From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 1 01:50:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6VFn3c25461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 01:49:03 +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-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 g6VFmwH25457 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 01:48:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.40.30.102] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17ZvUE-0009hQ-00; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 16:34:06 +0100 Message-ID: <000201c238a7$6cb6ac00$661e2850@pacific> From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200207302339.QAA13110@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Watson doubles (Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 11:52:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 12:40 AM Subject: Re: Watson doubles (Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001) > > Gordon Bower wrote: > > > > 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 understand the objective of the regulation is that a player shall not make a psyche and a Watson Double on the same board. ~ 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 Aug 1 01:55:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6VFtRX25473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 01:55:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.224.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6VFtKH25469 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 01:55:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from root by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17Zva2-00025T-00 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 17:40:06 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Received: from news by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17ZhZH-0004Ob-00 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 02:42:23 +0200 Path: not-for-mail From: Michael Farebrother Newsgroups: gmane.games.bridge.laws Subject: [BLML] Re: EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 00:42:23 +0000 (UTC) Organization: None. Lines: 269 Message-ID: References: <006001c237e2$0ddfc2e0$3d182850@pacific> NNTP-Posting-Host: boh110c5y41dl.ab.hsia.telus.net X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1028076143 16900 66.222.195.171 (31 Jul 2002 00:42:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 00:42:23 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Xnews/L5 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk wrote in news:006001c237e2$0ddfc2e0$3d182850@pacific: >>[Ton Kooijman] >> 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 read this as saying that an SO that ton kooijman > considers to be biased, terrible and unreasonable is > ipso facto biased, terrible and unreasonable. I read this as saying that an SO can be biased, terrible or unreasonable while still being a member of the WBF. No personal opinions - people probably remember mine; just that it is possible. > 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. However, I believe that this is dangerous, if not outright wrong, at least partly for the reasons TWM and others cite. And I've had my share of "But it's not alertable" from both sides of the Atlantic while playing online - well, just because it isn't alertable where you are doesn't mean it's not alert-worthy in a world environment; if you want to know why, just realize that your opponents went wrong because they didn't expect it (It being Stayman over a NT overcall, Jacoby transfers, Polish Club, whatever). One problem I have with ACBL bridge is their total lack of interest in how it's done in the rest of the world. One of their regulations that I believe is supremely silly - if not actively dangerous, given the power of the ACBL - is their (now the USBF's) system regulations for the (W)ITT. Believe it or not, the tournament that qualifies the winner to be US I is *ACBL* Midchart during the round robin, *ACBL* Superchart during the KOs. Never, until they actually get to the Olympiad, do US teams ever play under the conditions they are going to face in the Olympiad. For instance, they've never seen: 9-12 NTs Wilkosz 2D a psyched artificial opening bid However, they are going to meet - and possibly play - even in the RR, things they are not going to be allowed to play in the RR of the Olympiad: 2S showing a weak preempt in either minor 3C showing an undisclosed solid suit And we wonder why there are perennial grumblings from Leftpondia about "having to learn defences to all these silly systems for a 8-board match" (Hamman) and "No matter how good their disclosure, I don't feel comfortable playing against a Polish Club" (Cohen - though to his credit, he was neither saying that "this shouldn't be allowed" nor was he resistant to sensible suggestions about how to get more comfortable) (Polish Club is GCC, provided their 1D response is forcing). Why don't they have the "generic defences" to random two-suiters/weak-or-strong 2s/suchlike that the Netherlanders (for instance) have? Not only that, why don't they realize that they will get 95% effectiveness, with 10% of the memorizing (and no special "night-before" memorizing) by creating such generic defences; therefore they will have more energy to devote to actually playing Bridge? Because we in the ACBL coddle our experts, protecting them from the "big evil world" out there. And perfectly legally, too. We protect them from people who consider "pass" the most space-saving call, and so open their strong hands with it. We protect them from people who do state, based not on agreement, but on their at-the-table experience, in what situations one of their calls could be psychic. And since 90%+ of the bridge they play is GCC, they don't know how do defend the Multi. They don't know whether a kamikaze NV/strong V NT system is better than straight 15-17 (Ok, Meckwell excepted). They haven't tried Muiderberg 2M openers - because one is giving up too much without 2D available for the "regular" 2M hands. And it's not really worth putting the energy into a relay system if they can only play it in 3 cases, and since they're not the top 3 seeds, they'll have to play a whole 'nother system in the RR of the ITT. So they don't do it. And they don't ever learn how to defend against one. And then they hit Marston-del'Monte round 1, and flounder. Having said that, if one wants an example of what you can - legally - do as an SO, you can regulate that "Players may play only these conventions in this event. Not only that, they may not choose to *not play* them." Don't believe me? The ACBL has done this twice! One of the systems has faded so much into obscurity that I can barely remember the name of the event, and the other has survived because of online bridge - not that 90% of the people playing SAYC know what they're playing. Witness all the people who put down that they play "SAYC, transfers, Michaels, Unusual 2NT, J2N". And given the WBF interpretation of L80F, I am allowed to create regulations under L80E that make Crazy Bridge (at least most of it) legal, sanctionable bridge! Crazy Bridge for BLMLites: Board 1: In L1, reverse the order of cards within each suit. Board 2: "Two-headed Giant": before play, South and East switch places before removing hand. Board 3: Reverse the direction of play. Board 4: You will note that each hand only has 5 cards. This is not an error. Declarer receives a bonus of 8 tricks. ... Notice that these are all "regulations establishing special conditions of [...] play". Ok, so they don't fit with the examples given in L80E, but the examples aren't part of the Laws, right? I could probably, without actually violating the Laws, add the chips we normally play Crazy Bridge with: "+1", "-1" and "Stop" (If you throw in the Stop chip at your turn to call (whenever that is) it is considered 3 legal passes. You only get to do it once per session, but it's amazing how natural the bidding is in the first few rounds...) I expect a resounding chorus of "But that's not Bridge!" All of you who say or think that - realize that all TWM is saying is for him, the barrier of "not Bridge" is closer to what's currently legal in the EBU. As I said, Crazy Bridge is legal, if the SO devolves such regulation to me (or if I *am* the SO)... Note, I agree with you; I am worried about a code of Laws that allows the above to be called "Bridge". I am also worried about a WBF that considers SO freedom so highly that it chooses to "interpret" the Laws in such a way as to make this possible - whether anyone would be silly enough to do it, SOs certainly have done the equivalent in many peoples' eyes at one time or another. > 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 ~ +=+ Whereas, I know for a fact (ok, based on statements made by members of the ACBL that I know) that the ACBL is biased - how else do you interpret someone saying that "weak hands that can be 4-4 are too hard to defend to be MidChart legal, so no defence will be authorized for one" - when the Midchart allows "any call that shows four or more cards in a known suit" - provided such a defence is authorized? Especially when they have such a defence already (for 2H showing 4-4 or better in the majors)? I'm not so sure about terrible or unreasonable, but I am willing to assume that they are no more so than the general population. I do not like, and have stated this on many occasions, interpretations of the FLB that allow "back door" banning of legal natural calls. I am actually very happy with the second sentence in L40D (The "hand of a king or more below average" one) - whether I want SOs to have this power is immaterial; when they tell me I can't play it, they