22719 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:06:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-7.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.7] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17ZBrv-0003QJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:51:31 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020729103655.00b40d00@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:53:50 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees In-Reply-To: References: <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:38 AM 7/29/02, David wrote: > Overall, I believe that judgement rulings for TDs at event level or >higher in the more forward areas of the world are probably something >like 65% to 70% correct. For ACs they are probably something like 75% >to 85% correct. The big question, it seems to me, is whether the >cumbersome appeals process is really worth it for 10% improvement. That is precisely the issue (notwithstanding that David's percentage estimates for "the more forward areas of the world" may be rather high for the ACBL). From my discussions with players and administrators, I do not believe that the ACBL is changing its practices because they believe that the change will result in better or fairer rulings. They are doing so because 50% of the players who appear before ACs (the non-appellants) HATE being forced to do so when they'd rather be in the bar chatting with friends, or asleep, and that few other experiences are as effective in discouraging their future participation in tournaments than having to spend time, often hours, waiting for or involved in an appeal. Even if the appeal is "screened out" and never heard, precious post-midnight hours may be wasted in this process alone. As far as the ACBL is concerned, arguments that their new approach will result in rulings that are less correct, or less fair, are simply irrelevant. The underlying motivation for the change is a desire to maximize what they would call "member satisfaction", by which they mean revenue from membership and tournament entry fees. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 01:22:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TFLlS22760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:21:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6TFLfH22756 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:21:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.12.5/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6TF6wlQ031928; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:06:58 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6TF6w910685; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:06:58 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:06:58 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Jay Apfelbaum cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees In-Reply-To: <002201c2370d$f783aea0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-RIPE-Spam-Status: NONE ; -1041 X-RIPE-Spam-Level: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Jay Apfelbaum wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: (extensive snipping) > > > > >Back to bridge, most of the complaints surrounding appeals committees are > > >that they are no better and sometimes worse than the director rulings. I > > >suggest that is not the case. The appeals casebooks compare the relative > > >merits of the decisions of appeals committees as against the director > > >rulings, but all the recent casebooks base this evaluation on different > > >criteria. A quick reading of the panel comments shows countless examples > > >praising the director for ruling in favor of the non-offending side, and > > >leaving it up to the appeals committee to sort out the complex issues. > > > > That must have been a *very* quick reading: I think the case-books > > make it clear that, like the rest of the world, ACBL TDs are making a > > greater effort to get it right, and are relying less on ACs. > > > > Overall, I believe that judgement rulings for TDs at event level or > > higher in the more forward areas of the world are probably something > > like 65% to 70% correct. For ACs they are probably something like 75% > > to 85% correct. The big question, it seems to me, is whether the > > cumbersome appeals process is really worth it for 10% improvement. One should include in the 65-70% the number of cases where the TD is certain that, no matter what he decides, one partnership will appeal. > In a word, "YES." If we want the best decisions possible. No process can > be perfect, but I could never justify choosing a process KNOWING it is > inferior without first exploring all possible ways to improve the better > one first. But one spends a lot of resources on the appeal process. Suppose we spent those resources on better training for the TD's, wouldn't that increase the number of correct decisions (as far as a judgement call ever be correct) by the 5-10% that we are looking for as well? 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) NOTE: My email address (and a hole in our mailing list software) is being abused by a spammer. We are working on fixing this hole and tracking the spammer down. If you receive mail from "henk@ripe.net" that is obviously spam, please send me a copy of the mail including ALL headers. I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused by this. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 01:31:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TFVC022775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:31:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from out010.verizon.net (out010pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.133]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6TFV7H22771 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:31:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from jayapfelbaum ([151.201.233.19]) by out010.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.09 201-253-122-126-109-20020611) with SMTP id <20020729151626.DFQU17636.out010.verizon.net@jayapfelbaum> for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:16:26 -0500 Message-ID: <002c01c23712$e68c7960$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> From: "Jay Apfelbaum" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 11:16:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwall wrote: (extensive snipping) > > But one spends a lot of resources on the appeal process. Suppose we spent > those resources on better training for the TD's, wouldn't that increase > the number of correct decisions (as far as a judgement call ever be > correct) by the 5-10% that we are looking for as well? > > Henk I do not believe that our TD's will ever be bridge experts. They will never have the same breadth of experience as our better players. No amount of training can overcome a lack of expertise and experience. And there is no way that TD's can acquire that expertise and experience. We need them working, and not playing. Jay Apfelbaum -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 01:32:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TFVxI22787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:31:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6TFVrH22783 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:31:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.12.5/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6TFHDlQ002538; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:17:13 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6TFHDa10689; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:17:13 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:17:13 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Eric Landau cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020729103655.00b40d00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-RIPE-Spam-Status: NONE ; -1041 X-RIPE-Spam-Level: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Eric Landau wrote: > At 06:38 AM 7/29/02, David wrote: > > > Overall, I believe that judgement rulings for TDs at event level or > >higher in the more forward areas of the world are probably something > >like 65% to 70% correct. For ACs they are probably something like 75% > >to 85% correct. The big question, it seems to me, is whether the > >cumbersome appeals process is really worth it for 10% improvement. > > That is precisely the issue (notwithstanding that David's percentage > estimates for "the more forward areas of the world" may be rather high > for the ACBL). From my discussions with players and administrators, I > do not believe that the ACBL is changing its practices because they > believe that the change will result in better or fairer rulings. They > are doing so because 50% of the players who appear before ACs (the > non-appellants) HATE being forced to do so when they'd rather be in the > bar chatting with friends, or asleep, and that few other experiences > are as effective in discouraging their future participation in > tournaments than having to spend time, often hours, waiting for or > involved in an appeal. Even if the appeal is "screened out" and never > heard, precious post-midnight hours may be wasted in this process alone. After all these years that I've been playing in ACBL-land, it is still not clear to me why most appeals aren't heard the following morning at 10am or so. Yes, there are some events where it is essential that a winner is declared that night. For most events that is not the case. Plus that when an appeal is heard the following morning, in a fair number of cases, the appelants will have realized that the appeal has no merit anyway. 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) NOTE: My email address (and a hole in our mailing list software) is being abused by a spammer. We are working on fixing this hole and tracking the spammer down. If you receive mail from "henk@ripe.net" that is obviously spam, please send me a copy of the mail including ALL headers. I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused by this. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 02:18:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TGHsj22831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:17:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6TGHmH22827 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:17:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (103.53-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.53.103]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6TG2rw04095 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:02:53 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D456727.4070709@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:02:47 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > > In March (see Psychs and the rule of eighteen) we discussed the Austrian > regulation: > > Psychic bids > The Rule of 18 > In all pairs tournaments an opening of 1 of a suit in first or second hand > must follow the "rule of 18": the sum of the HCP and the length of the 2 > longest suits must be at least 18. Unsupported honours in short suits may > be counted for full value. In novice games this rule also applies in third > seat. Three-card major openings are also forbidden in such games. This is > true in both club and A-level events. > > It was established that this regulation applied to the calls themselves - > *not* just the agreements. > It is my opinion that, while an SO cannot restrict "calls", just agreements, this implies that calls that were made with the intent to accurately reflect an agreement, are also banned. This includes, IMHO, grey area calls, and excludes, IMEHO, misbids and psyches. So to interpret that a regulation that restricts agreements does also restrict the calls themselves is in my opinion, and with the stated exceptions, correct. So it does not matter if an SO says "you cannot agree to open on ..." or "you cannot open on ... with the intent of accurately showing your hand". Both are correct. Of course "you cannot open on ..." is not correct. That excludes psyches. > -- 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 Jul 30 02:30:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TGUDS22844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:30:13 +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 g6TGU8H22840 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:30:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g6TGFXl24427 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:15:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001c01c2371b$0c008300$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <002201c2370d$f783aea0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:14:38 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Jay Apfelbaum" > > > > Overall, I believe that judgement rulings for TDs at event level or > > higher in the more forward areas of the world are probably something > > like 65% to 70% correct. For ACs they are probably something like 75% > > to 85% correct. These figures do not apply in ACBL-land. The correctness of decisions varies greatly from NABC to NABC, chiefly depending on the difficulty of the cases. Going by the casebooks, the AC decisions varied from a low of 40% good (Vancouver) to 94% good (Anaheim). The average looks to be about 61%, with no discernible trend, good or bad. Table rulings have fared much worse (the infrequent bad ones are those that get appealed), but the TD Panels have done somewhat better. The problem is not that ACs are inferior, but that the members are not, overall, as competent as those on the TD Panels. The cure for that is to improve the qualify of the ACs, not to abolish them. This seems to be impossible for "political" reasons, so the baby gets thrown out with the bath. 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 Jul 30 02:34:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TGY2A22856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:34:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6TGXvH22852 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:33:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (103.53-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.53.103]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6TGJIJ00724 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:19:18 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D456B00.1070002@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:19:12 +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] ACBL to do away with ACslso References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have read with great interest the reactions that have already been given to this issue, and I want to make a few points as well. Adam Wildavsky wrote: > I've been told that the ACBL Board of Directors voted today, by a 2-1 > margin, to discontinue the use of appeal committees in North American > Championship events, starting in 2004. Several years ago they did away > with ACs for Regional events held at NABCs. This is the proposal that > was made -- I don't have the text of the motion that passed. > > "I. The procedure is: > 1. The Director is called to the table. so far, no change > 2. The Director thoroughly investigates the facts. one of the steps of a current appeal (I'm talking Europe here) is to have the TD state the facts, and the players make comments. It is amazing to see how often the facts, as presented by the TD, are contested by the players. And once in a while, the AC actually rules that the facts are probably not the ones that the TD has brought from the table. Any appeal procedure should include a right for the players to hear the facts as the TD has established them and told to the CTD and his colleagues. > 3. The Director may take any matter away from the table for > consideration and consultation with other TDs (matters that > involves questions of law) and expert players (matters that > involve bridge judgment). When the Director is satisfied > that he has gathered all the facts, including any bridge > judgment involved and laws to be applied, a final ruling is > given. That is exactly as it is now. We also know that this is not a satisfactory process. Quite often the players are not happy with the ruling. Quite a few times, the ruling is actually changed after appeal. I don't believe anyone wants to do away with an appeal process. > 4. Players shall be advised that in order to have the decision > reviewed (per Law 92) they must submit a written statement > defining the issues. In a sense, that is what is currently also being done. The players receive an appeal form and can comment on that. Quite often, the form is only partially filled out - no time. When the players are getting a hearing, this is not important. When no hearing is coming, written statements will take a lot of time. And where is the right of the defence ? > 5. The request for a review is submitted to the DIC. The DIC > (or his designee) considers all issues raised and decides > the appropriate action. The reviewer shall: > 1. Reconsider the original director's ruling based on issues > that may have not been considered or were not given > sufficient attention earlier. > 2. Thoroughly review the case with the players involved and > in consultation with a pool of neutral players regarding > bridge issues (as appropriate). > 3. When the review is completed the DIC reports the final > decision to the players. I find it strange that one does not call this an appeal. What does an AC do but the things outlined above ? As it stands, the DIC has his duty, the ACC has his. This proposal just puts both functions into one. > 6. Management shall select a pool of expert players who will > evaluate the decisions for all rulings requiring review in > regional and higher events. Management shall consolidate > these evaluations and prepare a quarterly summary > containing individual and overall ratings." > In a sense, the ACBL has NOT done away with ACs. They ahve done away with AC hearings, and they have given the function of AC chairman to the DIC. Also they have taken away the neutrality of the AC selection. Now, a chairman selects a number of people and follows their advice, while in this proposal, the chairman need not even divulge which players he has consulted. While there might be an advantage in being able to consult more players, there is the disadvantage of those players not having heard the evidence presented. It is strange that the USA, with its tradition for oral justice, goes this way. I don't believe it is advantageous, and I do think that the problems one has with ACs should be solved in some other way. But merely giving them another name does not "do away" with them. -- 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 Jul 30 02:45:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TGjFf22874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:45:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6TGj9H22870 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:45:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g6TGUYl01790 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:30:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003301c2371d$25442f40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <4.3.2.7.0.20020729103655.00b40d00@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:27:20 -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" > As far as the ACBL is concerned, arguments that their new approach will > result in rulings that are less correct, or less fair, are simply > irrelevant. The underlying motivation for the change is a desire to > maximize what they would call "member satisfaction", by which they mean > revenue from membership and tournament entry fees. > A conversation last week with Jim Kirkham, the ACBL Director who seems to be the leader of the abolition movement, did not leave me with that impression. He seems to be genuinely concerned about the quality of appeal decisions, and thinks the ACBL's AC organization is not working well (to put it mildly). 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 Jul 30 02:56:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TGu1v22887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:56:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6TGtuH22883 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:55:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from cow.ripe.net (cow.ripe.net [193.0.1.239]) by birch.ripe.net (8.12.5/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6TGfElQ027062; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:41:14 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by cow.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6TGfER29834; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:41:14 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: cow.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:41:14 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Jay Apfelbaum cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees In-Reply-To: <002c01c23712$e68c7960$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-RIPE-Spam-Status: NONE ; -1041 X-RIPE-Spam-Level: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Jay Apfelbaum wrote: > Henk Uijterwall wrote: (extensive snipping) And misspelling my name ;-) > > But one spends a lot of resources on the appeal process. Suppose we spent > > those resources on better training for the TD's, wouldn't that increase > > the number of correct decisions (as far as a judgement call ever be > > correct) by the 5-10% that we are looking for as well? > > > > Henk > > I do not believe that our TD's will ever be bridge experts. They will never > have the same breadth of experience as our better players. The opposite is also true: there are lots of experienced players with little knowledge of the laws sitting on AC's. And sometimes one should not even have experienced players on a AC, or do you really think that, say, Garozzo, can imagine what is going on in flight D? Anyway, the procedure allows for the TD to consult players when they consider this necessary. > No amount of training can overcome a lack of expertise and experience. > And there is no way that TD's can acquire that expertise and experience. We have solved that quite nicely here by requiring that senior TD's are experienced flight A players before they can become a national TD. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) NOTE: My email address (and a hole in our mailing list software) is being abused by a spammer. We are working on fixing this hole and tracking the spammer down. If you receive mail from "henk@ripe.net" that is obviously spam, please send me a copy of the mail including ALL headers. I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused by this. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 02:59:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TGxEY22899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:59:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6TGxAH22895 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:59:10 +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 JAA01298; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:44:30 -0700 Message-Id: <200207291644.JAA01298@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 28 Jul 2002 23:05:27 PDT." <007801c236c5$f2705320$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:44:59 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > From: "Jay Apfelbaum" > > > The current appeals practice uses a group of volunteers. All of these > > volunteers are qualified and well-intentioned. > > Well intentioned, no doubt. Qualified? Not all, by a long shot. The Las > Vegas Fall NABC appeals casebook shows that only a little over 50% of cases > decided by ACs ended with good decisions (12 out of 23). The TD panels did a > little better (11 out of 19). Out of curiosity, if this is an answerable question: Did the "bad" decisions made by the AC's tend to be errors in bridge judgment, or were they the result of good bridge judgment combined with a lack of understanding of how to apply the Laws properly using this bridge judgment? -- 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 Jul 30 03:36:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6THZcG23093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 03:35:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from out003.verizon.net (out003pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.103]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6THZXH23089 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 03:35:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from jayapfelbaum ([151.201.233.19]) by out003.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.09 201-253-122-126-109-20020611) with SMTP id <20020729172051.GWRC13272.out003.verizon.net@jayapfelbaum> for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:20:51 -0500 Message-ID: <006501c23724$41f01a80$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> From: "Jay Apfelbaum" To: References: <200207291644.JAA01298@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 13:20:36 -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 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Neneschan wrote: (snipped) > Out of curiosity, if this is an answerable question: Did the "bad" > decisions made by the AC's tend to be errors in bridge judgment, or > were they the result of good bridge judgment combined with a lack of > understanding of how to apply the Laws properly using this bridge > judgment? > > -- Adam I am certain there are examples of both. I would suggest the worst decisions come from: A) Players who think they know the law, when they don't B) TD's who think they know the game, when they don't Jay Apfelbaum -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 05:56:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TJtcG23150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 05:55:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smarthost0.mail.uk.easynet.net (smarthost0.mail.uk.easynet.net [212.135.6.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6TJtXH23146 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 05:55:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from tnt-15-13.easynet.co.uk ([212.134.26.13] helo=k6b8p4) by smarthost0.mail.uk.easynet.net with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17ZGNz-000JeX-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:40:56 +0100 From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Revoke with own last card Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:39:47 +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 In-Reply-To: X-Message-Flag: Follow up X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > David Stevenson writes: >> This cumbersome procedure would be avoided if L66B followed the wording in >> L66A and allowed a player to inspect his own last card *so long >> as his side has not played or led to the next trick*. >> Such a change would also accord with the general principle that any rights >> a side has at any time should cease only with an action by that side and >> not by an action of opponents. >> >> This seems to be a clear improvement with no obvious disadvantage - am I >> missing something? > I do not suggest the method is better or worse, but I doubt the reason > given. In my view it will come as a great surprise that anyone thinks > inspection of one's own last card is anything to do with a revoke. I am > confident that it was introduced because people could not remember who > had won the last trick! OK, so we have a similar problem. I think I won the last trick but an opponent has led to the next one. As Law 66B stands, neither I, nor anyone else, may look at their own last card to check. If we cannot agree, technically we must wait for the TD to sort us out! 