can point me to the sentence and there it is in black and white. If I was to make a material (i.e. not "never gonna happen, so ya might as well siddown, shuddup, and PTFGame") it would be to print the Interpretations of the Laws with the Laws themselves - or at least point to where the Interpretations are publicly available. And, when the next edition of the Laws comes out, include these Interpretations into the Laws, the way the power to restrict ferts was added to L40D. Having said that, this "L80F only applies to regulations made under L80F" thing is at best counter-intuitive, and at worst craven. I challenge you to find a non-bridge player who would interpret L80F in that way. I'll expand the challenge to include finding someone who would interpret the powers to regulate conventions given in L40D to include regulations that directly supersede L40A, specifically the "departs from previously announced use of a convention" bit - without a Law that states that in case of conflict between Laws, the higher numbered Law takes precedence (and then where are you with L80F?). The other Game I play (Advanced Squad Leader) and which I have used as an example here before, does have exceptions - all over the place. But they're listed and cross-referenced. And they *do* have a rule that barring an exception, if rules conflict, the higher-numbered rule takes precedence (E.2). And a rule that states that for any particular scenario you choose to play, the designer of that scenario may write rules that supersede the rulebook (strangely enough, they're called SSRs - scenario special rules - and are defined in the Index). Why? Because wargamers as a group are rules junkies - the concept of playing a game where they players don't have to know the rules is incomprehensible to them. As a wargamer :-) I am not happy with this situation. Whether it's an SO "banning" otherwise legal, natural calls by making them impossible to use, or artfully blue-pencilling other Laws by creating regulations that are "in conflict with, these Laws" but, since they aren't regulated via L80F, L80F doesn't apply to them, or any other seemingly illegal action, it should be obvious to a competent reader of English what the Laws allow and do not allow. I would like a universal governing body that *would* step in when certain SOs are going so far out of line with the rest of the world that it is harming the global game - or putting the Laws themselves (and through them, the Lawmakers) in contempt. I do believe that this comes from a fundemental US/RoW schism - and in this, I'm thinking like an American (I'll go wash out my mouth once I'm done writing). In the US, everything's legal by default, and the Laws are around to limit what can be done - and the expectation is that Powers That Be *will* screw over the people on the street in any way they legally can. In (most of) the rest of the world, it is assumed that governing bodies are basically benevolent in their thinking and actions, looking out for their governed; so allowing as much "freedom" as possible is the right thing to do. In other words, we in the USA count on the Laws to protect us from our governments - and when we find out that those Laws will be interpreted to give those governments as much latitude as possible, well... The answer to Ton's "do you think anyone would *do* that with their power?" is "Hell yeah! Eventually someone stupid enough or crooked enough or bribed well enough will get in." - at least it is in Zone II. I've rambled on too much. I'll stop here. I apologize, and hope that my point has got across. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 1 02:37:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6VGbSS25651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 02:37:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6VGbNH25647 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 02:37:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (183.187-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.187.183]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g6VGMdL24138 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 18:22:39 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D480ECA.9060507@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 18:22:34 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: EBU Appeals 2001 References: <006001c237e2$0ddfc2e0$3d182850@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Notice that Michael has apparently moved from Christmas Island to Tonga, so he's allowed to say whatever he wants about the acbl. How many people have asked you yet if to stands for Toronto, Michael ? Michael Farebrother wrote: [snipped] but read, understood and agreed with. > > -- please note my new e-mail address : hermandw@skynet.be Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 1 03:49:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6VHnO125749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 03:49:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from jet.kar.net (root@jet.kar.net [195.178.131.133]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6VHnHH25745 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 03:49:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from svk (193.dialup.kar.net [195.178.130.193]) by jet.kar.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g6VHYU418289 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:34:30 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from kapust@mail.kar.net) Message-ID: <002c01c238b9$a42ccd60$c182b2c3@svk> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: References: <00d001c23854$0592a4a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD code Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:42:23 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi blmlists, I agreed with Vitold that the document similar to TD Code should be prepared and then apporovd by correspondent body of WBF. Also I agree with Vitold's text almost entirely but think that there should be described disciplinary power of TD - with details, as it is made in ACBL regulation. There happens (especially in club games, where players are TD's friends out of bridge room) that TD has problems with ofenders of discipline. It willl be much better for him to have a possibility for reading corrrespondent Law from TD Code - and penalize for infraction of any kind (such as loud discussing or usage non-polite words and so on and so forth) - pure technically, as for revoke. Sergey K., Vice-President of Ukranian BF -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 1 06:16:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6VKFaw25971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 06:15:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6VKFUH25967 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 06:15:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.64.142.15] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17Zzdr-000MRn-00; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 21:00:19 +0100 Message-ID: <000601c238cd$6ab9ae40$0f8e403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." Cc: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:39:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "'grandeval'" ; "Kooijman, A." Cc: "bridge-laws" ; "Grattan Endicott (home)" ; "Grattan Endicott" Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 12:59 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > > > Ton: > > > 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 > > > > > Grattan: > > +=+ 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. > > Ton: > 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? > Grattan : +=+ You may have noted that the WBF Systems Policy (copied by the EBL) infringes the laws; the regulations for screens in the WBF (and elsewhere) infringe the laws; the bans on psyching conventional openers (EBL and ACBL) infringe the laws; the ban on associating a Watson double with a psyche by the same player infringes the laws; the control of opening standards through disallowing use of conventions with a substandard opener (ACBL and EBU) infringes the laws; the control of three card natural overcalls by this last means (EBU) infringes the laws, and who knows what else. Except, that is, for the fact that at various times and in divers places the WBF has decided (a) that none of the laws under which these regulations are made (40D, 40E, 80E) specifies any restriction on the nature of the regulation, and (b) that indeed none of these regulations is made under Law 80F, the other laws cited not being subordinated to 80F but independent of it. Now if there is a belief that the WBF can be led into destroying at a blow the legitimacy of all these regs, and possibly others, I shall be much entertained to see it attempted. Some might see the attempt as an exercise in destroying international harmony, others might join me in regarding it as exemplifying a bumptious disaffection with a world in which all officialdom is out of step except our Harry. We are where we are in this because the international authorities have considered it desirable for the administration of the game. So are we to look upon the pygmy institutions that have adopted these measures as "biased, terrible and unreasonable"? ~ 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 Aug 1 07:48:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6VLlXF26024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 07:47:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g6VLlSH26020 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 07:47:28 +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 g6VLWmP01034 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:32:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004e01c238d9$b233e7c0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000601c238cd$6ab9ae40$0f8e403e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:31:26 -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 Grattan Endicott wrote: > Except, that is, for the fact that at various times > and in divers places the WBF has decided (a) that none > of the laws under which these regulations are made > (40D, 40E, 80E) specifies any restriction on the nature > of the regulation, and (b) that indeed none of these > regulations is made under Law 80F, the other laws > cited not being subordinated to 80F but independent > of it. Ever since the Lausanne meeting of ? and the CoP that came out of it, I have wanted to know how L80F could ever take effect in preventing the publishing or announcing of an SO regulation that conflicts with the Laws. If there is no such instance that can be described, then perhaps L80F should be deleted. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 1 09:34:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g6VNY7726082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 09:34:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.224.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g6VNY1H26078 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 09:34:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17a2jv-00075Y-00 for ; Thu, 01 Aug 2002 01:18:47 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Received: from news by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17a2jv-00075Q-00 for ; Thu, 01 Aug 2002 01:18:47 +0200 Path: not-for-mail From: Michael Farebrother Newsgroups: gmane.games.bridge.laws Subject: [BLML] RE: EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 23:18:47 +0000 (UTC) Organization: None. Lines: 32 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: boh110c5y41dl.ab.hsia.telus.net X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1028157527 27242 66.222.195.171 (31 Jul 2002 23:18:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 23:18:47 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Xnews/L5 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Kooijman, A." wrote in news:F383745D3CA8D5118C7800508B05621833269A@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl: > >>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! According to my computer, the current date is Wed Sep 3256 17:19:10 MDT 1993 On the internet, it's *always* September. (For explanation, see http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/ September-that-never-ended.html ). Cheers, Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 1 10:37:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g710a6e26114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 10:36:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g710a0H26110 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 10:36:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g710LLb09957 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 01:21:22 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 01:13:47 +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 >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. > I agree with this. It is due to such input we reduced David's serpentine prose to a modicum of intelligibility, and also produced a large number of improvements. 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 Aug 1 10:51:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g710pSb26131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 10:51:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g710pMH26127 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 10:51:23 +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 RAA22676; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 17:36:36 -0700 Message-Id: <200208010036.RAA22676@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: EBU Appeals 2001 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 31 Jul 2002 00:42:23 -0000." Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 17:37:27 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > Having said that, if one wants an example of what you can - legally > - do as an SO, you can regulate that "Players may play only these > conventions in this event. Not only that, they may not choose to > *not play* them." Yes, you can so choose---you can enter a different event. > Don't believe me? The ACBL has done this twice! One of the systems > has faded so much into obscurity that I can barely remember the name > of the event The "Classic Card". This was an attempt to appeal to bridge players who wanted to play bridge the way it used to be, with simpler conventions. It was introduced at an NABC, where the bridge players it would have appealed to would likely not be playing unless they happened to live within a few miles of the NABC site. Thus, it died a quick death. > and the other has survived because of online bridge - > not that 90% of the people playing SAYC know what they're playing. > Witness all the people who put down that they play "SAYC, transfers, > Michaels, Unusual 2NT, J2N". The *event* the ACBL tried to hold, the Yellow Card game, has not survived. It wasn't popular enough. OK, so the ACBL can hold such events. So what? You seem to be rather upset that the ACBL's interpretation of the rules allows them to hold events where players' choice of agreements is restricted. Since, however, the ACBL (1) did not put a gun to anyone's head and force them to play in that event, and (2) held other events at the same time so that players who didn't like the restrictions could play somewhere else, I do not see why this is anything to get worked up about. In fact, I think of it as freedom of choice, something I happen to think is a good thing. > And given the WBF interpretation of L80F, I am allowed to create > regulations under L80E that make Crazy Bridge (at least most of it) > legal, sanctionable bridge! [snipped] > Notice that these are all "regulations establishing special > conditions of [...] play". Ok, so they don't fit with the examples > given in L80E, but the examples aren't part of the Laws, right? > > I could probably, without actually violating the Laws, add the chips > we normally play Crazy Bridge with: "+1", "-1" and "Stop" (If you > throw in the Stop chip at your turn to call (whenever that is) it is > considered 3 legal passes. You only get to do it once per session, > but it's amazing how natural the bidding is in the first few > rounds...) > > I expect a resounding chorus of "But that's not Bridge!" . . . > > Note, I agree with you; I am worried about a code of Laws that > allows the above to be called "Bridge". I don't see what there is to worry about. So someone wants to call something "Bridge" that I wouldn't call it anything close to "Bridge". Fine, so I think they're nuts. But what exactly am I supposed to be worried about? That if someone starts calling such a strange game "Bridge", then the next day they're going to get a gun and start shooting randomly into crowds? I'm perfectly fine with letting crazy people play any game they want and call it any damn thing they want. How am I or you or anyone else harmed by this? [snip] > As a wargamer :-) I am not happy with this situation. The ACBL has over 160,000 members and who knows how many nonmembers who regularly play in their games; and if they have found themselves unable to make every single one of them happy, that's probably one of the least of their failings. > Whether it's an SO "banning" otherwise legal, natural calls by > making them impossible to use, or artfully blue-pencilling other > Laws by creating regulations that are "in conflict with, these Laws" > but, since they aren't regulated via L80F, L80F doesn't apply to > them, or any other seemingly illegal action, it should be obvious to > a competent reader of English what the Laws allow and do not allow. > I would like a universal governing body that *would* step in when > certain SOs are going so far out of line with the rest of the world > that it is harming the global game Now that I don't see. If there is any way that players in England, or the Netherlands, or Burkina Faso or Bhutan or wherever, have been harmed by the ACBL's tendency to go its own way on certain issues, I will need this explained to me. What is this "harm to the global game" of which you speak? The WBF's failure to be alarmed at the ACBL's actions would indicate that either (1) they don't think the global game is being harmed, or (2) they themselves are incompetent or biased or something, in which case you probably don't want them to start stepping in anyway. > or putting the Laws themselves > (and through them, the Lawmakers) in contempt. > > I do believe that this comes from a fundemental US/RoW schism - and > in this, I'm thinking like an American (I'll go wash out my mouth > once I'm done writing). I guess those who thought you were from Tonga were mistaken. > In the US, everything's legal by default, > and the Laws are around to limit what can be done - and the > expectation is that Powers That Be *will* screw over the people on > the street in any way they legally can. In (most of) the rest of > the world, it is assumed that governing bodies are basically > benevolent in their thinking and actions, looking out for their > governed; so allowing as much "freedom" as possible is the right > thing to do. In other words, we in the USA count on the Laws to > protect us from our governments They don't. Laws have an annoying tendency to just sit there and look like a bunch of ink on paper when our governments start screwing us. Of course, Laws need someone to enforce them and actually carry out this protection; the flaw there is that the people responsible for enforcing them are drawn from the same species as that that makes up the government. Which, by the way, is the same species that those who write the Laws in the first place come from. What I find somewhat fascinating, in both bridge and political matters, is that people who do not trust governments to look after the good of the people so often depend on higher authorities to rein in those governments, ignoring the fact that the human foibles---greed, ego, power-lust, incompetence, insensitivity to the desires of others, etc.