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 Jul 30 07:07:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TL6sr23186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 07:06:54 +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 g6TL6nH23182 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 07:06:49 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g6TKq7Z23748 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:52:07 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200207292052.g6TKq7Z23748@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:52:07 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" at Jul 29, 2002 05:17:13 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:17:13 +0200 (CEST) > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Eric Landau wrote: > > > At 06:38 AM 7/29/02, David wrote: > > > > > Overall, I believe that judgement rulings for TDs at event level or > > >higher in the more forward areas of the world are probably something > > >like 65% to 70% correct. For ACs they are probably something like 75% > > >to 85% correct. The big question, it seems to me, is whether the > > >cumbersome appeals process is really worth it for 10% improvement. > > > > That is precisely the issue (notwithstanding that David's percentage > > estimates for "the more forward areas of the world" may be rather high > > for the ACBL). From my discussions with players and administrators, I > > do not believe that the ACBL is changing its practices because they > > believe that the change will result in better or fairer rulings. They > > are doing so because 50% of the players who appear before ACs (the > > non-appellants) HATE being forced to do so when they'd rather be in the > > bar chatting with friends, or asleep, and that few other experiences > > are as effective in discouraging their future participation in > > tournaments than having to spend time, often hours, waiting for or > > involved in an appeal. Even if the appeal is "screened out" and never > > heard, precious post-midnight hours may be wasted in this process alone. > > After all these years that I've been playing in ACBL-land, it is still not > clear to me why most appeals aren't heard the following morning at 10am or > so. Yes, there are some events where it is essential that a winner is > declared that night. For most events that is not the case. Plus that when > an appeal is heard the following morning, in a fair number of cases, the > appelants will have realized that the appeal has no merit anyway. > This is much worse than ruling after the game, IMHO. First, you are catering to those people who will be at a tournament everyday or staying in the hotel at the playing site. For those of us who don't play everyday or don't stay in the host hotel, this is far worse. If you aren't scheduled to play in the tournament the next day, then either you have to hope that your case is appropriately presented to the appeals committee by someone else, or forfeit if you are the appellant. If you are a commuter or staying elsewhere, you have to make arrangements to get there early and if you had other plans for the following morning, you have to reschedule them. This will only encourage the feeling that the rules are geared around the top players who play all days of a tournament and professionals who work all days of a tournament or stay in the host hotel. This is one of the problems that the ACBL is trying to combat (or so rumor has it) that the committees favor better players. In fact many intermediate players feel intimidated by some of the better players and won't appeal because they feel that the better players on appeal committees will automatically favor the better players. This feeling is fairly prevalent in the ACBL and one of the reasons that the ACBL may be doing away with AC's since many intermediate players feel they'll get a better ruling from a TD than from the good players on the AC. Back to the topic of night vs morning, I feel it is much better to review the case earlier than later. The case is much more fresh in everyone's mind right after the session than the morning after. Also, when it is at night, people have a tendancy to keep things moving along and be a little more succinct. I've run appeals as a TD both after an evening session, before a later session, and in the morning and when people are fresher, the AC tends to run longer. -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 Jul 30 08:11:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TMAZl23215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:10:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6TMAUH23211 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:10:30 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g6TLtnu27019 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:55:49 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200207292155.g6TLtnu27019@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:55:49 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" at Jul 29, 2002 06:41:14 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: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:41:14 +0200 (CEST) > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Jay Apfelbaum wrote: > > > Henk Uijterwall wrote: (extensive snipping) > > And misspelling my name ;-) > > > > But one spends a lot of resources on the appeal process. Suppose we spent > > > those resources on better training for the TD's, wouldn't that increase > > > the number of correct decisions (as far as a judgement call ever be > > > correct) by the 5-10% that we are looking for as well? > > > > > > Henk > > > > I do not believe that our TD's will ever be bridge experts. They will never > > have the same breadth of experience as our better players. > > The opposite is also true: there are lots of experienced players with > little knowledge of the laws sitting on AC's. And sometimes one should > not even have experienced players on a AC, or do you really think that, > say, Garozzo, can imagine what is going on in flight D? > TY: Well, in District 6 (East Coast Mid-Atlantic ACBL), we have established AC committee courses that we've run a couple of times. Various players are encouraged to attend (we don't charge an attendance fee) and players who have made it through the course are invited to sit on AC's for our unit and sectional games. We try to make sure that we have one B-level player on any committee that involves a B- or C-level player on either side. This helps gives some balance/weight to the level of player issue from someone close to that level. But, those players have gone through some training regarding sitting on an AC. I've found that the B-level players with the course experience, tend to rule better than general A-level players who have not since the B-level players with the experience tend to have a better idea of what the laws are, how to apply them, and not just on "...well, what I would do..." > Anyway, the procedure allows for the TD to consult players when they > consider this necessary. > TY: Yes, I think this is important. I was reading some of the appeal casebooks from Washington DC and I noted that in areas where bridge logic/experience/level was important, that the TD's did consult with experts and the results of questioning the experts was included in the write-up. In one, dealing with undisclosed information (a 1NT forcing bid that was not announced until after the auction was closed) the ruling was based on 5 experts and 2 had determined their bid would have been what the player had said he would have done (if he had been informed) and 3 said their bid would not have been different with or without the announced information. So, although I also agree that we should continue with AC's, I think the new procedure is working better than I had feared beforehand. > > No amount of training can overcome a lack of expertise and experience. > > And there is no way that TD's can acquire that expertise and experience. > > We have solved that quite nicely here by requiring that senior TD's are > experienced flight A players before they can become a national TD. > TY: Unfortunately, here is ACBL-land, that isn't as practical. Our three nationals are amongst the largest tournaments in the world and take an incredible number of TD's to man. There aren't enough experience directors at that level of play to definitely guarantee that only the experienced flight A players can be promoted. Getting that much experience in both playing and directing is very difficult unless you give up everything else in your life to only play and/or direct. It just isn't feasible here. -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 Jul 30 08:36:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TMZjB23249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:35:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6TMZcH23242 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:35:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.40.42.146] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17ZIsM-0002Gq-00; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:20:26 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01c2374d$ea75e6c0$922a2850@pacific> From: To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:11:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 3:36 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > Ton wrote: > > > > Goood Heavens, let us listen to Grattan who gave > > the S.O. all the power they want to regulate conventions. > > Is this one of the possible and legal outcomes of that > > freedom of power? Is such a apparently quoted > > sentence ever written on a piece of paper? > > > Psychic bids > The Rule of 18 > In all pairs tournaments an opening of 1 of a suit in first > or second hand must follow the "rule of 18": the sum of > the HCP and the length of the 2 longest suits must be > at least 18. Unsupported honours in short suits may > be counted for full value. In novice games this rule also > applies in third seat. Three-card major openings are > also forbidden in such games. This is true in both club > and A-level events. > > It was established that this regulation applied to the calls > themselves - *not* just the agreements. > > Subsequently Grattan wrote: > > Secondly, I think the Austrians are merely wrong in > > the way they approach their regulation. Their words > > need to link to the potential for fewer than eight points > > and/or to 'conventional' rather than Rule of Eighteen. > ............ \x/ .......... > > I too am amazed that the WBFLC managed to grant such > wide-ranging (unrestricted even) powers to SOs, > particularly with regard to psyches and light openings, > without realising they had done so. > > Tim > +=+ I see my name here. Neither ton nor I can claim this credit. The decision was by the then WBFLC under the chairmanship of Ed Theus and continued when Edgar took over from him. [Parenthetically it was because I demonstrated to the WBFLC that I could debate the laws with Edgar as powerfully as any that I was invited to sit with them and shortly afterwards joined them as a full member - the ones who now predate me in this, as a full member, are John Wignall, Carlos Cabanne and Santanu Ghose (the last two being now inactive). Kojak was included shortly after that again, having guested at their meetings for some time. In Ocho Rios,1987, the committee was Theus (chair), Kaplan (vice), Howard, Ortiz-Patino, Besse, Endicott, Wignall, with invited guests Franklin, Jafri, Jensen, d'Orsi, Schoder, Sheinwold, and apologies from members Cabanne, Ghose, Harding.] It was all done with studied intention - both the EBL and the ACBL had a use for such powers. The EBL Rules & Regulations Committee (Bill Pencharz, chair) had asked the EBL Laws Committee to confirm the legality of the existing regulation in 1984/5 and the latter body asked me to raise it with the WBFLC, with outcome as you are now aware. To change the interpretation now would involve telling the ACBL and the EBL, and others, that the earlier decision being rescinded their regulations are now invalid. It would be ambitious and presumptuous to expect that, as currently constituted, the WBFLC would give such a proposition a moment's consideration. We no longer have a silver-tongued Kaplan to seduce the committee or with his deft skills to impose his will upon it. Again, it would require not merely a change in the interpretation but a rewording of the relevant law and also to have the Executive set aside its decision in Geneva 1990. Forget it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 08:36:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TMZiC23248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:35:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6TMZaH23240 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:35:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.40.42.146] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17ZIsL-0002Gq-00; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:20:25 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c2374d$e9941240$922a2850@pacific> From: To: "Jay Apfelbaum" , "Bridge Laws" References: <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <002201c2370d$f783aea0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 22:58:03 +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: Monday, July 29, 2002 3:41 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees > David Stevenson wrote: (extensive snipping) > > In a word, "YES." If we want the best decisions possible. > No process can be perfect, but I could never justify > choosing a process KNOWING it is inferior > without first exploring all possible ways to improve the > better one first. > > For example, what if the parties could choose to let the > TD's handle the appeal? Suppose an appeal would go > to an AC unless the parties agreed the TD's would handle > it. Would that eliminate the "cumbersome" aspect? > +=+ I question that we could adopt such a method in the EBL given the nature of European legislation on human rights. This requires that the judgement be independent function. It is the concept that the English used to term 'natural justice'. Or at least, maybe we could adopt it but at the risk someone would find an occasion to challenge a finding in the European Court of Human Rights. Seeking damages and costs. ~ 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 Jul 30 08:49:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TMmp923278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:48:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6TMmjH23274 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:48:46 +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 g6TMY6b03535 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:34:07 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 22:16:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020729103655.00b40d00@pop.starpower.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Eric Landau wrote: > >> At 06:38 AM 7/29/02, David wrote: >> >> > Overall, I believe that judgement rulings for TDs at event level or >> >higher in the more forward areas of the world are probably something >> >like 65% to 70% correct. For ACs they are probably something like 75% >> >to 85% correct. The big question, it seems to me, is whether the >> >cumbersome appeals process is really worth it for 10% improvement. >> >> That is precisely the issue (notwithstanding that David's percentage >> estimates for "the more forward areas of the world" may be rather high >> for the ACBL). From my discussions with players and administrators, I >> do not believe that the ACBL is changing its practices because they >> believe that the change will result in better or fairer rulings. They >> are doing so because 50% of the players who appear before ACs (the >> non-appellants) HATE being forced to do so when they'd rather be in the >> bar chatting with friends, or asleep, and that few other experiences >> are as effective in discouraging their future participation in >> tournaments than having to spend time, often hours, waiting for or >> involved in an appeal. Even if the appeal is "screened out" and never >> heard, precious post-midnight hours may be wasted in this process alone. > >After all these years that I've been playing in ACBL-land, it is still not >clear to me why most appeals aren't heard the following morning at 10am or >so. Do you seriously expect me to be awake? I suppose it's possible if I haven't yet gone to bed. cheers john >Yes, there are some events where it is essential that a winner is >declared that night. For most events that is not the case. Plus that when >an appeal is heard the following morning, in a fair number of cases, the >appelants will have realized that the appeal has no merit anyway. > > > >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) > >NOTE: My email address (and a hole in our mailing list software) is being > abused by a spammer. We are working on fixing this hole and tracking > the spammer down. If you receive mail from "henk@ripe.net" that is > obviously spam, please send me a copy of the mail including ALL headers. > I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused by this. > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Jul 30 08:53:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TMqic23331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:52:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6TMqFH23298 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:52:16 +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 17ZJ8y-0004bx-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:37:39 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:55:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: <000b01c236f3$02079780$651e2850@pacific> <000801c236f6$fa41b4a0$9f06ba12@Herot> In-Reply-To: <000801c236f6$fa41b4a0$9f06ba12@Herot> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard willey writes > >Could someone please define a "Watson" double. A double of 3NT that tells partner not to lead the suit earlier bid by the doubler. However, it may not be used in conjunction with a psyche. Errrr - I think the regulation has disappeared! It might still be considered a psychic control whihc is also not permitted. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 08:53:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TMqjQ23332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:52:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6TMqJH23311 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:52:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 17ZJ93-0004by-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:37:42 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 21:07:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees References: <002c01c23712$e68c7960$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Jay Apfelbaum wrote: > >> Henk Uijterwall wrote: (extensive snipping) > >And misspelling my name ;-) Be fair: anyone can misspell Hank. :)) -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 08:53:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TMqah23326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:52:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6TMqEH23293 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:52:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 17ZJ8y-0004by-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:37:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:52:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: <3D424736.8070101@skynet.be> <3D439E75.6020904@skynet.be> <75sv$EBoVHR9EwR4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3D452525.3080607@skynet.be> In-Reply-To: <3D452525.3080607@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: >> Herman De Wael writes >>>A pair open AKxxxx Qxx xx xx with one spade. >>>What is their agreement ? >> I do not know from one time. OK, I'll ask you a similar question. >> >> A pair opens xxx Jxxx xx Qxxx with one spade. What is their >> agreement? >The problem about psyches and the rule of 19 is a different one. >Surely you understand that these two examples are not alike ? Oh dear. Do you not realise that the problem with fielding psyches is partly disclosure? If a pair makes allowance for partner psyching it is because they have a concealed partnership understanding. How do you know they have? From the evidence. Part of the ability of a good TD is to obtain evidence, sift it, and deduce from it. This applies to partnership understandings, whether psyches are involved or not. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 08:53:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TMqcw23327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:52:38 +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-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 g6TMqGH23299 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:52:17 +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 17ZJ8y-0004bz-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:37:39 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 21:01:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. writes > > Did we give this interpretation for psyches as well? That seems >> > impossible to me. >> >> I'm afraid you did. When you gave gave an interpretation >> removing any >> restrictions on the regulation of conventions on SOs you also >> surrendered >> to them the power to make regulations like: >> "Blackwood may not be used as a convention by pairs wishing to employ >> psychic bids." > Pairs can choose, either they retain the >> freedom to psyche >> by foregoing Blackwood or they retain Blackwood and forego >> their right to >> psyche. >Goood Heavens, let us listen to Grattan who gave the S.O. all the power they >want to regulate conventions. Is this one of the possible and legal outcomes >of that freedom of power? Is such a apparently quoted sentence ever written >on a piece of paper? And should I have known that 'we' have sanctioned this? > >Without jeopardising my withdrawal yet, I need to tell you that I am in some >amazement. Can I ask, Ton, what is the point of this? Surely competent and reasonable bridge authorities will run bridge fairly competently and fairly reasonably? Surely biased, terrible and unreasonable ones will run bridge in an awful way. I really do not believe that interpretations of the Law book will change this. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 08:53:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TMqiU23330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:52:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6TMqEH23294 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:52:15 +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 17ZJ8y-0004c1-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:37:38 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 21:05:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees References: <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <002201c2370d$f783aea0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> In-Reply-To: <002201c2370d$f783aea0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jay Apfelbaum writes >David Stevenson wrote: (extensive snipping) >> >Back to bridge, most of the complaints surrounding appeals committees are >> >that they are no better and sometimes worse than the director rulings. I >> >suggest that is not the case. The appeals casebooks compare the relative >> >merits of the decisions of appeals committees as against the director >> >rulings, but all the recent casebooks base this evaluation on different >> >criteria. A quick reading of the panel comments shows countless examples >> >praising the director for ruling in favor of the non-offending side, and >> >leaving it up to the appeals committee to sort out the complex issues. >> >> That must have been a *very* quick reading: I think the case-books >> make it clear that, like the rest of the world, ACBL TDs are making a >> greater effort to get it right, and are relying less on ACs. >> >> Overall, I believe that judgement rulings for TDs at event level or >> higher in the more forward areas of the world are probably something >> like 65% to 70% correct. For ACs they are probably something like 75% >> to 85% correct. The big question, it seems to me, is whether the >> cumbersome appeals process is really worth it for 10% improvement. > >In a word, "YES." If we want the best decisions possible. No process can be >perfect, but I could never justify choosing a process KNOWING it is inferior >without first exploring all possible ways to improve the better one first. > >For example, what if the parties could choose to let the TD's handle the >appeal? Suppose an appeal would go to an AC unless the parties agreed the >TD's would handle it. Would that eliminate the "cumbersome" aspect? I think that is a good idea. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 08:53:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TMqdW23328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:52:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6TMqGH23302 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:52:17 +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 17ZJ8y-0004c0-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:37:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 21:03:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: <240702205.23515@webbox.com> <000101c23334$4b8d69b0$9f06ba12@Herot> <4.3.2.7.0.20020729095135.00b3e100@pop.starpower.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020729095135.00b3e100@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 01:05 PM 7/24/02, rwilley wrote: > >>In a similar fashion. >>Distribute membership forms at Bridge Congresses. Players must return >>surveys to get free food/other goodies. >>Once again, you will introduce bias. In this case, players who have >>withdrawn from organized bridge can't be surveyed. However, here once >>again information is a GOOD thing. >> >>Its really disappointing to see our leaders saying that its too >>difficult to get good information. > >A few weeks ago I got a call from someone at the medical practice with >which my doctor is affiliated. She was surveying patients' opinions of >their doctors in the practice, and asked me if I would characterize my >doctor as competent. I said that of course I would. I also pointed >out that there was no chance whatsoever that anyone she surveyed would >say that their doctor was incompetent, since they were surveying >patients, and anyone who felt that their doctor was incompetent would >change doctors, and would not be on her lists of their patients. She >didn't understand what I was talking about. > >Our local bridge organizations regularly survey players at their >tournaments, but they are, of course, getting the same kinds of results >as, inevitably, was the case for this survey of opinions about doctors. You mean that if the EBU surveys the Tim West-meads will tell them what a splendid job they are doing in regulating the game? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 08:53:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TMqg423329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:52:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6TMqLH23319 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:52:22 +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 17ZJ93-0004c1-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:37:44 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 21:09:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees References: <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <4.3.2.7.0.20020729103655.00b40d00@pop.starpower.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020729103655.00b40d00@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 06:38 AM 7/29/02, David wrote: > >> Overall, I believe that judgement rulings for TDs at event level or >>higher in the more forward areas of the world are probably something >>like 65% to 70% correct. For ACs they are probably something like 75% >>to 85% correct. The big question, it seems to me, is whether the >>cumbersome appeals process is really worth it for 10% improvement. > >That is precisely the issue (notwithstanding that David's percentage >estimates for "the more forward areas of the world" may be rather high >for the ACBL). From my discussions with players and administrators, I >do not believe that the ACBL is changing its practices because they >believe that the change will result in better or fairer rulings. They >are doing so because 50% of the players who appear before ACs (the >non-appellants) HATE being forced to do so when they'd rather be in the >bar chatting with friends, or asleep, and that few other experiences >are as effective in discouraging their future participation in >tournaments than having to spend time, often hours, waiting for or >involved in an appeal. Even if the appeal is "screened out" and never >heard, precious post-midnight hours may be wasted in this process alone. > >As far as the ACBL is concerned, arguments that their new approach will >result in rulings that are less correct, or less fair, are simply >irrelevant. The underlying motivation for the change is a desire to >maximize what they would call "member satisfaction", by which they mean >revenue from membership and tournament entry fees. Ahem, Eric, it is not always necessary to be so harsh on the ACBL. Member satisfaction sounds a reasonable goal even if money were not involved. It does not sound like something to be avoided. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 09:34:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TNY2N23396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:34:02 +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-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 g6TNXrH23389 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:33:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17ZJnH-000ECq-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:19:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:03:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees References: <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <002201c2370d$f783aea0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <000901c2374d$e9941240$922a2850@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000901c2374d$e9941240$922a2850@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan writes >From: "Jay Apfelbaum" >> In a word, "YES." If we want the best decisions possible. >> No process can be perfect, but I could never justify >> choosing a process KNOWING it is inferior >> without first exploring all possible ways to improve the >> better one first. >> >> For example, what if the parties could choose to let the >> TD's handle the appeal? Suppose an appeal would go >> to an AC unless the parties agreed the TD's would handle >> it. Would that eliminate the "cumbersome" aspect? >+=+ I question that we could adopt such a method in the EBL >given the nature of European legislation on human rights. This >requires that the judgement be independent function. It is the >concept that the English used to term 'natural justice'. > Or at least, maybe we could adopt it but at the risk >someone would find an occasion to challenge a finding in the >European Court of Human Rights. Seeking damages and costs. I doubt this really! After all, if you are seeking damages and costs you start with organisations where television revenue is available, and if football can manage without separate appeal bodies then anyone trying this sort of attack would start with them. Anyway, in what way would it possibly be a breach of human rights to adopt the procedure adopted in over 80% of sports and mindsports, namely that there is no separate body to appeal to? Even the third umpire in cricket is an umpire, and that is just the thing being suggested here: appealing a TD decision to a different set of TDs. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 09:34:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6TNY2223397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:34:02 +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-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 g6TNXrH23388 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:33:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17ZJnH-000ECp-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:19:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:57:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Revoke with own last card References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown writes >> David Stevenson writes: > >>> This cumbersome procedure would be avoided if L66B followed the wording >in >>> L66A and allowed a player to inspect his own last card *so long >>> as his side has not played or led to the next trick*. >>> Such a change would also accord with the general principle that any >rights >>> a side has at any time should cease only with an action by that side and >>> not by an action of opponents. >>> >>> This seems to be a clear improvement with no obvious disadvantage - am I >>> missing something? > >> I do not suggest the method is better or worse, but I doubt the reason >> given. In my view it will come as a great surprise that anyone thinks >> inspection of one's own last card is anything to do with a revoke. I am >> confident that it was introduced because people could not remember who >> had won the last trick! > >OK, so we have a similar problem. I think I won the last trick but an >opponent has led to the next one. As Law 66B stands, neither I, nor anyone >else, may look at their own last card to check. If we cannot agree, >technically we must wait for the TD to sort us out! I would have thought the frequency of occurrence of this per player was about once every fifteen years, and I think the TD can manage that without over-tiring himself. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 10:16:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6U0FtK23450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:15:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6U0FnH23446 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:15:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.19.211] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17ZKRi-000Jhh-00; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:01:02 +0100 Message-ID: <005701c2375c$a9dc4820$d313e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <000b01c236f3$02079780$651e2850@pacific> <000801c236f6$fa41b4a0$9f06ba12@Herot> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:37:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 8:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > richard willey writes > > > >Could someone please define a "Watson" double. > > A double of 3NT that tells partner not to lead the suit earlier bid by > the doubler. > > However, it may not be used in conjunction with a psyche. > > Errrr - I think the regulation has disappeared! > > It might still be considered a psychic control whihc is also not > permitted. > +=+ Is it amongst the deletions from the OB that have been presented in leaflet form? The reference would be 6.1.4 There are also the regulations at 6.1.3 and at 12.12.1 to look at. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 10:19:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6U0IwL23462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:18:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6U0IrH23458 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:18:54 +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 g6U07O505331 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:07:24 -0800 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:01:48 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Revoke with own last card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > >OK, so we have a similar problem. I think I won the last trick but an > >opponent has led to the next one. As Law 66B stands, neither I, nor anyone > >else, may look at their own last card to check. If we cannot agree, > >technically we must wait for the TD to sort us out! > > I would have thought the frequency of occurrence of this per player > was about once every fifteen years, and I think the TD can manage that > without over-tiring himself. The frequency with which a director is called to sort it out, yes. The frequency with which players look back at the previous trick themselves to settle this without calling the director, on the other hand, is something like once in three sessions (and those are just the times I happen to be present at, see, or overhear), at least at my club. There is perhaps something to be said for legalizing something if we can agree that it causes no harm. The players seem to have already cast their votes in favour, not that anyone is counting. 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 Jul 30 11:37:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6U1b4123499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:37:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6U1axH23495 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:36:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g6U1MMl17709; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:22:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <008701c23767$6fe78c00$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200207291644.JAA01298@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:18:10 -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: "Adam Beneschan" > Marv wrote: > > > From: "Jay Apfelbaum" > > > > > The current appeals practice uses a group of volunteers. All of these > > > volunteers are qualified and well-intentioned. > > > > Well intentioned, no doubt. Qualified? Not all, by a long shot. The Las > > Vegas Fall NABC appeals casebook shows that only a little over 50% of cases > > decided by ACs ended with good decisions (12 out of 23). The TD panels did a > > little better (11 out of 19). > > Out of curiosity, if this is an answerable question: Did the "bad" > decisions made by the AC's tend to be errors in bridge judgment, or > were they the result of good bridge judgment combined with a lack of > understanding of how to apply the Laws properly using this bridge > judgment? > I'll let you judge, Adam. The answer depends somewhat on opinion. Rich (going by casebook panel opinions as well as his own) listed 11 AC decisions as "poor." One debatable case at a time: Case 1. The TD adjusted the score to 130, but the AC made that 110, because for the offenders "the most logical lead was a low club." This was as an AC error, as L12C2 does not call for the assumption of a "most logical" action for the offenders. Actually a spade lead was not illogical, and the TD was right. 12. This was a tempo case. The TD ruled no damage, but the AC adjusted. The trouble was with that adjusted score, with which the panelists mostly disagreed. 17. A doubtful AC decision (chairperson Mark Bartusek dissenting) to overturn the TD's adjustment and let a table result stand. The panelists voted 5-5, and Rich broke the tie with a "poor" opinion. There was a hesitation, but opinion as to whether it was meaningful was divided. 18. A doubtful ruling and AC decision to let the table result stand after a break in tempo. Chairperson Mark Bartusek dissented on this one also, and a panel majority agreed with him. 19. An exposed ace during the auction was followed by an aggressive game bid by partner (who held a singleton in that side suit). I don't know why Rich classified the TD/AC ruling/decision to let the table result stand as "poor," because a majority of the panelists seemed to think otherwise. However, that lack of unanimity suggested that there was an LA to the game bid, hence the "poor" rating. 24. Both the TD and AC were overly tough about the UI from an insufficient bid, adjusting a table result that should have stood. An obvious error in law interpretation. 29. Neither the TD, Screener, nor AC realized that the auction could have been "backed up" by one call because of MI. Despite this TD error, the right ruling/decision was reached serendipitously. Rich classed this one as "poor" because of an unwarranted PP that was assigned by the AC. 30. No problem with the AC decision, which agreed with the table ruling, but a rating of "poor" for failing to issue an Appeal Without Merit Warning. 31. A debatable MI case, with poor AC performance in coming to the right decision.. The writeup was poor, including the words "The Committee could not find a legal basis for protecting a pair whose methods depend on proper Alerts by the opponents." However, the classification of "poor" was due to the absence of an Appeal Without Merit Warning for the appellants. 34. A weak notrump range was not Announced, as required. Both the TD and AC said "no damage," and the casebook panelists mostly agree. However, the AC did not look into the matter very deeply, which probably accounts for the "poor" rating assigned by Rich. 41. A famous Reisinger case involving very slight MI. The TD ruled result stands but the AC adjusted the score, member Bill Pollack dissenting. That decision was a little far-fetched. It was unfortunate that it decided the Reisinger winner. Based on a low rating assigned by the casebook panelists, Rich classified this one as "poor" for the AC. So, Adam, you see why I cannot generalize about the ACs' performance. 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 Jul 30 11:47:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6U1l5R23516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:47:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6U1l0H23512 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:47:00 +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 17ZLs5-0006MK-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:32:22 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:31:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: <000b01c236f3$02079780$651e2850@pacific> <000801c236f6$fa41b4a0$9f06ba12@Herot> <005701c2375c$a9dc4820$d313e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <005701c2375c$a9dc4820$d313e150@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> richard willey writes >> > >> >Could someone please define a "Watson" double. >> >> A double of 3NT that tells partner not to lead the suit earlier >bid by >> the doubler. >> >> However, it may not be used in conjunction with a psyche. >> >> Errrr - I think the regulation has disappeared! >> >> It might still be considered a psychic control whihc is also not >> permitted. >> >+=+ Is it amongst the deletions from the OB that >have been presented in leaflet form? >The reference would be 6.1.4 >There are also the regulations at 6.1.3 and at >12.12.1 to look at. There are no deletions in leaflet form. I missed 6.1.4, which suggests to me that there must be some doubt as to whether this is necessarily the right place to put it. Interesting. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 11:49:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6U1nkN23528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:49:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6U1neH23524 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:49:41 +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 17ZLug-00077v-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:35:03 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:33:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Revoke with own last card References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower writes >On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > >> >OK, so we have a similar problem. I think I won the last trick but an >> >opponent has led to the next one. As Law 66B stands, neither I, nor anyone >> >else, may look at their own last card to check. If we cannot agree, >> >technically we must wait for the TD to sort us out! >> >> I would have thought the frequency of occurrence of this per player >> was about once every fifteen years, and I think the TD can manage that >> without over-tiring himself. > >The frequency with which a director is called to sort it out, yes. > >The frequency with which players look back at the previous trick >themselves to settle this without calling the director, on the other hand, >is something like once in three sessions (and those are just the times I >happen to be present at, see, or overhear), at least at my club. Interesting. I have never known it in all the years. OK, I am exaggerating, if it happened twenty years ago I would not remember. Are you sure about this happening once in three sessions? I just cannot imagine it. It just seems bizarre. >There is perhaps something to be said for legalizing something if we can >agree that it causes no harm. The players seem to have already cast their >votes in favour, not that anyone is counting. I am not convinced that it does no harm to look at a previous trick once the next one is underway, but I certainly do not feel strongly. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 12:27:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6U2RCg23579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 12:27:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6U2R7H23575 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 12:27:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.18.176] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17ZMUl-000PY5-00; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 03:12:19 +0100 Message-ID: <001901c2376f$01113e40$b012e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <002201c2370d$f783aea0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <000901c2374d$e9941240$922a2850@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 03:14:24 +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, July 30, 2002 12:03 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees > > I doubt this really! After all, if you are seeking damages > and costs you start with organisations where television > revenue is available, and if football can manage without > separate appeal bodies then anyone trying this sort of > attack would start with them. > > Anyway, in what way would it possibly be a breach > of human rights to adopt the procedure adopted in > over 80% of sports and mindsports, namely that > there is no separate body to appeal to? Even the third > umpire in cricket is an umpire, and that is just the thing > being suggested here:appealing a TD decision to a > different set of TDs. > +=+ It is my understanding that, in anything that affects the reputation of the player in many sports, one who feels he is damaged through an inadequate attention to natural justice/human rights (in the method of judging allegations) has right of access to an independent arbitration service established for the purpose. Is this not so?. This saves him the time and potential cost of making his way through the national courts to the European Court of Human Rights - from which he can not be barred. As for football (soccer) I understand this sport has a carefully crafted* safety net in that the referee's report of any such matter goes to a tribunal established by the governing body for the player to be given the independent hearing to which he is entitled. An appeals committee has the status of a 'domestic tribunal'. It must stand apart from him whose judgement is appealed. I hear there is a substantial body of opinion in Zone 2 that believes the BoD's proposals do not meet the appropriate standards of justice. This could be reflected perhaps in the reported reaction of the Board of Governors?. I would only add that the idea of offering the players an option sounds very much like intellectual blackmail to me, calculated to put the players under pressure to accept the procedure. And I doubt very much that our Law 91, taken with 93B3, would stand up this week in a European Court of Law. ~ G ~ +=+ [ * !! :-) ] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 12:39:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6U2ahB23594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 12:36:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6U2acH23590 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 12:36:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.6.140] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17ZMdb-000P7w-00; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 03:21:27 +0100 Message-ID: <001401c23770$55ac1140$8c06e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <000b01c236f3$02079780$651e2850@pacific> <000801c236f6$fa41b4a0$9f06ba12@Herot> <005701c2375c$a9dc4820$d313e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 03:24:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott >> > >+=+ Is it amongst the deletions from the OB that > >have been presented in leaflet form? > >The reference would be 6.1.4 > >There are also the regulations at 6.1.3 and at > >12.12.1 to look at. > > There are no deletions in leaflet form. > +=+ Ah! .... only additions.... snap. +=+ > > I missed 6.1.4, which suggests to me that > there must be some doubt as to whether this >is necessarily the right place to put it. Interesting. > +=+ Maybe it could be listed elsewhere with 'see 6.1.4' ? Consult the editor. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 14:47:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6U4lAk23664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:47:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.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 g6U4l5H23660 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:47:06 +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 g6U4WJp22314; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:32:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:23:16 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: Can dummy claim To: svenpran cc: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3D473464@epostleser.online.no> 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 7/29/02, svenpran wrote: >No Ed, remember that the auction doesn't end before the opening lead >has been faced. So a claim at this stage is indeed meaningless. That's why I said "if". :-) >What's the point - three passes end the auction doesn't it? No, that >is exactly the point - if a misinformation is revealed during the >questioning periode after three passes and before the opeing lead is >faced then the last, or the last two passes can be cancelled and the >affected player(s) be permitted to replace his/their "final" pass with >some other call. Hm. This raises a question. Auction is over, opening lead is made face up (happens often at the local clubs around here). Somebody (declarer or leader's partner) says "hey, I had some questions." How do you handle this? Especially if it turns out somebody should have been allowed to change his last call? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 15:29:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6U5Stk23692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 15:28:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6U5SoH23688 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 15:28:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from pavilion ([12.91.171.154]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020730051407.WTMT7441.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@pavilion> for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 05:14:07 +0000 From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: Can dummy claim Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:09:18 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I'm not certain I have all the settings right, if this post is unreadable due to format (as opposed to issues arising from content, identity of poster, or the like) please let me know. > -----Original Message----- > Hm. This raises a question. Auction is over, opening lead > is made face > up (happens often at the local clubs around here). Somebody > (declarer or > leader's partner) says "hey, I had some questions." How do > you handle > this? Especially if it turns out somebody should have been > allowed to change his last call? L41A says that the lead is played face down, though an SO can specify otherwise. Leader has committed an infraction. 41A only limits the retraction of face-down leads. Face-up leads, then, presumably can be retracted by L47 and only with the limits there-in. (It might be right to strike "face-down" from L41A.) L47E2a can apply if dummy has not been faced. Withdraw the card, back up the auction, and L16C applies as appropriate. If dummy has been faced then the hand can't be played, L40C applies, and it would depend on who gave the MI. If declarer/dummy created the MI, I'd award ave- to them and perhaps make some note about the responsibility to correct MI when declarer/dummy as soon as the auction is over. Their opponents would get ave (ave+ if face-down leads are allowed by the SO). If the leader/leader's partner created the MI, I'd award ave- to them and ave+ to declarer/dummy. If no one should have been allowed to change his last call, just play the hand out. The person who had the questions can still ask them before he plays a card. -Todd -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 17:34:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6U7XXr23742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:33:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6U7XRH23738 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:33:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g6U7Inf02189 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:18:49 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Jul 30 09:14:05 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KKP8MNNFD6001NO6@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:18:38 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:18:06 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:18:30 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: "'gester@lineone.net'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk .......................................................... > "The justice or injustice of the cause > is to be decided by the judge." > [Samuel Johnson] > oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Ton wrote: > > > Goood Heavens, let us listen to Grattan who gave > > > the S.O. all the power they want to regulate conventions. > > > Is this one of the possible and legal outcomes of that > > > freedom of power? Is such a apparently quoted > > > sentence ever written on a piece of paper? Your (Grattan) reaction below is interesting for historical reasons but not really to the point. Let me say that a decision in which the LC says that a S.O. has unlimited (unrestricted) powers to do with conventions what they want seems a not vey wise one. When thinking of unrestricted powers ones mind comes up with dictators or presidents of powerful nations in war almost immediately. That should not be the signal for the WBF to send out. Because unrestricted powers are abused too easily. I am with Tim for that part of his message. And his example, made up by himself I now understand, is an interesting test case. Is a S.O. allowed to forbid the use of Blackwood as a convention when a pair may use psyches. To be translated in: an opponent has a good point for calling the TD after a psyche from opponents when the CC shows that they play Blackwood? Is this a legal consquence of giving unrestricte powers to S.O. And if the answer is 'yes' shouldn't we try to alter that famous decision taken by those famous people? ............ \x/ .......... > > > > I too am amazed that the WBFLC managed to grant such > > wide-ranging (unrestricted even) powers to SOs, > > particularly with regard to psyches and light openings, > > without realising they had done so. > > > > Tim > +=+ I see my name here. Neither ton nor I can claim > this credit. Well, I seem less willing to be claimer here than you are. ton The decision was by the then WBFLC > under the chairmanship of Ed Theus and continued > when Edgar took over from him. > [Parenthetically it was because I demonstrated to the > WBFLC that I could debate the laws with Edgar as > powerfully as any that I was invited to sit with them > and shortly afterwards joined them as a full member > - the ones who now predate me in this, as a full > member, are John Wignall, Carlos Cabanne and > Santanu Ghose (the last two being now inactive). > Kojak was included shortly after that again, having > guested at their meetings for some time. In Ocho > Rios,1987, the committee was Theus (chair), > Kaplan (vice), Howard, Ortiz-Patino, Besse, > Endicott, Wignall, with invited guests Franklin, Jafri, > Jensen, d'Orsi, Schoder, Sheinwold, and apologies > from members Cabanne, Ghose, Harding.] > It was all done with studied intention - both the > EBL and the ACBL had a use for such powers. The > EBL Rules & Regulations Committee (Bill Pencharz, > chair) had asked the EBL Laws Committee to confirm > the legality of the existing regulation in 1984/5 and > the latter body asked me to raise it with the WBFLC, > with outcome as you are now aware. To change the > interpretation now It seems to me that the request is to consider the interpretation of the interpretation of L40D. The word 'unrestricted' eems important then. We could say something as 'unrestricted' as long as the application is legal. And once we have done so somebody might come up with the idea to burn all interpretations regarding L40D and spread the ashes on a graveyard, telling that L40D is clear enough in itself. That won't harm given the present situation. ton would involve telling the ACBL and > the EBL, and others, that the earlier decision being > rescinded their regulations are now invalid. It would be > ambitious and presumptuous to expect that, as > currently constituted, the WBFLC would give such a > proposition a moment's consideration. We no longer > have a silver-tongued Kaplan to seduce the committee > or with his deft skills to impose his will upon it. Again, it > would require not merely a change in the interpretation > but a rewording of the relevant law This seems to support my feeling that the law itself is clear enough, isn't it. Could you give us the precise wording of all those marvellous decisions taken. I know your archive is impressive. ton and also to have the > Executive set aside its decision in Geneva 1990. > Forget it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ That needs courage indeed. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 17:47:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6U7l5423759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:47:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6U7kxH23755 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:46:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g6U7WIf04448 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:32:20 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Jul 30 09:27:36 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KKP936NNI6001NP3@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:31:58 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:31:26 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:31:16 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > >> "Blackwood may not be used as a convention by pairs > wishing to employ > >> psychic bids." > Is this one of the possible > and legal outcomes > >of that freedom of power? Is such a apparently quoted > sentence ever written > >on a piece of paper? And should I have known that 'we' have > sanctioned this? > > > >Without jeopardising my withdrawal yet, I need to tell you > that I am in some > >amazement. > > Can I ask, Ton, what is the point of this? Surely competent and > reasonable bridge authorities will run bridge fairly competently and > fairly reasonably? Surely biased, terrible and unreasonable ones will > run bridge in an awful way. I really do not believe that > interpretations of the Law book will change this. > > -- > David Stevenson Can I ask, David, what is the point of this? I agree with your first statement. Not with your second. Should we offer those biased, terrible and unreasonable ones the weapons with which they really can exercise their incompetence? Should we allow them to explain/defend those decisions by pointing to our LC interpretations? ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 17:52:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6U7qO623774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:52:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6U7qIH23770 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:52:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g6U7bef05399 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:37:40 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Jul 30 09:32:58 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KKP9912DX0001OI3@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:36:40 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:36:09 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:36:36 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > > There are no deletions in leaflet form. > > > +=+ Ah! .... only additions.... snap. +=+ > > > > I missed 6.1.4, which suggests to me that > > there must be some doubt as to whether this > >is necessarily the right place to put it. Interesting. > > > +=+ Maybe it could be listed elsewhere with > 'see 6.1.4' ? > Consult the editor. +=+ > May I suggest to use a smaller circle of e-mail adresses (England, Great Britain, Common Wealth, still some choices to be made) to handle your administrative problems? ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 18:09:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6U898p23813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:09:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6U892H23809 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:09:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.12.5/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6U7sElQ024190; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:54:14 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6U7sDX22127; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:54:13 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:54:13 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Ted Ying cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees In-Reply-To: <200207292052.g6TKq7Z23748@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-RIPE-Spam-Status: NONE ; -1041 X-RIPE-Spam-Level: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Ted Ying wrote: > > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > > > > After all these years that I've been playing in ACBL-land, it is still not > > clear to me why most appeals aren't heard the following morning at 10am or > > so. Yes, there are some events where it is essential that a winner is > > declared that night. For most events that is not the case. Plus that when > > an appeal is heard the following morning, in a fair number of cases, the > > appelants will have realized that the appeal has no merit anyway. > > > > This is much worse than ruling after the game, IMHO. First, you > are catering to those people who will be at a tournament everyday > or staying in the hotel at the playing site. For those of us who > don't play everyday or don't stay in the host hotel, this is far > worse. If you aren't scheduled to play in the tournament the next > day, then either you have to hope that your case is appropriately > presented to the appeals committee by someone else, or forfeit if > you are the appellant. If you are a commuter or staying elsewhere, > you have to make arrangements to get there early and if you had > other plans for the following morning, you have to reschedule them. As a player, I have been in line for an appeal hearing at 1am in the morning, with still 2 or 3 cases in front of me (and a few more behind me). At that point, one of my opponents suggested that we should all go to bed and have the case dealt with the following morning. We thought this was a good idea, so did most of the people behind me. Unfortunately, the committee disagreed. I agree that there are cases where an appeal should be dealt with the same day, either for a bridge reason or for practical reasons. Well, do those on that day, but leave the others for the following morning. 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) NOTE: My email address (and a hole in our mailing list software) is being abused by a spammer. We are working on fixing this hole and tracking the spammer down. If you receive mail from "henk@ripe.net" that is obviously spam, please send me a copy of the mail including ALL headers. I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused by this. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 18:35:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6U8Z8m23837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:35:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6U8Z2H23833 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:35:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.12.5/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6U8KElQ000686; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:20:14 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6U8KEA22302; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:20:14 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:20:14 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Ted Ying cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees In-Reply-To: <200207292155.g6TLtnu27019@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-RIPE-Spam-Status: NONE ; -1041 X-RIPE-Spam-Level: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Ted Ying wrote: > > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > > > > > No amount of training can overcome a lack of expertise and experience. > > > And there is no way that TD's can acquire that expertise and experience. > > > > We have solved that quite nicely here by requiring that senior TD's are > > experienced flight A players before they can become a national TD. > > > > TY: Unfortunately, here is ACBL-land, that isn't as practical. > Our three nationals are amongst the largest tournaments in the > world and take an incredible number of TD's to man. They are and they aren't. Yes, when you add up all tables over the 10 days, then they are bigger than anything else. No, 10,000 tables over 10 days, at 2 or 3 sessions a day, translates to 300 to 400 tables/session. Tournaments like this exist all over the world. > There > aren't enough experience directors at that level of play to > definitely guarantee that only the experienced flight A players > can be promoted. But not every TD has to be an experienced senior TD. Just look at the duties. Half the work is selling entries and entering numbers in a computer. You don't even have to know the game to do that. 90% of the rulings is text-book work that can be left to junior TD's who are NOT experienced players. IMHO, I think it is easy to run a 400 table session with 2 experienced TD's, a handful of junior TD's and a handful of volunteers. > Getting that much experience in both playing > and directing is very difficult unless you give up everything > else in your life to only play and/or direct. It just isn't > feasible here. YMMV, but I managed to get a Ph.D in parallel with directing and playing. 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) NOTE: My email address (and a hole in our mailing list software) is being abused by a spammer. We are working on fixing this hole and tracking the spammer down. If you receive mail from "henk@ripe.net" that is obviously spam, please send me a copy of the mail including ALL headers. I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused by this. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 19:58:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6U9vsF23879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 19:57:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6U9vmH23875 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 19:57:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from epostleser.online.no (epostleser14.frisurf.no [148.122.3.22]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12579 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:43:02 +0200 (MET DST) X-WebMail-UserID: svenpran@online.no Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:43:02 +0200 From: svenpran To: Bridge Laws X-EXP32-SerialNo: 50000140 Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: Can dummy claim Message-ID: <3D46F3C3@epostleser.online.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: InterChange (Hydra) SMTP v3.62 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ........ >>What's the point - three passes end the auction doesn't it? No, that >>is exactly the point - if a misinformation is revealed during the >>questioning periode after three passes and before the opeing lead is >>faced then the last, or the last two passes can be cancelled and the >>affected player(s) be permitted to replace his/their "final" pass with >>some other call. > >Hm. This raises a question. Auction is over, opening lead is made face >up (happens often at the local clubs around here). Somebody (declarer or >leader's partner) says "hey, I had some questions." How do you handle >this? Especially if it turns out somebody should have been allowed to >change his last call? > >Regards, > >Ed > No problem, except possibly for the player who would want to change his last call: Leader's partner is still entitled to have his questions answered (and so is the declarer), but TD may no longer roll back the auction and let any player change his last call (pass). There is a matter of judgement involved whether eventually TD shall assign an adjusted score or not. MisInformation? Damage? Faced lead contributing to the damage (by preventing change of call)? 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 Jul 30 21:55:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6UBstp23937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 21:54:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6UBslH23929 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 21:54:47 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6UBe8B25090 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 12:40:08 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 12:40 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: David Stevenson wrote: > >Our local bridge organizations regularly survey players at their > >tournaments, but they are, of course, getting the same kinds of > results >as, inevitably, was the case for this survey of opinions about > doctors. > > You mean that if the EBU surveys the Tim West-meads will tell them > what a splendid job they are doing in regulating the game? Tim would say many complimentary things about the EBU (along with his complaints) - but he is one of the moderates - he still plays in EBU competitions. Eric's point is that a survey of attendees may get a different result from a survey of those who attended once and didn't come back. I don't yet know if Graham and Gad will be playing Brighton this year but they may well have voted with their feet. Tim West-Meads. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 21:55:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6UBsuM23938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 21:54:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6UBslH23930 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 21:54:47 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6UBe9125104 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 12:40:09 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 12:40 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: <000a01c2374d$ea75e6c0$922a2850@pacific> Grattan wrote: > It was all done with studied intention - both the > EBL and the ACBL had a use for such powers. The > EBL Rules & Regulations Committee (Bill Pencharz, > chair) had asked the EBL Laws Committee to confirm > the legality of the existing regulation in 1984/5 and > the latter body asked me to raise it with the WBFLC, > with outcome as you are now aware. Perhaps I am confused. I thought the 1984/85 decision related only to the psyching *of* conventional bids (and maybe psychic controls). This is not the same as using L40D to eliminate the psyching of natural bids. I was of the belief that this, and the use of similar powers to eliminate light natural bids, arose around 1998. It was the Lille minutes of 1998 that "confirmed" these (extended) powers. > To change the > interpretation now would involve telling the ACBL and > the EBL, and others, that the earlier decision being > rescinded their regulations are now invalid. It would be > ambitious and presumptuous to expect that, as > currently constituted, the WBFLC would give such a > proposition a moment's consideration. So if the WBFLC comes to believe it has made a mistake it would do nothing about it - I can't believe that is really the case. > We no longer > have a silver-tongued Kaplan to seduce the committee > or with his deft skills to impose his will upon it. Perhaps not. But surely you have a committee of intelligent and open-minded people who care about creating an international environment in which bridge can flourish.* Such people do not need a Kaplan to seduce them, they merely need an opportunity to review and reflect upon how their previous decisions have been implemented. * If this does not describe the WBFLC then perhaps the composition should be reviewed first! Perhaps they will look at "anti-psyching" Law40D regulations and say "that wasn't what we meant to allow". Perhaps, 4 years on from Lille, they will look at what they did and feel completely satisfied. Whatever the result a review after this time would seem a reasonable activity to undertake. Note that the issue of regulating penalties for misremembering conventions (obviously permitted by the current "unrestricted" approach) is supposedly on the agenda so these other considerations could be looked at if a change in this area is proposed. > Again, it > would require not merely a change in the interpretation > but a rewording of the relevant law and also to have the > Executive set aside its decision in Geneva 1990. > Forget it. It would be nice if one could forget it. Unfortunately we have to live with it. The law would not, IMO, need to change. Even the confirmation at Lille 98 would not have to change it uses the term "given circumstances". The WBFLC could, if it so desired, issue a clarification of which circumstances are "not given" (currently the term is ignored/meaningless). Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 22:21:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6UCLMm24025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:21:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe54.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6UCLHH24021 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:21:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 05:06:35 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [172.136.169.145] From: "Roger Pewick" To: References: <3D424736.8070101@skynet.be> <3D439E75.6020904@skynet.be><75sv$EBoVHR9EwR4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3D452525.3080607@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:10:58 -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: 30 Jul 2002 12:06:35.0643 (UTC) FILETIME=[8D2B34B0:01C237C1] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 14:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > Herman De Wael writes > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Herman De Wael writes > > >>>A pair open AKxxxx Qxx xx xx with one spade. > >>>What is their agreement ? > > >> I do not know from one time. OK, I'll ask you a similar question. > >> > >> A pair opens xxx Jxxx xx Qxxx with one spade. What is their > >> agreement? > > >The problem about psyches and the rule of 19 is a different one. > >Surely you understand that these two examples are not alike ? > > Oh dear. Do you not realise that the problem with fielding psyches is > partly disclosure? > > If a pair makes allowance for partner psyching it is because they have > a concealed partnership understanding. Oh how I love thee, let me count the ways- 1. UI was available 2. The player was angry, upset [clouded judgement] 3. The player made up system or did not correctly remember system 4. The player in ignorance of the offcolor action took a view 5. There was system not available to the opponents 6. There was system available to the opponents 7. The player made a mechanical error, was distracted 8. The opponents' mannerisms suggested the action regards roger pewick > How do you know they have? From the evidence. > Part of the ability of a good TD is to obtain evidence, sift it, and > deduce from it. This applies to partnership understandings, whether > psyches are involved or not. > > -- > 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 Jul 30 22:28:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6UCSb724068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:28:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6UCSTH24064 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:28:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-7.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.7] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17ZVst-0004DS-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:13:51 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020730080813.00ab2ae0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:16:12 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020729103655.00b40d00@pop.starpower.net> <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <4.3.2.7.0.20020729103655.00b40d00@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 PM 7/29/02, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > > >As far as the ACBL is concerned, arguments that their new approach will > >result in rulings that are less correct, or less fair, are simply > >irrelevant. The underlying motivation for the change is a desire to > >maximize what they would call "member satisfaction", by which they mean > >revenue from membership and tournament entry fees. > > Ahem, Eric, it is not always necessary to be so harsh on the ACBL. >Member satisfaction sounds a reasonable goal even if money were not >involved. It does not sound like something to be avoided. Certainly. Indeed, I tried to avoid taking a position for or against the change. Right now, I'm inclined somewhat in favor of it (although I'm waiting to hear more of what others have to say), on the grounds David suggests (being willing to give up some degree of "correctness" in favor of increased "member satisfaction"). But the ACBL has made frequent and forceful statements making it clear that, to them, "member satisfaction" has less to do with "satisfying" their membership than with maximizing it, and revenue is their operative metric. Admittedly, it's the only one readily available to them. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 22:40:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6UCeKK24093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:40:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6UCeCH24089 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:40:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-7.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.7] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17ZW4F-0005hV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:25:35 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020730082036.00ab4c60@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:27:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020729095135.00b3e100@pop.starpower.net> <240702205.23515@webbox.com> <000101c23334$4b8d69b0$9f06ba12@Herot> <4.3.2.7.0.20020729095135.00b3e100@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 04:03 PM 7/29/02, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > > >Our local bridge organizations regularly survey players at their > >tournaments, but they are, of course, getting the same kinds of results > >as, inevitably, was the case for this survey of opinions about doctors. > > You mean that if the EBU surveys the Tim West-meads will tell them >what a splendid job they are doing in regulating the game? With respect to the subject of any such survey, there are three relevant groups of players: (1) those who are satisfied, (2) those who are dissatisfied but continue to play in tournaments, and (3) those who are dissatisfied to the point where they have stopped playing in tournaments. The common fallacy is to cite survey results that show that group 1 is larger than group 2 as though they showed that group 1 was larger than groups 2 and 3 combined. Admittedly, my analogy is far from perfect, since with doctors, the issue of competence tends to outweigh all others put together, whereas in organized bridge there is no single issue that dominates one's decision whether or not to become, or remain, an active tournament player. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 22:58:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6UCvZt24117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:57:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6UCvQH24113 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:57:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-7.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.7] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17ZWKv-0000fQ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:42:49 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020730083211.00a90810@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:45:10 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:01 PM 7/29/02, David wrote: >Kooijman, A. writes > > >Goood Heavens, let us listen to Grattan who gave the S.O. all the > power they > >want to regulate conventions. Is this one of the possible and legal > outcomes > >of that freedom of power? Is such a apparently quoted sentence ever > written > >on a piece of paper? And should I have known that 'we' have > sanctioned this? > > > >Without jeopardising my withdrawal yet, I need to tell you that I am > in some > >amazement. > > Can I ask, Ton, what is the point of this? Surely competent and >reasonable bridge authorities will run bridge fairly competently and >fairly reasonably? Surely biased, terrible and unreasonable ones will >run bridge in an awful way. I really do not believe that >interpretations of the Law book will change this. "Biased, terrible [or] unreasonable [bridge authorities] will run bridge in an awful way" *unless* they are checked and constrained from doing so by some higher authority. The WBF is the *only* organization with the legal and moral standing to function as that higher authority, which gives considerable force to the argument that they have a moral obligation to do so. We have heard repeatedly, from David and others, that the WBF's interpretations of TFLB have the force of law, and, indeed, that is generally recognized even by the most unreasonable of their member organizations. So it seems a bit specious to argue in this context that those interpretations have no effect and cannot bring about any change in how those member organizations regulate the game. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 23:20:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6UDJwD24141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:19:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6UDJnH24137 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:19:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-7.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.7] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17ZWga-0003sn-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:05:12 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020730085157.00a8fce0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:07:33 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 In-Reply-To: References: <3D452525.3080607@skynet.be> <3D424736.8070101@skynet.be> <3D439E75.6020904@skynet.be> <75sv$EBoVHR9EwR4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3D452525.3080607@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 03:52 PM 7/29/02, David wrote: > Oh dear. Do you not realise that the problem with fielding psyches is >partly disclosure? > > If a pair makes allowance for partner psyching it is because they have >a concealed partnership understanding. How do you know they have? From >the evidence. > > Part of the ability of a good TD is to obtain evidence, sift it, and >deduce from it. This applies to partnership understandings, whether >psyches are involved or not. Anyone who might ever psych will make those particular types of psychs, or psych in those particular situations, which that player believes to be tactically effective. IOW, what we call "psyching tendencies" are inevitable for anyone who ever psychs. The ACBL (and, I believe, others) have made it illegal to have *any* understanding (whether explicit or implicit) with regard to psychs. Combined with the prevalent interpretation of the disclosure requirements (which David's comments reflect), which apply only to agreements, that creates a catch-22: If you disclose, you have prima facie violated the regulation against having an agreement; if you don't disclose, you have prima facie violated the rule forbidding CPUs (whether or not your psych is "fielded"). Thus the only way to avoid a violation is to avoid psyching altogether. That's why so many inexperienced players in the ACBL believe that psyching is cheating -- because the reality on the ground in the ACBL is that, based on the laws, regulations and interpretations thereof currently in effect, they are right. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 23:53:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6UDrLO24162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:53:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6UDrCH24158 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:53:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from pavilion ([12.91.171.150]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020730133829.BNWO7441.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@pavilion> for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 13:38:29 +0000 From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Member dissatisfaction (RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:33:42 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020730082036.00ab4c60@pop.starpower.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal 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 Eric Landau > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 5:28 AM > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > > With respect to the subject of any such survey, there are three > relevant groups of players: (1) those who are satisfied, > (2) those who > are dissatisfied but continue to play in tournaments, and > (3) those who > are dissatisfied to the point where they have stopped playing in > tournaments. The common fallacy is to cite survey results > that show > that group 1 is larger than group 2 as though they showed > that group 1 was larger than groups 2 and 3 combined. I don't remember if it was an ACBL-wide or more local suggestion, but clubs have been encouraged to look through their lists for inactive players, give those players a call, and try to find out why they no longer play. A 4th, irrelevant group of players would be those that quit playing due to reasons other than dissatisfaction. A policy like this can help you separate groups 3 & 4 from the set of all bridge players that have quit attending tournaments as well as gather opinions about what people find wrong with the game. -Todd -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 23:56:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6UDuDZ24175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:56:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6UDu6H24171 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:56:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A788772012A; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 06:41:28 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Message-Id: <300702211.24088@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 06:41:31 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: >Thus the only way to avoid a violation is to avoid psyching altogether. That's why so many inexperienced players in the ACBL believe that psyching is cheating - because the reality on the ground in the ACBL is that, based on the laws, regulations and interpretations thereof currently in effect, they are right. Oh, they are right anyway. It is not legal to psyche - at least, no law says that you may do so, and (at least) one law says that you may not. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 00:00:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6UDxeh24187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:59:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from out017.verizon.net (out017pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6UDxWH24183 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:59:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from jayapfelbaum ([151.201.237.58]) by out017.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.09 201-253-122-126-109-20020611) with SMTP id <20020730134449.DZAS17610.out017.verizon.net@jayapfelbaum> for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:44:49 -0500 Message-ID: <002901c237cf$421c3ce0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> From: "Jay Apfelbaum" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020729103655.00b40d00@pop.starpower.net> <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <4.3.2.7.0.20020729103655.00b40d00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020730080813.00ab2ae0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:44:39 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: (snipping) > > >As far as the ACBL is concerned, arguments that their new approach will > > >result in rulings that are less correct, or less fair, are simply > > >irrelevant. The underlying motivation for the change is a desire to > > >maximize what they would call "member satisfaction", by which they mean > > >revenue from membership and tournament entry fees. > > > > Ahem, Eric, it is not always necessary to be so harsh on the ACBL. > >Member satisfaction sounds a reasonable goal even if money were not > >involved. It does not sound like something to be avoided. > > Certainly. Indeed, I tried to avoid taking a position for or against > the change. Right now, I'm inclined somewhat in favor of it (although > I'm waiting to hear more of what others have to say), on the grounds > David suggests (being willing to give up some degree of "correctness" > in favor of increased "member satisfaction"). But the ACBL has made > frequent and forceful statements making it clear that, to them, "member > satisfaction" has less to do with "satisfying" their membership than > with maximizing it, and revenue is their operative metric. Admittedly, > it's the only one readily available to them. > While we are on the subject of "member satisfaction", consider the action of the ACBL Board of Governors, requesting the Board reconsider this action. I would suggest that does NOT show much satisfaction. Jay Apfelbaum -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 00:14:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6UEDup24216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 00:13:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6UEDkH24212 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 00:13:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g6UDx6f12573 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 15:59:06 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Jul 30 15:54:23 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KKPML1CRD0001PBN@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 15:58:11 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 15:57:40 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 15:58:10 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: "'David Burn'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > Eric wrote: > > >Thus the only way to avoid a violation is to avoid psyching > altogether. That's why so many inexperienced players in the > ACBL believe that psyching is cheating - because the reality > on the ground in the ACBL is that, based on the laws, regulations > and interpretations thereof currently in effect, they are right. > Oh, they are right anyway. It is not legal to psyche - at least, > no law says that you may do so, and (at least) one law says that > you may not. > > David Burn > London, England > Ah, a refreshing contribution. It sounds convincing, so you must be prepared for the question to give those lawnumbers. Teach me, please. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 00:35:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6UEZMq24235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 00:35:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.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 g6UEZGH24231 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 00:35:17 +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 g6UEKbpU051230 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:20:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA11009 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:22:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200207301422.KAA11009@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:22:12 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <300702211.24088@webbox.com> from "David Burn" at Jul 30, 2002 06:41:31 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 David Burn writes: > > > Eric wrote: > > >Thus the only way to avoid a violation is to avoid psyching > altogether. That's why so many inexperienced players in the > ACBL believe that psyching is cheating - because the reality > on the ground in the ACBL is that, based on the laws, regulations > and interpretations thereof currently in effect, they are right. > > Oh, they are right anyway. It is not legal to psyche - at least, > no law says that you may do so, and (at least) one law says that > you may not. David that's a truly astonishing staement. Would you please care to expand upon it? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 01:11:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6UFAj224261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 01:10:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6UFAeH24257 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 01:10:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-7.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.7] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17ZYPq-0001Yw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:56:02 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020730104924.00b2ee90@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:58:24 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 In-Reply-To: <300702211.24088@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 09:41 AM 7/30/02, David wrote: >Eric wrote: > > >Thus the only way to avoid a violation is to avoid psyching >altogether. That's why so many inexperienced players in the >ACBL believe that psyching is cheating - because the reality >on the ground in the ACBL is that, based on the laws, regulations >and interpretations thereof currently in effect, they are right. > >Oh, they are right anyway. It is not legal to psyche - at least, >no law says that you may do so, and (at least) one law says that >you may not. That may be true, but, if so, it's a rather subtle point, and suggests that L40 needs to be written a lot more clearly. L40A certainly *appears* to protect the right to psych ("A player may make any call... (... such as a psychic bid...)... provided that [the psych] is not based on a partnership understanding"). It is far less clear that L40D -- as interpreted by the WBF to give member organizations total authority to do whatever they want -- grants zonal organizations (or their designees) the right to pass regulations decreeing that any psych whatsoever is prima facie "based on a partnership understanding", notwithstanding that that may now be the case. Since it is, one wonders why L40A even bothers to mention psychs. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 01:22:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6UFMiR24277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 01:22:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6UFMdH24273 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 01:22:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-7.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.7] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17ZYbR-0003i2-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:08:01 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020730110242.00a8af00@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:10:23 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees In-Reply-To: <002901c237cf$421c3ce0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020729103655.00b40d00@pop.starpower.net> <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <4.3.2.7.0.20020729103655.00b40d00@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020730080813.00ab2ae0@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 09:44 AM 7/30/02, Jay wrote: >While we are on the subject of "member satisfaction", consider the >action of >the ACBL Board of Governors, requesting the Board reconsider this >action. I >would suggest that does NOT show much satisfaction. I would suggest that those North American bridge players who believe that the ACBL has made a total hash of the competitive game do not participate in the activities of the ACBL long enough or actively enough to rise to the exalted position of Member of the Board of Governors. (I can claim to be particularly qualified to pass judgment on the Board of Governors by virtue of being married to one of its long-standing members.) Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 01:50:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6UFoWW24301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 01:50:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6UFoSH24297 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 01:50:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A2562FB00BC; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:35:50 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Message-Id: <300702211.30950@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:35:52 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton wrote: [DB] >Oh, they are right anyway. It is not legal to psyche - at least, no law says that you may do so, and (at least) one law says that you may not. [TK] >Ah, a refreshing contribution. It sounds convincing, so you must be prepared for the question to give those lawnumbers. Teach me, please. Law 40A says this: A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding. Now, it is widely thought that this Law gives players the right to depart from partnership agreements. It does not. It says only that you may make any call (or play) that is not based on a partnership understanding. Unfortunately, Brian Callaghan and I know the meaning in our system of every opening bid from 1C to 7NT, and we also know that pass denies the requirements for an opening bid. If I open one spade playing with Brian, we have the partnership understanding that I have about 10-16 hcp and at least five spades. If I actually have such a hand, then my call is based on our understanding. But even if I do not, my call is still based on our understanding, for I am (presumably) hoping to gain by representing my hand as a one spade opening even though it is not, and that hope is based on our understanding of what I am purporting to show. Thus, I am not permitted by Law 40A to open the bidding at all playing with Brian, for all our opening calls are based on partnership understandings. It is possible that, in partnerships whose level of discussion has not been as extensive as ours, a player might be permitted by Law 40A to open 5NT on, say: 7632 AJ54 K72 Q5, but no other opening bid is likely to be permitted under this Law. Of course, what is intended by Law 40A is (roughly) this: a player may make any call or play, including [...], provided that any correlation between the hand held and the call made is not the subject of a partnership understanding. But that is not what the Law says, nor is it what the Law as written means. What is important is that Law 40A doesn't actually give you the right to do very much at all. As written, it does not give you the right to do anything except open 5NT if you're sure that your partner won't know what this means. But even if it were written so that it said what was intended, it would do no more than give you a qualified right to forget your methods or to misrepresent your hand without (necessarily) being penalised. It would not give you, as Tim West-Meads and others seem to think, the bridge equivalent of Roosevelt's Four Freedoms. It is not an over-riding principle without which no civilised society may stand. It does not confer some entitlement which may not be taken away by other Laws or by SO regulation. It is pretty much a waste of space, in fact, especially since at present it does not say what it was supposed to mean. If I want to open the bidding with Brian, I had better follow these Laws: 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, what is the "meaning" of a call? One might say that a call "means" what our system says that it means, so that if I open one spade, I "mean" that I have 10-16 hcp and at least five spades. If that is the "meaning" of a call in the sense of Law 40B, then (assuming that my opponents can reasonably be expected to know what "10-16 hcp" and "at least five spades" connote), I can open one spade on whatever I like, for the meaning of the call is independent of the contents of my hand. But there is a strong suggestion in the Laws that the "meaning" of a call is rather more extensive than the above definition. A call "means" not only that which the system material says that it means, but that which "partnership experience" gives rise to the shared belief that it means. This last certainly forms part of what is disclosable about a call, so that we may say in some sense that the "meaning" of a call is what must be disclosed about it over and above what is "commonly known" about it. Now, if I am in the habit of, as it might be, opening one spade with AK109xx J109x None J10x, and my partner knows that I will open one spade with such a hand, then it is not enough for us to say that one spade "means" 10-16 hcp with 5+ spades, for it does not. Nor is it enough for us to say that it "means" 10-16 hcp, 5+ spades, "or equivalent playing strength", for we cannot reasonably expect the opponents to know what criteria we will use to determine playing strength. Hence, it will become incumbent upon us to amend our system material. Here, the change is relatively trivial - we write "9-16 with 5+ spades, but 9 only with six good spades or 5-5 shape"... (or whatever we're actually playing). Yes, Virginia, you are supposed to do this - you are not supposed to put 10-16 on your convention card and then open that nine count, any more than Probst and West-Meads are supposed to put 12-14 on their convention cards and then open those ten and eleven and fifteen counts. But that is really a side issue, and I don't want to get involved in it here. The "meaning" of a call, then, is what must be disclosed about the call, which is in turn [a condensed version of] the sum total of the partnership's experience in the use of that call. Now, suppose you open one spade when you don't have very many high card points and you don't have very many spades. Or suppose you overcall 1NT when you don't have a balanced hand, you don't have a stopper in the enemy suit, and you don't have very many high cards. Is this legal? I don't think so. Law 40A does not say you can do it (see above). Law 40B says you can do it only if either: your opponents can reasonably be expected to know that you might do it, or you tell them that you might do it. Without doubt, they cannot reasonably know that you might do it, and of course, you dare not tell them that you might do it, for we have another Law which says: The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions. Zonal organisations may, in addition, regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership's initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a king or more below average strength. Zonal organisations may delegate this responsibility. and if you tell the opponents that the "meaning" of one spade in your partnership is "0-16 with 0+ spades", they will tell you a number of things with this in common: the word "off" will end each of them. Law 40A, then, says that you may make any bid about which you do not have any partnership understanding. Unfortunately, this does not extend to very many bids at all. It does not say: "you may make any bid as long as you do not have a partnership understanding about the relationship between the bid you are making and the cards that you hold", which is what it was intended to say. It does not, therefore, in any way at all permit the making of psychic bids. Law 40B and 40D combine to say that you may not make any bids about which you cannot tell the opponents everything, or which are not permitted by the regulations of your organisation. Unfortunately, this extends to quite a lot of bids, including almost all bids used by players of flair and imagination to deceive the opponents. It may be thought that these Laws do not amount to very much. But between them, they are a foundation for a game in which people have what they say they have, and can tell the opponents what this is. I wonder if anyone would like to play 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 Wed Jul 31 02:16:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6UGGCZ24333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 02:16:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6UGG3H24325 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 02:16:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.40.24.61] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17ZZQb-000JOR-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:00:53 +0100 Message-ID: <006001c237e2$0ddfc2e0$3d182850@pacific> From: To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 15:43:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "'David Stevenson'" ; Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 8:31 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > > > I agree with your first statement. Not with your > second. Should we offer those biased, terrible > and unreasonable ones the weapons with which > they really can exercise their incompetence? > Should we allow them to explain/defend those > decisions by pointing to our LC interpretations? > > ton > +=+ I read this as saying that an SO that ton kooijman considers to be biased, terrible and unreasonable is ipso facto biased, terrible and unreasonable. The LC decisions were expressly made to allow such bodies to exercise *their* judgement, not ton's or mine, nor even David's, to decide for themselves what is acceptable in *their* tournaments. It is not our business to inscribe our personal beliefs into the laws; we have a drafting subcommittee and a main committee and an Executive Committee to determine corporately what should be allowed to these SOs who are so audacious as to settle for themselves what is desirable in *their* tournaments. I have no sympathy for any view that seeks to restrict their decisions. The WBF, the EBL, and the ACBL, have set the example for years in this, and all power to them; they are responsible bodies, not biased, terrible or unreasonable - those who seek to impose their own prejudices upon them by way of the laws are open to be so labelled. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 02:16:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6UGGBo24332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 02:16:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6UGG3H24324 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 02:16:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.40.24.61] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17ZZQa-000JOR-00; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:00:52 +0100 Message-ID: <005f01c237e2$0d37ea20$3d182850@pacific> From: To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Grattan Endicott'" , "David Stevenson" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 15:24:07 +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 Grattan Endicott To: "'Grattan Endicott'" ; "David Stevenson" ; Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 8:36 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > > > May I suggest to use a smaller circle of e-mail adresses > (England, Great Britain, Common Wealth, still some > choices to be made) to handle your administrative problems? > +=+ Personally I think this is quite a good place to answer a question that arose on blml. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 03:44:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6UHi6T24433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 03:44:06 +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 g6UHi0H24429 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 03:44:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6UHTLe07803 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:29:21 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:29 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: <300702211.30950@webbox.com> David Burn wrote: > If I want to open the bidding with Brian, I had better follow > these Laws: > > A player may not make a call or play... Sorry David, no good relying on this law either if we wish to be pedantic. This law only tells one what may not be done. It does not explicitly grant permission to do anything. > Nor is it enough for us to say that it "means" 10-16 > hcp, 5+ spades, "or equivalent playing strength", for we cannot > reasonably expect the opponents to know what criteria we will > use to determine playing strength. We do not have to. Our SO has established regulations recognising that both convention cards and answers to questions will serve as acceptable mechanisms of disclosure. The phrase "equivalent playing strength" is sufficient to tell opponents that a question such has "what agreements do you have of assessing playing strength?" would be in order if they required more detailed information. > you are not supposed > to put 10-16 on your convention card and then open that nine > count, any more than Probst and West-Meads are supposed to put > 12-14 on their convention cards and then open those ten and eleven > and fifteen counts. Sorry to disappoint David. The Probst/West-Meads cc says "We open 1N if that is where we want to play opposite a weakish, flattish partner. This includes some hands with singletons or 7 card suits and almost all 5332 hands in the right range (approx 11.5 - 14)." The short version (for on-line play) says "Weak NT (Dodgy)", gets alerted and the full explanation is then given on request. If people ask about the "approx" they will receive further information. Does the Burn/Callaghan cc give substantially more information? > The "meaning" of a call, then, is what must be disclosed about > the call, which is in turn [a condensed version of] the sum total > of the partnership's experience in the use of that call. Where does [a condensed version of] come into it? It is not in the laws and if you want to be pedantic it is wrong to invent it. > It may be thought that these Laws do not amount to very much. > But between them, they are a foundation for a game in which people > have what they say they have, and can tell the opponents what > this is. Actually that is somewhat different from what you said earlier where you drew the distinction between "can tell the opponents about it" and "have told the opponents about it before doing it". > I wonder if anyone would like to play it? They might, although probably not. They will never be able to if you want all the agreements to be on the cc since it would have to change after every hand to reflect the experience/discussion gained and each auction would take about 3 days while giving "complete" explanations of every call. Pairs would need about 3 months to discuss their agreements before starting play or they might find themselves unable to answer a question. So why not take a pragmatic approach. Accept that L40A gives the right to psyche (or make undiscussed calls for that matter). Accept that L40B gives the right to make calls if opponents can reasonably be expected to understand the meaning, or if disclosure rules (including alerts/answering questions) are followed. Accept that the "meaning" of a call is more akin to "I am indicating that I hold..." than "I promise to have..". And while we are at it we can also accept that L40D was never meant to regulate psyches/light openings within a king of average strength. So the laws could have been drafted better (that's not exactly news), maybe next time they will be. 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 Jul 31 04:41:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6UIffT24510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 04:41:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6UIfWH24506 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 04:41:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (78.12-200-80.adsl.skynet.be [80.200.12.78]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6UIQnJ17402 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:26:49 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D46DA63.1090001@skynet.be> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:26:43 +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] EBU Appeals 2001 References: <300702211.30950@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 As usual, a long post of David's is a joy to read. And as usual, it is filled with quite true remarks on the status of the laws. And as equally usual, I can agree with only 99% of what he writes. See below. (I dare not snip - it's too beautiful) David Burn wrote: > Ton wrote: > > [DB] > >>Oh, they are right anyway. It is not legal to psyche - at least, >> > no law says that you may do so, and (at least) one law says that > you may not. > > [TK] > >>Ah, a refreshing contribution. It sounds convincing, so you >> > must be prepared for the question to give those lawnumbers. Teach > me, please. > > Law 40A says this: > > A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally > misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that > departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use > of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such > call or play is not based on a partnership understanding. > > Now, it is widely thought that this Law gives players the right > to depart from partnership agreements. It does not. It says only > that you may make any call (or play) that is not based on a partnership > understanding. > > Unfortunately, Brian Callaghan and I know the meaning in our > system of every opening bid from 1C to 7NT, and we also know > that pass denies the requirements for an opening bid. If I open > one spade playing with Brian, we have the partnership understanding > that I have about 10-16 hcp and at least five spades. If I actually > have such a hand, then my call is based on our understanding. > But even if I do not, my call is still based on our understanding, > for I am (presumably) hoping to gain by representing my hand > as a one spade opening even though it is not, and that hope is > based on our understanding of what I am purporting to show. > > Thus, I am not permitted by Law 40A to open the bidding at all > playing with Brian, for all our opening calls are based on partnership > understandings. It is possible that, in partnerships whose level > of discussion has not been as extensive as ours, a player might > be permitted by Law 40A to open 5NT on, say: 7632 AJ54 K72 > Q5, but no other opening bid is likely to be permitted under > this Law. > > Of course, what is intended by Law 40A is (roughly) this: a player > may make any call or play, including [...], provided that any > correlation between the hand held and the call made is not the > subject of a partnership understanding. But that is not what > the Law says, nor is it what the Law as written means. > > What is important is that Law 40A doesn't actually give you the > right to do very much at all. As written, it does not give you > the right to do anything except open 5NT if you're sure that > your partner won't know what this means. But even if it were > written so that it said what was intended, it would do no more > than give you a qualified right to forget your methods or to > misrepresent your hand without (necessarily) being penalised. > It would not give you, as Tim West-Meads and others seem to think, > the bridge equivalent of Roosevelt's Four Freedoms. It is not > an over-riding principle without which no civilised society may > stand. It does not confer some entitlement which may not be taken > away by other Laws or by SO regulation. It is pretty much a waste > of space, in fact, especially since at present it does not say > what it was supposed to mean. > > If I want to open the bidding with Brian, I had better follow > these Laws: > > 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, what is the "meaning" of a call? One might say that a call > "means" what our system says that it means, so that if I open > one spade, I "mean" that I have 10-16 hcp and at least five spades. > If that is the "meaning" of a call in the sense of Law 40B, then > (assuming that my opponents can reasonably be expected to know > what "10-16 hcp" and "at least five spades" connote), I can open > one spade on whatever I like, for the meaning of the call is > independent of the contents of my hand. > > But there is a strong suggestion in the Laws that the "meaning" > of a call is rather more extensive than the above definition. > A call "means" not only that which the system material says that > it means, but that which "partnership experience" gives rise > to the shared belief that it means. This last certainly forms > part of what is disclosable about a call, so that we may say > in some sense that the "meaning" of a call is what must be disclosed > about it over and above what is "commonly known" about it. > Exactly - a call "means" the total listing of hands with which it would be done, and in addition, the listing of all hands with which it might be done some of the time, and the frequency of each. Of course this is impossible to give, but that is what the meaning is. Every explanation is per force incomplete, and it is up to the TD to determine to what degree the incompleteness can (a) be expected to be understood and/or (b) cause damage. > Now, if I am in the habit of, as it might be, opening one spade > with AK109xx J109x None J10x, and my partner knows that I > will open one spade with such a hand, then it is not enough for > us to say that one spade "means" 10-16 hcp with 5+ spades, for > it does not. Nor is it enough for us to say that it "means" 10-16 > hcp, 5+ spades, "or equivalent playing strength", for we cannot > reasonably expect the opponents to know what criteria we will > use to determine playing strength. Hence, it will become incumbent > upon us to amend our system material. Here, the change is relatively > trivial - we write "9-16 with 5+ spades, but 9 only with six > good spades or 5-5 shape"... (or whatever we're actually playing). > Yes, Virginia, you are supposed to do this - you are not supposed > to put 10-16 on your convention card and then open that nine > count, any more than Probst and West-Meads are supposed to put > 12-14 on their convention cards and then open those ten and eleven > and fifteen counts. But that is really a side issue, and I don't > want to get involved in it here. > Indeed you are supposed to do this - but of course we don't always punish you if you did not. It is common knowledge that an explanation 12-14 includes some 11-pointers. > The "meaning" of a call, then, is what must be disclosed about > the call, which is in turn [a condensed version of] the sum total > of the partnership's experience in the use of that call. Now, > suppose you open one spade when you don't have very many high > card points and you don't have very many spades. Or suppose you > overcall 1NT when you don't have a balanced hand, you don't have > a stopper in the enemy suit, and you don't have very many high > cards. Is this legal? > > I don't think so. Law 40A does not say you can do it (see above). > Law 40B says you can do it only if either: your opponents can > reasonably be expected to know that you might do it, or you tell > them that you might do it. Without doubt, they cannot reasonably > know that you might do it, and of course, you dare not tell them > that you might do it, for we have another Law which says: > > The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or > play conventions. Zonal organisations may, in addition, regulate > partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit > the partnership's initial actions at the one level to be made > with a hand of a king or more below average strength. Zonal organisations > may delegate this responsibility. > > and if you tell the opponents that the "meaning" of one spade > in your partnership is "0-16 with 0+ spades", they will tell > you a number of things with this in common: the word "off" will > end each of them. > And this is where we part company. The "meaning" of one spade in this partnership is NOT "0-16 with 0+ spades"; it is "10-16 with 5+ spades; or 9 with 6+; or (in third seat and then only about 50% of the time) 0-3 with 2- spades". Now it is up to the SO to write regulations in such a manner that this "meaning" does not constitute a barred system. I believe that by adding that the HUM regulations do not cover psyches, with a good definition of psyche (grave misrepresentation, no safety-nets, infrequent), most of the regulations do not regulate against this "meaning". Incidently, the same argument can be used to show that a "rule of 19" actually bars bids, not just agreements. The hand above (AK109xx J109x None J10x) actually complies with the rule of 19, but change one heart into a diamond and it does so no longer (which is why I think a rule of 19 is too harsh - in Belgium we use a rule of 18). If David opens that hand one spade, it means that his "meaning" now is "9-16, rule of 19 not of application". That "meaning", by the definition of HUM, is prohibited in most EBU events. Ergo, you cannot open that hand. Do remark that you can still open a psyche - but this is not a psyche, it is not a gross misstatement of honour strength or length. > Law 40A, then, says that you may make any bid about which you > do not have any partnership understanding. Unfortunately, this > does not extend to very many bids at all. It does not say: "you > may make any bid as long as you do not have a partnership understanding > about the relationship between the bid you are making and the > cards that you hold", which is what it was intended to say. It > does not, therefore, in any way at all permit the making of psychic > bids. > > Law 40B and 40D combine to say that you may not make any bids > about which you cannot tell the opponents everything, or which > are not permitted by the regulations of your organisation. Unfortunately, > this extends to quite a lot of bids, including almost all bids > used by players of flair and imagination to deceive the opponents. > > It may be thought that these Laws do not amount to very much. > But between them, they are a foundation for a game in which people > have what they say they have, and can tell the opponents what > this is. I wonder if anyone would like to play 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/ > > > -- 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 Jul 31 06:10:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6UK9vv24570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 06:09:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6UK9qH24566 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 06:09:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-35-155-248.