---that cause those governments to pursue things other than the good of the governed, are going to be present in the humans that make up those higher authorities as well. > and when we find out that those > Laws will be interpreted to give those governments as much latitude > as possible, well... > > The answer to Ton's "do you think anyone would *do* that with their > power?" is "Hell yeah! Eventually someone stupid enough or crooked > enough or bribed well enough will get in." - at least it is in Zone > II. I suppose the WBF, however, is surrounded by some sort of force field, or maybe a layer of custard, that prevents such people from getting in? -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 1 16:43:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g716f3o26294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 16:41:03 +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 g716evH26286 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 16:40:57 +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 g716QDP26024 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 23:26:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <010001c23924$368532a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Defensive Claim Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 23:25:04 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I think I asked this before, but here goes again. Can a defender legally claim when one or more of the tricks claimed will be won by partner? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 1 18:06:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7185tU26335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 18:05:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7185nH26331 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 18:05:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.78.203] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17aAjH-0006yu-00; Thu, 01 Aug 2002 08:50:39 +0100 Message-ID: <003301c23930$a60edac0$cb4ee150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200208010036.RAA22676@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 08:52:44 +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: Thursday, August 01, 2002 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: EBU Appeals 2001 > > > > > The answer to Ton's "do you think anyone would > > *do* that with their power?" is "Hell yeah! Eventually > > someone stupid enough or crooked enough or bribed > > well enough will get in." - at least it is in Zone II. > > I suppose the WBF, however, is surrounded by some > sort of force field, or maybe a layer of custard, that > prevents such people from getting in? > +=+ One of the services provided by blml is to give a minority of people opportunity to gripe about the actions of the majority who control the tournament game. Overwhelmingly the yelps come from ACBL members, but even there the subscribers who gripe are just very few and ever the same names. If it were otherwise the democratic process would have had time to change the governors. We might even get in some of the intelligent straight citizens (self designated) who complain to blml. The idea that the NBOs, the Zones, and the WBF itself are in hands that have any objective other than to benefit the game and its participants is paranoid. There will always be people who disagree with policies, whatever they are and by whomsoever they are put in place. If there were enough of them the policies would alter, or they would set up alternative organizations, domestically and internationally. The bodiesconcerned are in place to make the decisions; they do so and although some may feel they know better this is just a matter of opinion. Until the dissidents can carry majorities in the councils of the game the fact will remain that opinion is against them - which is not to say they should not continue to argue their point of view provided they maintain a sense of balance. But it only stresses the poverty of their case when they rely on extravagant examples of weird abuses that could happen but do 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 Thu Aug 1 21:35:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g71BZ5526448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 21:35:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g71BYxH26444 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 21:34:59 +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 g71BKFf10288 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:20:15 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Aug 01 13:15:31 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KKS9LT67SW001RGL@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 01 Aug 2002 13:19:21 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 01 Aug 2002 13:18:49 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 13:19:20 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: "'John (MadDog) Probst'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > In article , David Stevenson > writes > >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. > > > I agree with this. It is due to such input we reduced David's > serpentine > prose to a modicum of intelligibility, and also produced a > large number > of improvements. cheers john The reactions so far just support my request. Grattan, David, John are all respectable EBU members I suppose? Mind you I didn't ask you to stop all consultations. Not to fall in my own trap this is my last message on this subject. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 1 21:54:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g71BsPa26465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 21:54:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g71BsJH26461 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 21:54:20 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g71Bdbc08994 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 12:39:37 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 12:39 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: 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: <003301c23930$a60edac0$cb4ee150@dodona> Grattan wrote: > +=+ One of the services provided by blml is to give a > minority of people opportunity to gripe about the > actions of the majority who control the tournament game. > Overwhelmingly the yelps come from ACBL members, > but even there the subscribers who gripe are just very > few and ever the same names. And those who defend the status quo are also very few and ever the same names. It's a small mailing list with many "non-active" readers so why should this be surprising. > If it were otherwise the democratic process would have had time to > change the governors. We might even get in some of the > intelligent straight citizens (self designated) who > complain to blml. London clubs had (still have?) a democratic process for electing new members - "Blackballing". It worked for the clubs and a similarly democratic process works the ACBL/EBU. > The idea that the NBOs, the Zones, and the WBF > itself are in hands that have any objective other than > to benefit the game and its participants is paranoid. And the idea that the bridge barrel is completely free of bad apples is astoundingly naive. Whether we look at the directors who took $29 billion out of companies going bankrupt, Hamilton's "cash for questions", Clinton and property deals, Kohl's political funding, Marcos, Mugabe or , on a smaller scale, the traffic cop taking bribes and not writing tickets we may draw conclusions. Either power tends to corrupt or power tends to attract the corruptible. A "paranoid" person once wrote that the price of democracy is eternal vigilance (or something like that). That is not say that men and women of integrity and honour cannot/do not achieve power. Many do and I am sure the luminaries of bridge include such people. > There will always be people who disagree with > policies, whatever they are and by whomsoever they > are put in place. If there were enough of them the > policies would alter, Why? The EBU does not act on the will of the majority but on the representatives interpretation of it. The two things *could* be different without the EBU even knowing about it. > or they would set up alternative > organizations, domestically and internationally. As I recall something like 30% of people are unhappy with the service they get from their banks but do not move their accounts because it is too much hassle. Admittedly it would require a lot less time, resources and commitment to establish a competitor to the EBU than to change a bank account so maybe this is irrelevant! Oh, and while I try to set up this competitor the EBU constitution enables them to ban anyone who participates in my events from competing in EBU competitions - I could not expect to attract those (like me) who are only mildly unhappy with the the EBU as a whole. I would be relying on those so disenchanted with the EBU that they don't care. Any club that even displayed my promotional materials would also be open to EBU sanction. The Americans have an expression "You can't fight city hall" - most "dissidents" know this. > The bodies concerned are in place to make the decisions; > they do so and although some may feel they know > better this is just a matter of opinion. Of course it is a matter of opinion - what else could it be? However the belief (from within) that the organising bodies *couldn't* do better reeks of arrogance and complacency. > Until the dissidents can carry majorities in the councils of the > game the fact will remain that opinion is against them This is self-evident. If majority opinion on a council is against something then it is unlikely to happen. > - which is not to say they should not continue to > argue their point of view provided they maintain a > sense of balance. But it only stresses the poverty > of their case when they rely on extravagant examples > of weird abuses that could happen but do not. One objective of legislation is surely to prevent abuses before they happen. Introducing legislation after an abuse is often referred to as stable door politics - I can't imagine why. Weird examples can fulfil another purpose they can help demonstrate that words such "unrestricted" are obviously not intended/useful as such. Rather we have a continuum of potential polices from the completely ludicrous to the self-evidently correct. Once that continuum is visualised the need for defining a breakpoint becomes apparent. 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 Aug 1 22:08:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g71C8Tk26482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 22:08:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g71C8NH26478 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 22:08:23 +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 g71Brff15064 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:53:41 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Aug 01 13:48:57 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KKSAS3EFOO001R3X@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 01 Aug 2002 13:52:39 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 01 Aug 2002 13:52:08 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 13:52:39 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: EBU Appeals 2001 To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Adam Beneschan Cc: adam@irvine.com 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 answer to Ton's "do you think anyone would > > > *do* that with their power?" is "Hell yeah! Eventually > > > someone stupid enough or crooked enough or bribed > > > well enough will get in." - at least it is in Zone II. > > > > I suppose the WBF, however, is surrounded by some > > sort of force field, or maybe a layer of custard, that > > prevents such people from getting in? > > > +=+ One of the services provided by blml is to give a > minority of people opportunity to gripe about the > actions of the majority who control the tournament game. > Overwhelmingly the yelps come from ACBL members, > but even there the subscribers who gripe are just very > few and ever the same names. If it were otherwise the > democratic process would have had time to change > the governors. We might even get in some of the > intelligent straight citizens (self designated) who > complain to blml. > The idea that the NBOs, the Zones, and the WBF > itself are in hands that have any objective other than > to benefit the game and its participants is paranoid. > There will always be people who disagree with > policies, whatever they are and by whomsoever they > are put in place. If there were enough of them the > policies would alter, or they would set up alternative > organizations, domestically and internationally. The > bodiesconcerned are in place to make the decisions; > they do so and although some may feel they know > better this is just a matter of opinion. Until the > dissidents can carry majorities in the councils of the > game the fact will remain that opinion is against them > - which is not to say they should not continue to > argue their point of view provided they maintain a > sense of balance. But it only stresses the poverty > of their case when they rely on extravagant examples > of weird abuses that could happen but do not. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Well, we have some examples of (not so) extravagant examples that occurred which some of us consider to be abuses. Your answer on my question whether unrestricted powers given to S.O. makes it 'legal' to infringe the laws was clear even if not given this way: 'yes'. Quite interesting, it being legal to do illegal things. Do you understand that some of us do at least hesitate to agree when they express their opinion? And don't escape too easily. I take your list: screen regulations do not infringe the laws: L80E authorizes a S.O to make special regulations, explicitly given to them. regulations banning psyches on strong conventional opening bids, Watson, 3 card overcalls do infringe the laws. That is why there are objections. The laws as they are do not allow such decisions, you need a disputable interpretation from the LC to make illegal decisions legal, giving unrestricted powers. And the fact that respectable people have done so does't make it less disputable, though you seem to suggest so by proudly calling out all those famous names. (Let us take Watson: If a S.O. is allowed to make such decision it is just one step further to say that a psycher is not allowed to pass in his second turn to call, because this reveals the psyche and is aimed to prevent a disaster, and partner becoming defender might not start the suit. I know your reaction: It is up to the wisdom of the S.O. not to take terrible decisions. May be you don't consider this to be terrible even.) Forbidding conventions when a light opening is used is not infringing the laws. Still there are objections, but of another nature: You shouldn't have used your power this way. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 1 22:21:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g71CKvp26549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 22:20:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g71CKpH26545 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 22:20:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g71C68f18391 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 14:06:09 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Aug 01 14:01:24 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KKSB8R9YTA001RHZ@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 01 Aug 2002 14:06:05 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 01 Aug 2002 14:05:33 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 14:06:04 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: EBU Appeals 2001 To: "'Michael Farebrother'" , 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 Kooijman] > >> 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? Grattan: > > +=+ 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. I am somewhat amazed by this way of reacting. It is not up to the level we might hope for. David S came up with this categorie and tried to say that energy spent to those is wasted. Then I said that we should not give those any weapon to misuse. Nothing more, no fingers pointed in any direction and no intention to do so. May be Grattan can explain why he did react this way. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 2 03:09:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g71H6k226722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 03:06:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g71H6fH26718 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 03:06:41 +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 g71GpxB07899 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 09:51:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005201c2397b$a25a9040$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Late Play Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 09:47:38 -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 Washington DC NABC Life Master Pairs With neither pair at fault for starting a second board very late in the round, we were told to play the board later despite being two bids into the auction Does BLML find this acceptable? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 2 03:40:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g71HeTe26772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 03:40:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from zcamail04.zca.compaq.com (zcamail04.zca.compaq.com [161.114.32.104]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g71HeNH26768 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 03:40:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from cacexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net (cacexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net [16.105.250.119]) by zcamail04.zca.compaq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F9F7F3B for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 10:25:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cacexc02.americas.cpqcorp.net ([16.105.250.99]) by cacexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2966); Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:25:36 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [BLML] Why do Laws 40A and 40D exist in their present form? (Was EBU Appeals 2001) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 10:25:36 -0700 Message-ID: <5B57501A71B8FB4BB932B61651733B7C71FECC@cacexc02.americas.cpqcorp.