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.155.248] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17Zd5J-0001ph-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:55:09 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c23802$d0457c60$f89b23d9@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:53:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim wrote: > > A player may not make a call or play... > Sorry David, no good relying on this law either if we wish to be pedantic. > This law only tells one what may not be done. It does not explicitly > grant permission to do anything. Oh, well. There is a Law which says: B. The First Call The player designated by the board as dealer makes the first call. C. Successive Calls The player to dealer's left makes the second call, and thereafter each player calls in turn in a clockwise rotation. I am therefore legally obliged to make some call when it is my turn. Once I have eliminated those calls that I am by Law forbidden to make, I may make any of the others, and must make one of them. My choice must be made from: calls that are not the subject of any partnership understanding; or calls that are the subject of a partnership understanding, provided that their meaning is either apparent or properly disclosed. > The phrase "equivalent playing strength" is > sufficient to tell opponents that a question such as "what agreements do > you have of assessing playing strength?" would be in order if they > required more detailed information. That might be a useful regulation. I do not know, for I have no experience of it. If I play against someone for whom the term "playing strength" has no meaning, I do not consider that I have discharged my legal duty if I explain my methods in terms of playing strength and await further questions. > Sorry to disappoint David. I am not in the least disappointed. My expectations were not high in the first place. > The Probst/West-Meads cc says "We open 1N if > that is where we want to play opposite a weakish, flattish partner. This > includes some hands with singletons or 7 card suits and almost all 5332 > hands in the right range (approx 11.5 - 14)." You will be pleased to learn that this agreement is about to become legal. That it has not been up till now may not trouble you unduly, for I am well aware that there is a class of player who operates according to what he thinks the Law ought to be, not what it actually is. > The short version (for > on-line play) says "Weak NT (Dodgy)", gets alerted and the full > explanation is then given on request. If people ask about the "approx" > they will receive further information. Does the Burn/Callaghan cc give > substantially more information? No, for we open 1NT on a substantially less wide range of hands. The card we use for international events says that 1NT is 15-17, may include five-card majors, six- or (rarely) seven-card minors, some 5422 shapes, and some 5431 hands with a singleton honour. We also explain (elsewhere) that our point count upgrades aces, and downgrades queens and jacks. In domestic competition, we make no mention of the 5431 shapes, nor do we open 1NT when we have them. You see, we are not allowed to. > > The "meaning" of a call, then, is what must be disclosed about > > the call, which is in turn [a condensed version of] the sum total > > of the partnership's experience in the use of that call. > Where does [a condensed version of] come into it? It is not in the laws > and if you want to be pedantic it is wrong to invent it. I am not trying to be pedantic, merely to provide some definition of the term "meaning", which may not carry its normal English connotation. The sum total of the Burn-Callaghan partnership's use of a 1NT opening would take some time to recite, and opponents at the table are (by and large) content with the condensed version I have described above, since the complete history would add little or nothing of value. > > It may be thought that these Laws do not amount to very much. > > But between them, they are a foundation for a game in which people > > have what they say they have, and can tell the opponents what > > this is. > Actually that is somewhat different from what you said earlier where you > drew the distinction between "can tell the opponents about it" and "have > told the opponents about it before doing it". Both are elements of disclosure. They are equally important, but the latter is not always appropriate in cases where what is done is not at variance with common practice. > They might, although probably not. They will never be able to if you want > all the agreements to be on the cc since it would have to change after > every hand to reflect the experience/discussion gained and each auction > would take about 3 days while giving "complete" explanations of every > call. Strangely enough, this is not so. Of course, it is so if every session you play involves further extensions and distortions of your published methods. Most people, on the other hand, do not seem to feel it necessary to do this; the very great majority of calls made fall within the parameters of that which is disclosed. > Pairs would need about 3 months to discuss their agreements before > starting play or they might find themselves unable to answer a question. Pairs should not, in my opinion, agree to play methods that they cannot describe, for this is illegal. If you cannot tell me what you are playing, then you should not be playing it. By the same token, if you tell me that you are playing X but turn out to be playing Y, then it is not enough to say either: "Actually, we had no agreement - we'd said Bergen raises before the event started, but we'd forgotten to discuss the difference between 3C and 3D"; or: "I just assumed we were playing X because that's what everyone plays around here." > So why not take a pragmatic approach? Because such a course is nowhere sanctioned by Law. > Accept that L40A gives the right to > psyche (or make undiscussed calls for that matter). Why? The words of Law 40A, read in the order in which they appear and construed in the language in which they are written, give no such right. Perhaps they were supposed to, but they do not. If they did, of course, I would have no objection. > Accept that L40B > gives the right to make calls if opponents can reasonably be expected to > understand the meaning, or if disclosure rules (including alerts/answering > questions) are followed. I have no difficulty with that at all. > Accept that the "meaning" of a call is more akin > to "I am indicating that I hold..." than "I promise to have..". I have never suggested otherwise. I say only that the "meaning" of a call is (perhaps) more than the minimum level of disclosure would indicate. I say also that where experience indicates that the use of a call may not always correspond with that minimum level of disclosure, the method being played may not be one that is permitted. I do not regard these views as contentious. > And while > we are at it we can also accept that L40D was never meant to regulate > psyches/light openings within a king of average strength. And that the earth is flat, that the Apollo moon landings were impossible because of the radiation in the Van Allen belts, that Father Christmas knows if you've been bad or good... > So the laws could have been drafted better (that's not exactly news), > maybe next time they will be. I do not doubt it. Many eminent minds are at work upon the project, and I am assured by Grattan that at least nine of them are better than my own. I would put the figure at closer to ninety, or nine hundred, but I will tell you this - even were it nine million, none of them would sanction the notion that just because someone believes that a Law was not supposed to fulfil a particular function, the words on the page therefore mean something other than what they say. 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 Jul 31 06:44:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6UKhjF24612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 06:43:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6UKheH24608 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 06:43:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.15.245] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17ZdbZ-000JCd-00; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 21:28:30 +0100 Message-ID: <000201c23808$30c7f5e0$f50fe150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:59:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 9:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > > competent and reasonable bridge authorities will > run bridge fairly competently and fairly reasonably? > Surely biased, terrible and unreasonable ones will > run bridge in an awful way. I really do not believe > that interpretations of the Law book will change > this. > +=+ We return here to the discussion I had with Edgar 1984/87 in and out of committee. Thank you, David, for the introduction of a little fresh air and nostalgia. Actually I do not think either the EBL or the ACBL are 'biased, terrible and unreasonable' but they have found the means to run bridge as they wish to do so, notwithstanding any constricted view of the laws that may be held in some quarters.. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 07:21:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6ULLCr24637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 07:21:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta201-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta201-rme.xtra.co.nz [210.86.15.144]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6ULL7H24633 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 07:21:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz ([210.86.15.142]) by mta201-rme.xtra.co.nz with ESMTP id <20020730210625.OXAY26226.mta201-rme.xtra.co.nz@mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz> for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:06:25 +1200 Received: from w3n7y3 ([210.55.45.200]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20020730210623.QXBL6332.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@w3n7y3> for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:06:23 +1200 Message-ID: <008001c2380c$c535de00$c82d37d2@w3n7y3> From: "Wayne" To: References: <000901c23802$d0457c60$f89b23d9@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:05:00 +1200 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > > The Probst/West-Meads cc says "We open 1N if > > that is where we want to play opposite a weakish, flattish partner. > This > > includes some hands with singletons or 7 card suits and almost all > 5332 > > hands in the right range (approx 11.5 - 14)." > > You will be pleased to learn that this agreement is about to become > legal. That it has not been up till now may not trouble you unduly, for > I am well aware that there is a class of player who operates according > to what he thinks the Law ought to be, not what it actually is. > This agreement is always legal. It is non-conventional and it shows hands not a king or more below average and therefore not subject to regulation. If there is a regulation that prohibits opening such hands then that regulation is plainly illegal. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 07:48:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6ULlo624682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 07:47:50 +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-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 g6ULlYH24674 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 07:47:34 +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 17Zebv-0003PV-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:32:56 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:07:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Extract from official minutes of EBU L&EC MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >2.2.4 Digest of Appeals from Brighton 2001 (item 2.2.5) >... >The L&E expressed its thanks to Mr Stevenson and to the reviewers whose >comments were included in the digest, Laurie Kelso (Australia), Herman De >Wael (Belgium), Matthias Berghaus (Germany), Fearghal O'Boyle (Ireland) and >Ron Johnson (Canada). I just want to repeat my thanks. Note that the L&EC have indicated they wish this digest of appeals to be done every year, so I shall want volunteers for later this year [or early next] for the next crop of appeals. cc Linda Trent -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 07:48:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6ULljp24678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 07:47:45 +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-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 g6ULlSH24657 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 07:47:28 +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 17Zebm-0003PV-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:32:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:27:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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 >> Can I ask, Ton, what is the point of this? Surely competent and >> reasonable bridge authorities will run bridge fairly competently and >> fairly reasonably? Surely biased, terrible and unreasonable ones will >> run bridge in an awful way. I really do not believe that >> interpretations of the Law book will change this. >> >> David Stevenson >Can I ask, David, what is the point of this? > >I agree with your first statement. Not with your second. Should we offer >those biased, terrible and unreasonable ones the weapons with which they >really can exercise their incompetence? Should we allow them to >explain/defend those decisions by pointing to our LC interpretations? I just do not think that the WBF will have any effect on such bodies. Sure, you can tie them down with some rule or other, but what of the tourneys they run? What of the charges they make? How many people will they send on fully paid junkets to the far end of the world? I really do not see that limiting such bodies in a small way is doing any particular good, but may do some harm to the better bodies. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 07:48:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6ULllD24680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 07:47:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6ULlUH24663 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 07:47:31 +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 17Zebn-0003PZ-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:32:52 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:41:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Can dummy claim 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 > I'm not certain I have all the settings right, if this post is >unreadable due to format (as opposed to issues arising from content, >identity of poster, or the like) please let me know. Perfectly legible. >> -----Original Message----- >> Hm. This raises a question. Auction is over, opening lead >> is made face >> up (happens often at the local clubs around here). Somebody >> (declarer or >> leader's partner) says "hey, I had some questions." How do >> you handle >> this? Especially if it turns out somebody should have been >> allowed to change his last call? > L41A says that the lead is played face down, though an SO can specify >otherwise. Leader has committed an infraction. True. > 41A only limits the retraction of face-down leads. Face-up leads, >then, presumably can be retracted by L47 and only with the limits >there-in. (It might be right to strike "face-down" from L41A.) >L47E2a can apply if dummy has not been faced. Withdraw the card, back >up the auction, and L16C applies as appropriate. True. > If dummy has been faced then the hand can't be played, L40C applies, >and it would depend on who gave the MI. If declarer/dummy created the >MI, I'd award ave- to them and perhaps make some note about the >responsibility to correct MI when declarer/dummy as soon as the >auction is over. Their opponents would get ave (ave+ if face-down >leads are allowed by the SO). If the leader/leader's partner created >the MI, I'd award ave- to them and ave+ to declarer/dummy. No, you don't cancel a board like this. You just play the hand out and adjust if necessary - an assigned adjustment. It is just like any other MI problem. > If no one should have been allowed to change his last call, just play >the hand out. The person who had the questions can still ask them >before he plays a card. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 07:48:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6ULlmS24681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 07:47:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6ULlSH24658 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 07:47:29 +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 17Zebn-0003PY-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:32:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:38:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees References: <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <002201c2370d$f783aea0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <000901c2374d$e9941240$922a2850@pacific> <001901c2376f$01113e40$b012e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001901c2376f$01113e40$b012e150@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >Grattan Endicott+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"Rights that depend on the sufferance of >the state are of uncertain tenure." > - Suzanne La Follette. >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 12:03 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees > > >> >> I doubt this really! After all, if you are seeking damages >> and costs you start with organisations where television >> revenue is available, and if football can manage without >> separate appeal bodies then anyone trying this sort of >> attack would start with them. >> >> Anyway, in what way would it possibly be a breach >> of human rights to adopt the procedure adopted in >> over 80% of sports and mindsports, namely that >> there is no separate body to appeal to? Even the third >> umpire in cricket is an umpire, and that is just the thing >> being suggested here:appealing a TD decision to a >> different set of TDs. >> >+=+ It is my understanding that, in anything that affects >the reputation of the player in many sports, one who feels >he is damaged through an inadequate attention to natural >justice/human rights (in the method of judging allegations) >has right of access to an independent arbitration service >established for the purpose. Is this not so?. This saves >him the time and potential cost of making his way through >the national courts to the European Court of Human Rights >- from which he can not be barred. As for football (soccer) >I understand this sport has a carefully crafted* safety net >in that the referee's report of any such matter goes to a >tribunal established by the governing body for the player >to be given the independent hearing to which he is entitled. I refuse to believe that a referee's report gives any indication of free-kicks, throw-ins, and the like. We are talking ordinary appeals, against ordinary rulings, and there is no right of appeal in football whatever against such things. On the other hand, in cricket, there is a procedure to send doubtful decisions to a third umpire. However, not only is he an umpire, but only his fellow umpires can refer such cases. If the court of human rights accepts these methods of appealing rulings [none in football, solely at the umpires decision in cricket to another umpire] then why should they not accept amethod in bridge whihc provides a greater degree of appealing? > An appeals committee has the status of a 'domestic >tribunal'. It must stand apart from him whose judgement >is appealed. I hear there is a substantial body of opinion >in Zone 2 that believes the BoD's proposals do not meet >the appropriate standards of justice. This could be >reflected perhaps in the reported reaction of the Board >of Governors?. No, it does not have the status of a domestic tribunal. It has the status of a referee or umpire in other sports. > I would only add that the idea of offering the players >an option sounds very much like intellectual blackmail to >me, calculated to put the players under pressure to >accept the procedure. And I doubt very much that our >Law 91, taken with 93B3, would stand up this week in >a European Court of Law. It is difficult to believe this unless all sports are run illegally. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 07:48:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6ULlj024679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 07:47:45 +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-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 g6ULlSH24656 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 07:47:28 +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 17Zebm-0003PX-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:32:49 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:29:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. writes >> > There are no deletions in leaflet form. >> > >> +=+ Ah! .... only additions.... snap. +=+ >> > >> > I missed 6.1.4, which suggests to me that >> > there must be some doubt as to whether this >> >is necessarily the right place to put it. Interesting. >> > >> +=+ Maybe it could be listed elsewhere with >> 'see 6.1.4' ? >> Consult the editor. +=+ >May I suggest to use a smaller circle of e-mail adresses (England, Great >Britain, Common Wealth, still some choices to be made) to handle your >administrative problems? Good gracious, no. I am always trying to improve the Orange book, and similar publications, and I think input from other countries very valuable indeed. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 07:52:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6ULqi324718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 07:52:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6ULqdH24714 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 07:52:39 +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 17Zegq-00052K-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:38:00 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:24:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: <000b01c236f3$02079780$651e2850@pacific> <000801c236f6$fa41b4a0$9f06ba12@Herot> <005701c2375c$a9dc4820$d313e150@dodona> <001401c23770$55ac1140$8c06e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001401c23770$55ac1140$8c06e150@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >From: "David Stevenson" > I missed 6.1.4, which suggests to me that >> there must be some doubt as to whether this >>is necessarily the right place to put it. Interesting. >+=+ Maybe it could be listed elsewhere with > 'see 6.1.4' ? > Consult the editor. +=+ Let me see. We have a section on psyches, and a much larger section on permitted conventions and agreements. The latter section starts with a sub-section on over-riding rules [eg Random bids are not permitted]. The Watson double may be played, but only when not in conjunction with a psychic overcall. In which section would the readers expect to find it? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 08:31:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6UMV5K24742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 08:31:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailm1.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailm1.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.18]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6UMUxH24738 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 08:31:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-1206.charizard.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.135.73.182] helo=4nrw70j) by cmailm1.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17ZfHv-0001F5-00; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:16:20 +0100 Message-ID: <000201c23816$dd5a16e0$b64987d9@4nrw70j> From: "grandeval" To: Cc: "Grattan Endicott \(home\)" , "Grattan Endicott" References: <000901c23802$d0457c60$f89b23d9@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:12:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > > > And while > > we are at it we can also accept that L40D was never > > meant to regulate psyches/light openings within a king > > of average strength. > > And that the earth is flat, that the Apollo moon landings > were impossible because of the radiation in the Van > Allen belts, that Father Christmas knows if you've been > bad or good... > > > So the laws could have been drafted better (that's > not exactly news), maybe next time they will be. > > I do not doubt it. Many eminent minds are at work > upon the project, and I am assured by Grattan that at > least nine of them are better than my own. I would put > the figure at closer to ninety, or nine hundred, but I > will tell you this - even were it nine million, none of > them would sanction the notion that just because > someone believes that a Law was not supposed to > fulfil a particular function, the words on the page > therefore mean something other than what they say. > +=+ Just one moment. Wherever did you get this idea? It is because the simple English meaning of a law is repugnant to one savant or another that we have to return regularly a ces moutons to re-establish not how the law is to be interpreted but rather what its English text means. I have remarked that I would like the laws to be written so simply that they can be translated effortlessly into Mandarin or pidgin Portuguese - to which a colleague replies, believe me, that he cares not a damn how they be translated so long as we can set out in an explanation what they mean in English - the revolving door by which I came in (and, if you please, he does not even write editorials for Bridge World). I did write a comment that I believe there are at least nine individuals known to me who have a better knowledge of the current laws than one David or another, but I think I have not commented upon the individual or collective skills of the group appointed to draft the next. Until I have more experience of them at the task I shall assume they are ideal for the job - my leader has said it is so. As to the intention with respect to Law 40D, I can quote the response of the WBFLC to the question of its effect - given to the EBL Executive Committee by the WBFLC in a note agreed at its meeting in Bal Harbor, 1986 (at which the 1987 Laws were approved): "It is common ground that the construction of Law 40 - with 40D as a qualification of 40A - allows that such a regulation may be made. It is common ground that the intention of the committee is that if the EBL and others choose to have such a regulation the Laws Committee accepts that it should be accommodated." (In a minority of one, Edgar Kaplan expressed a reservation that for him whilst a regulation banning psyches of conventional bids was authorized under 40D it appeared not to match up to Law 75B. It was interesting that having lost the vote on this, Edgar chose not to prepare any minutes of the meeting but only the written note of reply to the EBL. He reported the outcome of the WBFLC meeting verbally to the WBF Executive.) Presided over by J. Damiani the European Executive then met in Bal Harbor on 26th September 1986 and issued written instructions to Bill Pencharz (Chairman, EBL R&R Committee) to prepare regulations for the forthcoming European Pairs that would continue to incorporate the regulation extant since 1983 forbidding psyching of an opening conventional bid in a pairs event, as they have continued to do so to this day (with extension recently to the short round robin matches in the teams). This is a considered policy of the EBL. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 09:15:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6UNFFE24798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:15:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6UNFAH24794 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:15:10 +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 g6UN3d510617 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 15:03:39 -0800 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:58:01 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Watson doubles (Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > > The Watson double may be played, but only when not in conjunction with > a psychic overcall. > This regulation got me thinking. (Always dangerous when that happens.) If the rule that A> if you play Watson doubles, you cannot ever psych an overcall? Or B> if you ever psych your overcalls, you cannot play Watson doubles? Or C> just that if you HAVE pysched on a particular deal, you cannot use a Watson double to avoid a bad lead? I have serious doubts about the legality of A. (Golf club analogies come to mind.) B seems legal, but difficult to enforce. C also seems legal, at first blush, put I realized it led me into a few little paradoxes. Here's a hypothetical situation for you. Suppose I have an agreement to use a Watson double to warn partner away from leading my suit any time I overcall a broken suit like KJ8xx that will be hurt by a lead through it. That is, an overcall not followed by a double promises a suit that won't be harmed by your lead (unless I have psyched.) Now suppose you are my partner, I overcall but do not double, and you are on lead holding the king-ten of my suit. You know from my failure to double I don't have a broken suit; you know from your own hand I don't have a solid suit; therefore, you know I don't the suit at all! Are we playing a psychic control, or is this just common sense? Here's another one - more comical than practical: I am forbidden to use a Watson double as a psychic control. I make a lead-directing psychic. (Say, you've overcalled in spades, and I have xx xxx xxxxxx Axx, and I advance with 2C so you'll put me in the lead to push a spade through declarer's stopper.) Can my opponents call the cops and say "you didn't really have a club suit - how dare you NOT double to tell your partner you didn't have them!" Am I illegally profiting from playing Watson doubles by knowing my partner WILL lead my suit even if I don't have it, instead of having to guess blindly? 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 Jul 31 09:54:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6UNsXt24824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:54:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (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 g6UNsSH24820 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:54:29 +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 QAA13110; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:39:45 -0700 Message-Id: <200207302339.QAA13110@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Watson doubles (Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:58:01 -0800." Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:40:27 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > > > > The Watson double may be played, but only when not in conjunction with > > a psychic overcall. > > > > This regulation got me thinking. (Always dangerous when that happens.) If > the rule that A> if you play Watson doubles, you cannot ever psych an > overcall? Or B> if you ever psych your overcalls, you cannot play > Watson doubles? Or C> just that if you HAVE pysched on a particular deal, > you cannot use a Watson double to avoid a bad lead? > > I have serious doubts about the legality of A. (Golf club analogies come > to mind.) B seems legal, but difficult to enforce. C also seems legal, at > first blush, put I realized it led me into a few little paradoxes. Since A and B are logically equivalent, it doesn't make sense that A could be illegal and B could be legal. -- 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 Jul 31 10:22:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6V0MHY24852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:22:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6V0MCH24848 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:22:12 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g6V07Sw23260 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:07:28 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200207310007.g6V07Sw23260@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: Watson doubles (Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:07:28 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Adam Beneschan" at Jul 30, 2002 04:40:27 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:40:27 -0700 > From: Adam Beneschan > > Gordon Bower wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > The Watson double may be played, but only when not in conjunction with > > > a psychic overcall. > > > > > > > This regulation got me thinking. (Always dangerous when that happens.) If > > the rule that A> if you play Watson doubles, you cannot ever psych an > > overcall? Or B> if you ever psych your overcalls, you cannot play > > Watson doubles? Or C> just that if you HAVE pysched on a particular deal, > > you cannot use a Watson double to avoid a bad lead? > > > > I have serious doubts about the legality of A. (Golf club analogies come > > to mind.) B seems legal, but difficult to enforce. C also seems legal, at > > first blush, put I realized it led me into a few little paradoxes. > > Since A and B are logically equivalent, it doesn't make sense that A > could be illegal and B could be legal. > I have not really been following this discussion, but A and B are not logically equivalent. You are assuming that the relationship is communicative and it is not. If A, then B and If B, then A are not necessary equivalent. The relationship of whether you play Watson doubles and whether you psyche need not be communicative. I'm not arguing for or against either case, just pointing out they are not equivalent. If you psyche in some positions, but not in others, then you have to play the same system whether or not a psyche is possible. Under L40.E, the ACBL, at least, strictly requires that both players play the same system at the same time. You cannot have a system that varies based on whether or not a psyche is possible. However, if you only psyche when non-vul vs vul, then you could say that non-vulnerable, Watson doubles are always on, or always off, but it cannot be based on if/when you psyche, only on some condition which the opponents can determine what the system is (seat, vulnerability, etc). Hence, the condition of Watson doubles cannot be dependent upon whether you psyche or not. However, it could easily be restricted that if you play Watson doubles you may not psyche. -Ted. -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 Jul 31 10:44:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6V0iJG24875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:44:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg1.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg1.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.171]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6V0iAH24867 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:44:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-14.charmeleon.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.135.79.14] helo=4nrw70j) by cmailg1.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17ZhMn-0004nM-00; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 01:29:30 +0100 Message-ID: <000801c23829$77e66e40$0e4f87d9@4nrw70j> From: "grandeval" To: "Kooijman, A." Cc: "bridge-laws" , "Grattan Endicott \(home\)" , "Grattan Endicott" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 00:56:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 8:18 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > > > It seems to me that the request is to consider the interpretation of the > interpretation of L40D. > The word 'unrestricted' seems important then. We could say > something as 'unrestricted' as long as the application is legal. And > once we have done so somebody might come up with the idea to > burn all interpretations regarding L40D and spread the ashes on > a graveyard, telling that L40D is clear enough in itself. > That won't harm given the present situation. > > ton > +=+ The word 'unrestricted' comes from the hearing in Geneva 1990 when the WBF Executive agreed in a joint hearing with the Rules and Regulations Committee, as I had argued on behalf of the WBFLC, the error of Kaplan's contention in his appeal that the regulation applied to his action behind screens was illegal because in conflict with Law 80F. I contended that the Laws made it clear in a number of ways that regulations made under 80E, 40D, 40E, were made under those laws and not under 80F, and that the powers were expressed in unrestricted terms. The hearing recorded its landmark decision that this is so, and rejected Edgar's appeal accordingly. I recall that Wim Wagner, John Wignall, Denis Howard, Ernesto d'Orsi, were amongst those who concurred in the decision (almost unanimous, I think perhaps Ortiz-Patino abstained?). Bill Schoder was the Director. It is not a decision the WBFLC can overturn, although it matched to the WBFLC's opinion. Rules and Regulations in the WBF, the Zones and the NBOs, have relied upon it, in relation to screens regs, system policies, convention card requirements, appeals procedures and the Code of Practice. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 10:44:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6V0iNC24876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:44:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg1.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg1.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.171]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6V0iBH24868 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:44:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-14.charmeleon.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.135.79.14] helo=4nrw70j) by cmailg1.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17ZhMp-0004nM-00; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 01:29:31 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c23829$78e23360$0e4f87d9@4nrw70j> From: "grandeval" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <002201c2370d$f783aea0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <000901c2374d$e9941240$922a2850@pacific> <001901c2376f$01113e40$b012e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 01:23:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees > Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >"Rights that depend on the sufferance of > >the state are of uncertain tenure." > > - Suzanne La Follette. > >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "David Stevenson" > >To: > >Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 12:03 AM > >Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees > > > >> > >+=+ It is my understanding that, in anything that affects > >the reputation of the player > > I refuse to believe that a referee's report gives any indication of > free-kicks, throw-ins, and the like. We are talking ordinary appeals, > against ordinary rulings, and there is no right of appeal in football > whatever against such things. > +=+ I do not think you have read my words. Red and Yellow Cards are reported and may be appealed; these are the matters that go onto the player's record and can affect his reputation, his livelihood. The Director's judgemental rulings are related to ethics, propriety; they may affect the player's reputation, even his livelihood..In my view of natural justice they should not be appealed to a colleague or associate of the Director. Given the judgement of the Court of Human Rights in the matter of the Prison Governor who extended a prisoner's term of confinement for an alleged assault upon a warder, £8,000 damages and costs a few days ago, I would consider it a risk to have such an arrangement in our appeals process. You are wrong about cricket, too; the third umpire deals only with mechanical rulings, other matters go to the neutral referee and may be appealed to the ICC or whoever. +=+ > > I would only add that the idea of offering the players > >an option sounds very much like intellectual blackmail to > >me, calculated to put the players under pressure to > >accept the procedure. And I doubt very much that our > >Law 91, taken with 93B3, would stand up this week in > >a European Court of Law. > > It is difficult to believe this unless all sports are run illegally. > +=+ Olympic sports in particular require independent hearing of appeals and an arbitration procedure. In the UK the CCPR provides the latter resource. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 11:11:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6V1B1824904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 11:11:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lakemtao03.cox.net (lakemtao03.cox.net [68.1.17.242]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6V1AtH24900 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 11:10:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from Home17 ([68.100.150.212]) by lakemtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with SMTP id <20020731005613.UZBJ1975.lakemtao03.cox.net@Home17> for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:56:13 -0400 Message-ID: <00f901c2382d$10ad45b0$d4966444@Home17> From: "John Kuchenbrod" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <200207310007.g6V07Sw23260@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: Watson doubles (Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:56:12 -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 From: "Ted Ying" > > Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:40:27 -0700 > > From: Adam Beneschan > > > > Gordon Bower wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > > > The Watson double may be played, but only when not in conjunction with > > > > a psychic overcall. > > > > > > > > > > This regulation got me thinking. (Always dangerous when that happens.) If > > > the rule that A> if you play Watson doubles, you cannot ever psych an > > > overcall? Or B> if you ever psych your overcalls, you cannot play > > > Watson doubles? Or C> just that if you HAVE pysched on a particular deal, > > > you cannot use a Watson double to avoid a bad lead? > > > > > > I have serious doubts about the legality of A. (Golf club analogies come > > > to mind.) B seems legal, but difficult to enforce. C also seems legal, at > > > first blush, put I realized it led me into a few little paradoxes. > > > > Since A and B are logically equivalent, it doesn't make sense that A > > could be illegal and B could be legal. > > > > I have not really been following this discussion, but A and B > are not logically equivalent. You are assuming that the > relationship is communicative and it is not. If A, then B and > If B, then A are not necessary equivalent. > > The relationship of whether you play Watson doubles and whether > you psyche need not be communicative. I'm not arguing for or > against either case, just pointing out they are not equivalent. Sorry, but A and B are logically equivalent. P: You play Watson doubles. Q: You cannot psych an overcall. A is: If P then Q. B is the contrapositive of A: If not Q then not P. A statement and its contrapositive are logically equivalent. John -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 11:13:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6V1Cir24921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 11:12:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6V1CdH24917 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 11:12:39 +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 RAA13594; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:57:55 -0700 Message-Id: <200207310057.RAA13594@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Watson doubles (Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:07:28 EDT." <200207310007.g6V07Sw23260@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:58:37 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ted Ying wrote: > > Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:40:27 -0700 > > From: Adam Beneschan > > > > Gordon Bower wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > > > The Watson double may be played, but only when not in conjunction with > > > > a psychic overcall. > > > > > > > > > > This regulation got me thinking. (Always dangerous when that happens.) If > > > the rule that A> if you play Watson doubles, you cannot ever psych an > > > overcall? Or B> if you ever psych your overcalls, you cannot play > > > Watson doubles? Or C> just that if you HAVE pysched on a particular deal, > > > you cannot use a Watson double to avoid a bad lead? > > > > > > I have serious doubts about the legality of A. (Golf club analogies come > > > to mind.) B seems legal, but difficult to enforce. C also seems legal, at > > > first blush, put I realized it led me into a few little paradoxes. > > > > Since A and B are logically equivalent, it doesn't make sense that A > > could be illegal and B could be legal. > > > > I have not really been following this discussion, but A and B > are not logically equivalent. You are assuming that the > relationship is communicative and it is not. If A, then B and > If B, then A are not necessary equivalent. But that's not the form these propositions are taking. Instead, what we have is "If X, then NOT Y" and "If Y, then NOT X". Those two *are* logically equivalent. A little Boolean algebra: "If P then Q" is the same as "(Not P) or Q". ("Or", of course, is the inclusive "or".) Thus: (If X, then NOT Y) is equivalent to (NOT X) or (NOT Y) (If Y, then NOT X) is equivalent to (NOT Y) or (NOT X) and, of course, since "or" *is* commutative, they are equivalent. -- 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 Jul 31 15:52:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6V5ohj25014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 15:50:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6V5oYH25010 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 15:50:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g6V5Zsw28065 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:35:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00d001c23854$0592a4a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] TD code Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:34:26 -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 Vitold's draft of a code for TDs strikes me as very worthwhile and long overdue. TDs in this area of the ACBL, and no doubt elsewhere, are woefully ignorant of their responsibilities. I think we should help Vitold's idea by suggesting changes, subtractions, or additions to what he provided. This document would be a valuable addition to bridgedom. One suggestion of mine is that when there has been a lead out of turn, the TD's first question should be "Did someone tell you to lead?" Also, Non-offenders should not be taken away from the table for questioning in MI cases. Surely BLML can offer Vitold many more suggestions, perhaps debating some. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 16:49:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6V6n1s25045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 16:49:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6V6mtH25041 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 16:48:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (3.61-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.61.3]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6V6YAA26038 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 08:34:10 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D4784DF.4040702@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 08:34:07 +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: Watson doubles (Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon's dilemma can be put more simply. When playing Watson Doubles - you are also playing Watson Passes. (pass means please do lead my suit) If Watson Doubles are not allowed as a psychic control, then so must be Watson Passes. So if you psyche, you can no longer neither double nor pass. So in effect, Watson Doubles/Passes are prohibited to pairs that might psyche. But that is not unusual - I myself don't want to play Drury, as I am more likely to have psyched in third position than most other players. Gordon Bower wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > >> The Watson double may be played, but only when not in conjunction with >>a psychic overcall. >> >> > > This regulation got me thinking. (Always dangerous when that happens.) If > the rule that A> if you play Watson doubles, you cannot ever psych an > overcall? Or B> if you ever psych your overcalls, you cannot play > Watson doubles? Or C> just that if you HAVE pysched on a particular deal, > you cannot use a Watson double to avoid a bad lead? > > I have serious doubts about the legality of A. (Golf club analogies come > to mind.) B seems legal, but difficult to enforce. C also seems legal, at > first blush, put I realized it led me into a few little paradoxes. > > Here's a hypothetical situation for you. > > Suppose I have an agreement to use a Watson double to warn partner away > from leading my suit any time I overcall a broken suit like KJ8xx that > will be hurt by a lead through it. That is, an overcall not followed by a > double promises a suit that won't be harmed by your lead (unless I > have psyched.) Now suppose you are my partner, I overcall but do not > double, and you are on lead holding the king-ten of my suit. You know from > my failure to double I don't have a broken suit; you know from your own > hand I don't have a solid suit; therefore, you know I don't the suit at > all! Are we playing a psychic control, or is this just common sense? > > Here's another one - more comical than practical: > > I am forbidden to use a Watson double as a psychic control. I make a > lead-directing psychic. (Say, you've overcalled in spades, and I > have xx xxx xxxxxx Axx, and I advance with 2C so you'll put me in the lead > to push a spade through declarer's stopper.) Can my opponents call the > cops and say "you didn't really have a club suit - how dare you NOT double > to tell your partner you didn't have them!" Am I illegally profiting from > playing Watson doubles by knowing my partner WILL lead my suit even if I > don't have it, instead of having to guess blindly? > > 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/ > > > -- 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 Jul 31 17:41:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6V7eQD25068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 17:40:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6V7eLH25064 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 17:40:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.21.120] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17ZnrK-0004vR-00; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 08:25:27 +0100 Message-ID: <003a01c23863$eca43f20$7815e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "vitold" Cc: References: <20020719175201.XPDU6994.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@webmail.worldnet.att.net> <3D3B2C2E.88200F57@elnet.msk.ru> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD code Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 08:27:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Cc: Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 10:48 PM Subject: [BLML] TD code . > > In 1999 WBF adopted Code of Practice - in fact it is > the Code for Appeal Committees. And it's high time > (again - in my opinion) to work out Tournament Directors' > Code (TD Code). I even dare to represent several > ideas for project of its draft. > > The draft is too long for being sent directly to blml, > so David Stevenson made me a favour and placed this > draft (with my remarks) at the web-site: > http://blakjak.com/blml_log.htm > > +=+ If there is interest in progressing Vitold's suggestion we could perhaps take the subjects one at a time on blml. If we arrive at a consensus I would be willing to present the results to the WBF for approval. In this connection it would be essential to have the concurrence of Kojak in the recommendations, as the world's no. 1 authority on TD procedure (at least in the eyes of the WBF). I will take a look at the web site later today and see if I can initiate a correspondence. Vitold should be encouraged. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 17:59:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6V7xP825086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 17:59:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6V7xKH25082 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 17:59:20 +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 HAA13881 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 07:44:34 GMT To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Watson doubles (Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.07a May 14, 2001 Message-ID: From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:44:37 +0200 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Jazz/Meteo-France/FR(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 31.07.2002 07:44:34, Serialize complete at 31.07.2002 07:44:34 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 g6V7xMH25083 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "John Kuchenbrod" Envoyé par : owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au 31/07/02 02:56 Pour : "Bridge Laws Mailing List" cc : Objet : Re: Watson doubles (Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001) From: "Ted Ying" > > Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:40:27 -0700 > > From: Adam Beneschan > > > > Gordon Bower wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > > > The Watson double may be played, but only when not in conjunction with > > > > a psychic overcall. > > > > > > > > > > This regulation got me thinking. (Always dangerous when that happens.) If > > > the rule that A> if you play Watson doubles, you cannot ever psych an > > > overcall? Or B> if you ever psych your overcalls, you cannot play > > > Watson doubles? Or C> just that if you HAVE pysched on a particular deal, > > > you cannot use a Watson double to avoid a bad lead? > > > > > > I have serious doubts about the legality of A. (Golf club analogies come > > > to mind.) B seems legal, but difficult to enforce. C also seems legal, at > > > first blush, put I realized it led me into a few little paradoxes. > > > > Since A and B are logically equivalent, it doesn't make sense that A > > could be illegal and B could be legal. > > > > I have not really been following this discussion, but A and B > are not logically equivalent. You are assuming that the > relationship is communicative and it is not. If A, then B and > If B, then A are not necessary equivalent. > > The relationship of whether you play Watson doubles and whether > you psyche need not be communicative. I'm not arguing for or > against either case, just pointing out they are not equivalent. Sorry, but A and B are logically equivalent. P: You play Watson doubles. Q: You cannot psych an overcall. A is: If P then Q. B is the contrapositive of A: If not Q then not P. A statement and its contrapositive are logically equivalent. *** i don't agree; the first part of B: "you sometimes happen to psych your overcalls" is different from "not Q": "you are allowed to psych an overcall" for example, it's possible to imagine the case of a player who is granted the right to psych but declines to ever use it. jp rocafort *** John __________________________________________________ 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 Wed Jul 31 18:16:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6V8GEt25111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 18:16:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6V8G8H25107 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 18:16:09 +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 JAA24184; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:59:05 +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 KAA27982; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:01:23 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020731100729.00a678b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:10:21 +0200 To: Adam Beneschan , Bridge Laws Mailing List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: Watson doubles (Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001) Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200207302339.QAA13110@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:40 30/07/2002 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote: >Gordon Bower wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > The Watson double may be played, but only when not in conjunction with > > > a psychic overcall. > > > > > > > This regulation got me thinking. (Always dangerous when that happens.) If > > the rule that A> if you play Watson doubles, you cannot ever psych an > > overcall? Or B> if you ever psych your overcalls, you cannot play > > Watson doubles? Or C> just that if you HAVE pysched on a particular deal, > > you cannot use a Watson double to avoid a bad lead? > > > > I have serious doubts about the legality of A. (Golf club analogies come > > to mind.) B seems legal, but difficult to enforce. C also seems legal, at > > first blush, put I realized it led me into a few little paradoxes. > >Since A and B are logically equivalent, it doesn't make sense that A >could be illegal and B could be legal. AG : I think they are not equivalent. The following are equivalent : a) if you play X, you may not play Y b) if you play Y, you may not play X The following are not : A) if you ever used X, you may not, in the future, play Y B) if you ever used Y, yuo may not, in the future, play X Those are Gordon's A) and B). But I would rather interpret the prohibition as Gordon's C) ; it would even make sense. 