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Why do Laws 40A and 40D exist in their present form? (Was EBU Appeals 2001) Thread-Index: AcI5gA4ol6F8+KMdEdam5AAIx5rWRw== From: "Farley, Wally" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Aug 2002 17:25:36.0821 (UTC) FILETIME=[7306AE50:01C23980] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g71HePH26769 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ You may have noted that the WBF Systems Policy > (copied by the EBL) infringes the laws; the regulations for > screens in the WBF (and elsewhere) infringe the laws; the > bans on psyching conventional openers (EBL and ACBL) > infringe the laws; the ban on associating a Watson double > with a psyche by the same player infringes the laws; the > control of opening standards through disallowing use of > conventions with a substandard opener (ACBL and EBU) > infringes the laws; the control of three card natural > overcalls by this last means (EBU) infringes the laws, > and who knows what else. > Except, that is, for the fact that at various times > and in divers places the WBF has decided (a) that none > of the laws under which these regulations are made > (40D, 40E, 80E) specifies any restriction on the nature > of the regulation, and (b) that indeed none of these > regulations is made under Law 80F, the other laws > cited not being subordinated to 80F but independent > of it. TFLB saya, in part: {Law 40A} A. Right to Choose Call or Play 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. One of the things which puzzles me is why -- considering the effect of the decisions of the WBF summarized above by Grattan -- it was felt necessary to maintain Laws 40A and 40D in their current form. The WBF has decided that it is proper to allow an SO (or ZO) to ban natural openings within a King of an average hand (e.g., "The Rule of 19"). It has decided that the right to regulate conventions may be used by a SO to make weak opening bids an unplayable method by restricting the use of conventions when such a natural bid is part of a system. Given all this -- which I accept as in acordance with the Laws as they exist -- I wonder why it was decided to keep Law 40A in its current form, rather than restating it as: "A Zonal Organization has the right to regulate the use of intentionally misleading calls -- such as psychic bids -- at its option. This right may be delegated to the Sponsoring organization. In the absence of such a regulation, ...{The current Law 40A)." Similarly, why is the exception included in Law 40D, particularly as certain SOs are doing their best to circumvent it? (I'm 100% with Herman De Wael here -- a Rule of 19 should not require "bridge judgment" to apply.) It appears to me that the desired effect could be had with the following amended Law 40D: "The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions. Zonal organisations may, in addition, regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional) of the partnership's initial actions at the one level. Zonal organisations may delegate this responsibility." It >>appears<< to me that the desired result of the current laws is to allow a ZO or SO to regulate psychic bids, conventions, and opening bids exactly as it pleases. This is not a tragedy in and of itself. What I regard as tragic is that this decision has been masked by retaining verbiage which >>appears<< to promise contestants the right to use those methods which their SO (and/or ZO) deprecate. Why not be straightforward, and announce >>plainly< the SO/ZO's right to regulate bidding systems? Wally Farley Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 2 03:56:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g71HuXh26795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 03:56:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g71HuSH26791 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 03:56:28 +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 KAA28145; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 10:41:42 -0700 Message-Id: <200208011741.KAA28145@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 01 Aug 2002 09:47:38 PDT." <005201c2397b$a25a9040$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 10:42:39 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Washington DC NABC Life Master Pairs > > With neither pair at fault for starting a second board very late in the > round, we were told to play the board later despite being two bids into the > auction > > Does BLML find this acceptable? I do. The lateness isn't the fault of either pair, but it's also not the fault of the N-S that E-W will play in the next round, nor of the E-W that will come to the N-S table in the next round---so why should those two pairs be penalized by having to start their round late and being given less time to play? -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 2 03:58:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g71HweM26807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 03:58:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g71HwZH26803 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 03:58:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from annescomputer ([62.255.16.195]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020801174351.WDGP16050.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@annescomputer> for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 18:43:51 +0100 Message-ID: <001301c23982$316f3aa0$c310ff3e@annescomputer> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: <005201c2397b$a25a9040$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 18:38:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I think it's contrary to Law 8 B. End of Round In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players. I will be interested to hear opinions that say that as the auction only is in progress, the play has not commenced. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 5:47 PM Subject: [BLML] Late Play > Washington DC NABC Life Master Pairs > > With neither pair at fault for starting a second board very late in the > round, we were told to play the board later despite being two bids into the > auction > > Does BLML find this acceptable? > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 2 04:29:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g71IST226841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 04:28:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g71ISOH26837 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 04:28:24 +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 LAA28386; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:13:39 -0700 Message-Id: <200208011813.LAA28386@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 01 Aug 2002 10:42:39 PDT." <200208011741.KAA28145@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 11:14:35 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: > > Washington DC NABC Life Master Pairs > > > > With neither pair at fault for starting a second board very late in the > > round, we were told to play the board later despite being two bids into the > > auction > > > > Does BLML find this acceptable? > > I do. The lateness isn't the fault of either pair, but it's also not > the fault of the N-S that E-W will play in the next round, nor of the > E-W that will come to the N-S table in the next round---so why should > those two pairs be penalized by having to start their round late and > being given less time to play? Scratch that. I missed the part about "being two bids into the auction". In that case I don't think it's acceptable but could be persuaded otherwise. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 2 04:39:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g71Id9T26855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 04:39:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from exch01.minfod.com (exchange.midtechnologies.com [207.227.70.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g71Id3H26851 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 04:39:04 +1000 (EST) Received: by al21.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:32:16 -0500 Message-ID: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD2229@al21.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au '" Subject: RE: [BLML] Defensive Claim Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:32:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I can't think of anything in the Laws that forbid it. The claimer would need a very good picture of partners hand, but I can think of simple examples. If declarer has shown out of a suit I know that partner holds all of the cards in that suit that I can't see in my hand or in Dummy. I've done it a couple of times, but I usually don't trust my count of the hand that well. John Nichols -----Original Message----- From: Marvin L. French To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sent: 8/1/02 1:25 AM Subject: [BLML] Defensive Claim I think I asked this before, but here goes again. Can a defender legally claim when one or more of the tricks claimed will be won by partner? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 2 05:38:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g71JcL226895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 05:38:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g71JcFH26891 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 05:38:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from pavilion ([12.91.171.156]) by mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020801192327.WLQJ11089.