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 Jul 31 20:02:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6VA08C25169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:00:08 +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 g6VA01H25165 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:00:02 +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 17Zq2d-000DKz-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:45:20 +0100 Message-ID: <6JSgSqByKyR9EwjA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 00:35:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020730083211.00a90810@pop.starpower.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020730083211.00a90810@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 04:01 PM 7/29/02, David wrote: > >>Kooijman, A. writes >> >> >Goood Heavens, let us listen to Grattan who gave the S.O. all the >> power they >> >want to regulate conventions. Is this one of the possible and legal >> outcomes >> >of that freedom of power? Is such a apparently quoted sentence ever >> written >> >on a piece of paper? And should I have known that 'we' have >> sanctioned this? >> > >> >Without jeopardising my withdrawal yet, I need to tell you that I am >> in some >> >amazement. >> >> Can I ask, Ton, what is the point of this? Surely competent and >>reasonable bridge authorities will run bridge fairly competently and >>fairly reasonably? Surely biased, terrible and unreasonable ones will >>run bridge in an awful way. I really do not believe that >>interpretations of the Law book will change this. > >"Biased, terrible [or] unreasonable [bridge authorities] will run >bridge in an awful way" *unless* they are checked and constrained from >doing so by some higher authority. The WBF is the *only* organization >with the legal and moral standing to function as that higher authority, >which gives considerable force to the argument that they have a moral >obligation to do so. > >We have heard repeatedly, from David and others, that the WBF's >interpretations of TFLB have the force of law, and, indeed, that is >generally recognized even by the most unreasonable of their member >organizations. So it seems a bit specious to argue in this context >that those interpretations have no effect and cannot bring about any >change in how those member organizations regulate the game. Please do not mis-quote me completely!!!! Tell me when I said the interpretations had no effect? That is not what I said at all. What I said was that if a lousy organisation runs it in a lousy way, a couple of interpretations will not stop them doing that. For example, if the Atlantis Combined Bridge Legation decide to only allow life masters to earn master points, while others have to pay for them, that's pretty despicable: I do not believe that an interpretation of L40D will make the ACBL any better. [By ACBL *of course* I mean Atlantis Combined Bridge Legation.] Interpretations of laws will have an effect, often a great effect - BUT - it will not have the one specific effect people seem to expect, namely converting a bad authority into a good one with a wave of the magic wand. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 21:43:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6VBgEG25210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 21:42:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6VBg8H25206 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 21:42:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g6VBRSf24573 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 13:27:28 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Jul 31 13:22:45 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KKQVKATU48001Q9C@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 13:26:29 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 13:25:57 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 13:26:26 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: "'David Burn'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > Ton wrote: > > [DB] > >Oh, they are right anyway. It is not legal to psyche - at least, > no law says that you may do so, and (at least) one law says that > you may not. > > [TK] > >Ah, a refreshing contribution. It sounds convincing, so you > must be prepared for the question to give those lawnumbers. Teach > me, please. > DB again: > Law 40A says this: > > A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally > misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that > departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use > of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such > call or play is not based on a partnership understanding. > > Now, it is widely thought that this Law gives players the right > to depart from partnership agreements. It does not. It says only > that you may make any call (or play) that is not based on a > partnership > understanding. > > Unfortunately, Brian Callaghan and I know the meaning in our > system of every opening bid from 1C to 7NT, and we also know > that pass denies the requirements for an opening bid. If I open > one spade playing with Brian, we have the partnership understanding > that I have about 10-16 hcp and at least five spades. If I actually > have such a hand, then my call is based on our understanding. > But even if I do not, my call is still based on our understanding, > for I am (presumably) hoping to gain by representing my hand > as a one spade opening even though it is not, and that hope is > based on our understanding of what I am purporting to show. To be honest: I prefer your poems ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 21:59:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6VBwtr25232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 21:58:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6VBwjH25225 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 21:58:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6VBi4r14713 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:44:04 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:44 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: <000801c23829$77e66e40$0e4f87d9@4nrw70j> > +=+ The word 'unrestricted' comes from the hearing in > Geneva 1990 when the WBF Executive agreed in a joint hearing > with the Rules and Regulations Committee, as I had argued on > behalf of the WBFLC, the error of Kaplan's contention in his > appeal that the regulation applied to his action behind screens > was illegal because in conflict with Law 80F. I contended that > the Laws made it clear in a number of ways that regulations made > under 80E, 40D, 40E, were made under those laws and not under > 80F, and that the powers were expressed in unrestricted terms. So the "unrestricted" in the Lille confirmation means "regulations made under L40D are not restricted by L80F" and we should not necessarily read it as saying "regulations made under L40D are not restricted by L40A,B,C,L75BC,L18* or others)"? *Am I right in assuming that the WBFLC has not, for instance, granted the power to SOs to license a conventional 2S response to a 2NT opening? 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 Jul 31 21:59:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6VBx0I25233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 21:59:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6VBwjH25224 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 21:58:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g6VBi2Y14694 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:44:03 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:44 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 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: <000901c23802$d0457c60$f89b23d9@pbncomputer> DALB wrote: > > Oh, well. There is a Law which says: > > B. The First Call > The player designated by the board as dealer makes the first call. > > C. Successive Calls > The player to dealer's left makes the second call, and thereafter each > player calls in turn in a clockwise rotation. > > I am therefore legally obliged to make some call when it is my turn. > Once I have eliminated those calls that I am by Law forbidden to make One might also say having established that no call is legally permitted you are obliged to make a call despite knowing that the call is illegal. Alternatively you can review 40A and work out that there is a loophole. If you make a call that differs substantially from your agreements then that call is not *based* on a partnership understanding (although the "meaning" is). It is rather a call made in "the presence of a PU, but not based upon it". This is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the term "based on". You might also look to L75B (which gives you the right to "violate" a partnership agreement, while in no way conferring a right to follow one). Having worked this out (and not wishing to make a call not explicitly permitted by L40B) you will have the joy of making a psychic call every time you open. Thankfully you will be able to explain to the subsequent committee that your psyches resulted from your complete mastery of the laws and were in no way frivolous. > > The phrase "equivalent playing strength" is > > sufficient to tell opponents that a question such as "what agreements > do > > you have of assessing playing strength?" would be in order if they > > required more detailed information. > > That might be a useful regulation. I do not know, for I have no > experience of it. If I play against someone for whom the term "playing > strength" has no meaning, I do not consider that I have discharged my > legal duty if I explain my methods in terms of playing strength and > await further questions. It's not a regulation per se. To me it comes under the concept of "reasonably expect". I believe that one can reasonably expect opponents who see terms like "random, approximately, equivalent" to know that further information is likely to be available on request. Obviously more care may be needed if opponents are known to be non-English speaking or very inexperienced. > > The Probst/West-Meads cc says "We open 1N if > > that is where we want to play opposite a weakish, flattish partner. > > This includes some hands with singletons or 7 card suits and almost > > all 5332 hands in the right range (approx 11.5 - 14)." > > You will be pleased to learn that this agreement is about to become > legal. I am amazed to learn that it is "about to become" legal. "to play opposite a weakish, flattish partner" is the natural meaning for 1NT. > That it has not been up till now may not trouble you unduly, for > I am well aware that there is a class of player who operates according > to what he thinks the Law ought to be, not what it actually is. I can read the law perfectly well. Natural NT bids are permitted. I have been dealt plenty of hands of 1444,1336,2227,1345 distribution that my judgement tells me are semi-balanced (if it helps you can temporarily move a card from a long suit to a short one for the auction - like borrowing a king from partner, I am aware that this differs from the guideline definition offered by the EBU in the OB). From seeing John bid he sometimes feels the same way (he probably does not make exactly the same judgements but the sample size is way to small to tell). While such judgements are relatively commonplace I believe they are somewhat unexpected. For this reason we alert/explain our 1NT in order to keep opponents properly informed. The requirement to disclose goes beyond "method" (basic Acol weak NT in this case) to include information gained from experience (L75B/C). It is, IMO, *completely* wrong to treat a hand like Kxx,A,KQx,J75432 as a club single-suiter. Your judgement may differ. > Does the Burn/Callaghan cc give substantially more information? > > No, for we open 1NT on a substantially less wide range of hands. The range of hands is not all that important for disclosure purposes. FWIW I consider the information you give to be slightly more comprehensive than that given by me. Since both examples are significantly more complete than the average I am pretty sure that we are both meeting our disclosure requirements. > The card we use for international events says that 1NT is 15-17, may > include five-card majors, six- or (rarely) seven-card minors, some 5422 > shapes, and some 5431 hands with a singleton honour. We also explain > (elsewhere) that our point count upgrades aces, and downgrades queens > and jacks. In domestic competition, we make no mention of the 5431 > shapes, nor do we open 1NT when we have them. You see, we are not > allowed to. I believe you have misinterpreted the law as regards domestic competition. BTW if you persist with your interpretation I think you need to exclude the "rare 7 card minors" as well. > > > It may be thought that these Laws do not amount to very much. > > > But between them, they are a foundation for a game in which people > > > have what they say they have, and can tell the opponents what > > > this is. > > > Actually that is somewhat different from what you said earlier where > > you drew the distinction between "can tell the opponents about it" and > > "have told the opponents about it before doing it". > > Both are elements of disclosure. They are equally important, but the > latter is not always appropriate in cases where what is done is not at > variance with common practice. True, the difficulty lies in working out what is "common practice". Cue-bidding is one area where different approaches are "common", upgrading aces and downgrading quacks is common in some circles and not in others, etc, etc. > > They might, although probably not. They will never be able to if you > >want all the agreements to be on the cc since it would have to change > >after every hand to reflect the experience/discussion gained and each > auction would take about 3 days while giving "complete" explanations of > >every call. > > Strangely enough, this is not so. How can it not be? Complete information will include statistics such as "in 87% of previous uses of this call the hand fell within the broad parameters, in 11% it fell within the bounds established by our mutual judgement, in 2% it was..." Of course such statistics change with each hand. And yes, I can readily accept that such complete information is not what is really wanted despite the fact that the law doesn't actual say so. > Pairs should not, in my opinion, agree to play methods that they cannot > describe, for this is illegal. If you cannot tell me what you are > playing, then you should not be playing it. So we make pick-up partnerships illegal/unplayable - a fine approach. Burn and Callaghan can play with themselves (and perhaps a very small group of other people). How wonderful for us all. Beginners will also be illegal (as will 99% of intermediates - but that won't matter because the beginners will never gain sufficient experience to move on). I can sit down with a player and agree "Basic Acol". The first auction he opens 1S, I bid 3S and he bids 4D. I can tell you it shows a control in diamonds (though not whether it is first or second round), I can tell you that if it is a second round control he denies 1st/2nd control of clubs and implies 1st round control of hearts. I can't tell whether, with first round diamond control, he denies second round club control. I have no doubt that you could answer all of these questions when describing your agreements with Brian - that will be to your advantage when making decisions. > > So why not take a pragmatic approach? > > Because such a course is nowhere sanctioned by Law. > > > Accept that L40A gives the right to > > psyche (or make undiscussed calls for that matter). > > Why? The words of Law 40A, read in the order in which they appear and > construed in the language in which they are written, give no such right. > Perhaps they were supposed to, but they do not. If they did, of course, > I would have no objection. It is a matter of interpretation. If you want to interpret them as I suggest you are free so to do. > > Accept that L40B gives the right to make calls if opponents can > > reasonably be expected to understand the meaning, or if disclosure > > rules (including alerts/answering questions) are followed. > > I have no difficulty with that at all. Nor do I. However The words of Law 40B, read in the order in which they appear and construed in the language in which they are written, give no such right. Again it is a matter of finding a reasonable interpretation. 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 Jul 31 22:16:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6VCFeF25292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 22:15:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6VCFYH25283 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 22:15:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g6VC0sf00199 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:00:54 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Jul 31 13:56:06 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KKQWQUBNPM001Q9T@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 13:59:59 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 13:59:28 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 13:59:59 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: "'grandeval'" , "Kooijman, A." Cc: bridge-laws , "Grattan Endicott (home)" , Grattan Endicott Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > > > > It seems to me that the request is to consider the > interpretation of the > > interpretation of L40D. > > The word 'unrestricted' seems important then. We could say > > something as 'unrestricted' as long as the application is legal. And > > once we have done so somebody might come up with the idea to > > burn all interpretations regarding L40D and spread the ashes on > > a graveyard, telling that L40D is clear enough in itself. > > That won't harm given the present situation. > > > > ton > > > +=+ The word 'unrestricted' comes from the hearing in > Geneva 1990 when the WBF Executive agreed in a joint hearing > with the Rules and Regulations Committee, as I had argued on > behalf of the WBFLC, the error of Kaplan's contention in his > appeal that the regulation applied to his action behind screens > was illegal because in conflict with Law 80F. I contended that > the Laws made it clear in a number of ways that regulations made > under 80E, 40D, 40E, were made under those laws and not under > 80F, and that the powers were expressed in unrestricted terms. So let them drop the bomb! It is hardly possible to follow this reasoning, with distinctions made between 80F and 80E with others. May be you can give me a lecture in Montreal? One question for the moment: Are you telling here that executing these powers may result in infringing the laws, because these powers are expressed in unrestricted terms? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 22:44:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6VChop25380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 22:43:50 +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-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 g6VChfH25376 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 22:43:41 +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 17Zsap-0005cl-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 13:28:58 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 11:35:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees References: <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <002201c2370d$f783aea0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <000901c2374d$e9941240$922a2850@pacific> <001901c2376f$01113e40$b012e150@dodona> <000901c23829$78e23360$0e4f87d9@4nrw70j> In-Reply-To: <000901c23829$78e23360$0e4f87d9@4nrw70j> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk grandeval writes > >Grattan Endicott============================================ >"We work in the dark - we do what we can - we >give what we have. Our doubt is our passion and >our passion is our task. The rest is the madness >of the art." [Henry James] >.......................................................................... >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:38 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees > > >> Grattan Endicott writes >> >Grattan Endicott> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >"Rights that depend on the sufferance of >> >the state are of uncertain tenure." >> > - Suzanne La Follette. >> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > >> > >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: "David Stevenson" >> >To: >> >Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 12:03 AM >> >Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees >> > >> >> >> >+=+ It is my understanding that, in anything that affects >> >the reputation of the player >> >> I refuse to believe that a referee's report gives any indication of >> free-kicks, throw-ins, and the like. We are talking ordinary appeals, >> against ordinary rulings, and there is no right of appeal in football >> whatever against such things. >> >+=+ I do not think you have read my words. Red and Yellow > Cards are reported and may be appealed; these are the matters > that go onto the player's record and can affect his reputation, > his livelihood. The Director's judgemental rulings are > related to ethics, propriety; they may affect the player's > reputation, even his livelihood..In my view of natural justice > they should not be appealed to a colleague or associate of > the Director. Given the judgement of the Court of Human Rights > in the matter of the Prison Governor who extended a prisoner's > term of confinement for an alleged assault upon a warder, > 8,000 damages and costs a few days ago, I would consider > it a risk to have such an arrangement in our appeals process. > You are wrong about cricket, too; the third umpire deals > only with mechanical rulings, other matters go to the > neutral referee and may be appealed to the ICC or whoever. The trouble with analogies is that they are often poor. In cricket, for example, what you are calling mechanical rulings are the equivalent of judgement rulings in bridge. When a player hesitates [allegedly] and his partner takes action [allegedly] that is the equivalent of a foul in football or what you are calling a mechanical ruling at cricket, and such things are not subject to independent tribunals. On the other hand, reports of red and yellow cards are the equivalent of reports by a TD to his SO, and I would not expect them to be dealt by groups of other TDs. It is difficult to see why you believe that standard ordinary rulings require independent trribunals in bridge but not in other sports: I am in agreement with you that higher levels of misconduct require such tribunals, and they do so in other sports. >> > I would only add that the idea of offering the players >> >an option sounds very much like intellectual blackmail to >> >me, calculated to put the players under pressure to >> >accept the procedure. And I doubt very much that our >> >Law 91, taken with 93B3, would stand up this week in >> >a European Court of Law. It is a pity that when an action that players will like is put forward objections of this sort are put forward. Could we not do things for the benefit of the players? Not everyone really wants to stay late after a session. It seems wrong that a threat of the European court of law should be used to make life more difficult for the people it allegedly protects. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 22:58:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6VCwQM25397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 22:58:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6VCwLH25393 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 22:58:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-7.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.7] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17ZspI-0003ba-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 08:43:41 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020731082916.00b3d100@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 08:46:04 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 In-Reply-To: <6JSgSqByKyR9EwjA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020730083211.00a90810@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020730083211.00a90810@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:35 PM 7/30/02, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > >At 04:01 PM 7/29/02, David wrote: > > > >> Can I ask, Ton, what is the point of this? Surely competent and > >>reasonable bridge authorities will run bridge fairly competently and > >>fairly reasonably? Surely biased, terrible and unreasonable ones will > >>run bridge in an awful way. I really do not believe that > >>interpretations of the Law book will change this. > > > >"Biased, terrible [or] unreasonable [bridge authorities] will run > >bridge in an awful way" *unless* they are checked and constrained from > >doing so by some higher authority. The WBF is the *only* organization > >with the legal and moral standing to function as that higher authority, > >which gives considerable force to the argument that they have a moral > >obligation to do so. > > > >We have heard repeatedly, from David and others, that the WBF's > >interpretations of TFLB have the force of law, and, indeed, that is > >generally recognized even by the most unreasonable of their member > >organizations. So it seems a bit specious to argue in this context > >that those interpretations have no effect and cannot bring about any > >change in how those member organizations regulate the game. > > Please do not mis-quote me completely!!!! > > Tell me when I said the interpretations had no effect? Apparently I misread David's "interpretations... will [not] change this" as applying to the subject of the thread, rather than to the straw man of "converting a bad authority into a good one", which nobody has even remotely suggested might be the case. > That is not what I said at all. What I said was that if a lousy >organisation runs it in a lousy way, a couple of interpretations will >not stop them doing that. For example, if the Atlantis Combined Bridge >Legation decide to only allow life masters to earn master points, while >others have to pay for them, that's pretty despicable: I do not believe >that an interpretation of L40D will make the ACBL any better. [By ACBL >*of course* I mean Atlantis Combined Bridge Legation.] > > Interpretations of laws will have an effect, often a great effect - >BUT - it will not have the one specific effect people seem to expect, >namely converting a bad authority into a good one with a wave of the >magic wand. I see no evidence whatsoever that anybody expects this. Interpretations will not have the effect of turning bad regulators into good ones. But they will constrain bad regulators from making those particular egregiously bad regulations that the interpretations preclude. Reversing one or two or three bad regulations will not turn other (present or future) bad regulations into good ones, nor will it turn incompetent regulators into competent ones, but this is hardly an argument against doing so. Reversing one or two or three bad regulations will merely rid us of one or two or three bad regulations, but why would that not be a good thing to do? If we insist that we must solve the whole general problem at one go, and use this as an excuse to refuse to implement solutions that only address some parts or aspects of the entire problem, we shall never solve anything. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/