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@pavilion> for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 19:23:27 +0000 From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Defensive Claim Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 15:18:30 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD2229@al21.minfod.com> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I would advise against this if there's any remaining thought partner has to put into the hand, such as unblocking a suit, holding onto specific cards, or the like. It's bad practice. As far as the practical matter, sure, you can claim anytime you'd like. Play ceases and if there's a problem you call the director. I just wouldn't expect to get ruled in favor for. -Todd > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of John Nichols > Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 11:32 AM > To: 'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au ' > Subject: RE: [BLML] Defensive Claim > > > I can't think of anything in the Laws that forbid it. > > The claimer would need a very good picture of partners > hand, but I can think > of simple examples. If declarer has shown out of a suit I > know that partner > holds all of the cards in that suit that I can't see in my > hand or in Dummy. > > I've done it a couple of times, but I usually don't trust > my count of the > hand that well. > > John Nichols > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marvin L. French > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Sent: 8/1/02 1:25 AM > Subject: [BLML] Defensive Claim > > I think I asked this before, but here goes again. > > Can a defender legally claim when one or more of the tricks > claimed will > be > won by partner? > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > -- > ============================================================ > ============ > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of > the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- > ============================================================ > ============ > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of > the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 2 05:38:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g71Jc2m26889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 05:38:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g71JbvH26885 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 05:37:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.32.116] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17aLX5-000O3n-00; Thu, 01 Aug 2002 20:22:47 +0100 Message-ID: <004401c23991$55ee0aa0$7420e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Adam Beneschan" , , "Kooijman, A." Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 20:24:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "'Grattan Endicott'" ; ; "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 12:52 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: EBU Appeals 2001 > > > Forbidding conventions when a light opening is > used is not infringing the laws. Still there are > objections, but of another nature: You shouldn't > have used your power this way. > > ton > +=+ I will respond to the first part of the email, and to the parallel email, in a direct email, not openly on blml. However, in this last sentence here, I take it you mean those who did it should not have done? That is a mere personal opinion of yours. The judgement to use it, by the ACBL, by the EBU, was theirs to exercise and was exercised by a committee acting corporately in each case. It is not our role in the WBFLC to exercise that judgement - our role is to determine what is the law, not how it should be used - that task lies with the Appeals Committee and the R&R Committee, each in its own field.. This point has been made twice in the WBFLC since you became its chairman. ~ 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 Aug 2 06:11:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g71KBDJ26937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 06:11:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g71KB4H26929 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 06:11:05 +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 17aM3U-0004PK-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 01 Aug 2002 20:56:22 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:08:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Defensive Claim References: <010001c23924$368532a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <010001c23924$368532a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >I think I asked this before, but here goes again. > >Can a defender legally claim when one or more of the tricks claimed will be >won by partner? Yes. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 2 06:11:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g71KBEx26938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 06:11:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g71KB4H26930 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 06:11:05 +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 17aM3U-0004PG-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 01 Aug 2002 20:56:22 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:03:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: EBU Appeals 2001 References: <200208010036.RAA22676@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200208010036.RAA22676@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan writes >What I find somewhat fascinating, in both bridge and political >matters, is that people who do not trust governments to look after the >good of the people so often depend on higher authorities to rein in >those governments, ignoring the fact that the human foibles---greed, >ego, power-lust, incompetence, insensitivity to the desires of others, >etc.---that cause those governments to pursue things other than the >good of the governed, are going to be present in the humans that make >up those higher authorities as well. Ooooh, no, no, no, no, no !!!!!!!!!!! No, the people do not have trust in the higher authority: it is just that *when* the lower authority does something they do not like *then* they hope the higher authority will agree with them! Nanki Poo says I am getting cynical! Mind you, he keeps getting his tail bitten, so he has his own problems, about three inches long, furry, loud, and bouncy. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 2 07:09:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g71L8dH26974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 07:08:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g71L8YH26970 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 07:08:34 +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 NAA29742; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:53:47 -0700 Message-Id: <200208012053.NAA29742@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: EBU Appeals 2001 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 01 Aug 2002 13:03:47 BST." Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 13:54:46 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan writes > > >What I find somewhat fascinating, in both bridge and political > >matters, is that people who do not trust governments to look after the > >good of the people so often depend on higher authorities to rein in > >those governments, ignoring the fact that the human foibles---greed, > >ego, power-lust, incompetence, insensitivity to the desires of others, > >etc.---that cause those governments to pursue things other than the > >good of the governed, are going to be present in the humans that make > >up those higher authorities as well. > > Ooooh, no, no, no, no, no !!!!!!!!!!! > > No, the people do not have trust in the higher authority: it is just > that *when* the lower authority does something they do not like *then* > they hope the higher authority will agree with them! Really, I've been wondering what would happen if the WBF wrote a Law banning forcing passes or destructive conventions or psychs or whatever, and the ACBL/EBU "interpreted" the Law in such a way as to effectively allow those things in their tournaments. I suspect that we might get, from the same people, arguments about how a "one-size-fits-all" approach to the Laws is bad for the game, and how SO's need the freedom to interpret them broadly for the benefit of their members, and that the Laws should just be guidelines instead of absolutes and that the WBF should just be an advisory board and it's abusing its power by writing Laws like that and that the people who run the WBF are corrupt and incompetent and poorly dressed and have bad teeth and whatever. Or we might not. I don't know. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 2 07:33:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g71LWmK26995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 07:32:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g71LWhH26991 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 07:32:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-29.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.29] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #5) id 17aNKa-0002kN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 01 Aug 2002 17:18:00 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020801171138.00aba470@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 17:20:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Why do Laws 40A and 40D exist in their present form? (Was EBU Appeals 2001) In-Reply-To: <5B57501A71B8FB4BB932B61651733B7C71FECC@cacexc02.americas.c pqcorp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:25 PM 8/1/02, Farley wrote: >Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +=+ You may have noted that the WBF Systems Policy > > (copied by the EBL) infringes the laws; the regulations for > > screens in the WBF (and elsewhere) infringe the laws; the > > bans on psyching conventional openers (EBL and ACBL) > > infringe the laws; the ban on associating a Watson double > > with a psyche by the same player infringes the laws; the > > control of opening standards through disallowing use of > > conventions with a substandard opener (ACBL and EBU) > > infringes the laws; the control of three card natural > > overcalls by this last means (EBU) infringes the laws, > > and who knows what else. > > Except, that is, for the fact that at various times > > and in divers places the WBF has decided (a) that none > > of the laws under which these regulations are made > > (40D, 40E, 80E) specifies any restriction on the nature > > of the regulation, and (b) that indeed none of these > > regulations is made under Law 80F, the other laws > > cited not being subordinated to 80F but independent > > of it. > >TFLB saya, in part: {Law 40A} >A. Right to Choose Call or Play >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. > >One of the things which puzzles me is why -- considering the effect >of the decisions of the WBF summarized above by Grattan -- it was >felt necessary to maintain Laws 40A and 40D in their current form. >The WBF has decided that it is proper to allow an SO (or ZO) to ban >natural openings within a King of an average hand (e.g., "The Rule >of 19"). It has decided that the right to regulate conventions may >be used by a SO to make weak opening bids an unplayable method by >restricting the use of conventions when such a natural bid is part >of a system. Given all this -- which I accept as in acordance with >the Laws as they exist -- I wonder why it was decided to keep >Law 40A in its current form, rather than restating it as: > > "A Zonal Organization has the right to regulate the use of >intentionally misleading calls -- such as psychic bids -- at its >option. This right may be delegated to the Sponsoring organization. >In the absence of such a regulation, ...{The current Law 40A)." > >Similarly, why is the exception included in Law 40D, particularly >as certain SOs are doing their best to circumvent it? (I'm 100% >with Herman De Wael here -- a Rule of 19 should not require "bridge >judgment" to apply.) It appears to me that the desired effect >could be had with the following amended Law 40D: > > "The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of > bidding or play conventions. Zonal organisations may, > in addition, regulate partnership understandings (even > if not conventional) of the partnership's initial actions > at the one level. Zonal organisations may delegate this > responsibility." > >It >>appears<< to me that the desired result of the current laws >is to allow a ZO or SO to regulate psychic bids, conventions, and >opening bids exactly as it pleases. This is not a tragedy in and >of itself. What I regard as tragic is that this decision has been >masked by retaining verbiage which >>appears<< to promise contestants >the right to use those methods which their SO (and/or ZO) deprecate. > >Why not be straightforward, and announce >>plainly< the SO/ZO's >right to regulate bidding systems? If the views and interpretations of the WBF are indeed what Grattan says they are, wouldn't the most straightforward thing to do be to eliminate all the existing references to ZO/SO powers and write a single law that says, "A sponsoring organization may publish or announce additional regulations without restriction. Such regulations shall supercede any otherwise applicable laws." That does seem to be what we are being told is the current reality. 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 Aug 2 07:46:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g71Ljnj27017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 07:45:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g71LjfH27009 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 07:45:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.17.171] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17aNWY-000GMJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 01 Aug 2002 22:30:23 +0100 Message-ID: <008501c239a3$2df245e0$7420e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <5B57501A71B8FB4BB932B61651733B7C71FECC@cacexc02.americas.cpqcorp.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Why do Laws 40A and 40D exist in their present form? (Was EBU Appeals 2001) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 21:55:15 +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: Thursday, August 01, 2002 6:25 PM Subject: [BLML] Why do Laws 40A and 40D exist in their present form? (Was EBU Appeals 2001) > > Why not be straightforward, and announce > >plainly< the SO/ZO's right to regulate bidding > systems? > > Wally Farley > Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} > +=+ Why not, indeed? The fact is that these people are put in place to run tournaments. The fact is that no matter what the laws say they insist on setting the parameters for those tournaments. The fact is that the great majority of the players in those tournaments do not support the kind of free-for-all that we have seen advocated on this list by people who become paranoid at the thought of trusting tournament committees to do what they have been put there to do. Attempting to restrain them by writing laws designed as shackles is simply not the role for the lawmaker. It is oppressive to try to impose the view of this one or that on people who can and should judge well enough for themselves what their particular tournaments call for. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 2 07:46:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g71LjoK27018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 07:45:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g71LjfH27010 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 07:45:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.17.171] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17aNWa-000GMJ-00; Thu, 01 Aug 2002 22:30:25 +0100 Message-ID: <008601c239a3$2ef5ac20$7420e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <010001c23924$368532a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Defensive Claim Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 22:33:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 7:25 AM Subject: [BLML] Defensive Claim > I think I asked this before, but here goes again. > > Can a defender legally claim when one or more of > the tricks claimed will be won by partner? > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > +=+ Quoted from minutes (1987) of the WBFLC:- " Re letter from Mr. Endicott: 1. The word 'contestant' in some of the later laws intends the side or team, as defined, although the action may be that of a player on its behalf. It was suggested that the word 'player' be used in additional cases when new laws are written. " The laws in the context of which I was questioning the meaning of 'contestant' were: 68, 69, 86C, 90B, 92A. I do not know what was meant by 'additional cases'. ~ 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 Aug 2 08:09:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g71M9CI27041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 08:09:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g71M97H27037 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 08:09:07 +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 RAA04134 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 17:54:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA00847 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 17:54:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 17:54:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208012154.RAA00847@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Defensive Claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > The laws in the context of which I was questioning the > meaning of 'contestant' were: 68, 69, 86C, 90B, 92A. At a quick glance, L68 seems to want "player's side" for the first 'contestant' in L68A, "player" for the second, and again "player's side" for the first instance in L68B. I haven't looked further. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 2 08:37:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g71MbiP27064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 08:37:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g71MbdH27060 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 08:37:39 +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 g71MMvB29190 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 15:22:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00be01c239a9$de804640$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Defensive Claim Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 15:19:47 -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: "Todd Zimnoch" > I would advise against this if there's any remaining thought partner > has to put into the hand, such as unblocking a suit, holding onto > specific cards, or the like. It's bad practice. > > As far as the practical matter, sure, you can claim anytime you'd > like. Play ceases and if there's a problem you call the director. I > just wouldn't expect to get ruled in favor for. > But the TD can only require the defense to play in an inferior or careless manner, not irrationally. Danny Kleinman tells me that if this is allowed he can now claim when playing with the many clients of his who will make irrational plays toward the end of a hand. Of course he was joking, as Danny's ethics are beyond reproach. A partner of mine once blanked a king under dummy's AQ, two cards left, dummy to play, in order to hold onto an ace. Maybe I should have claimed! Anyway, you have it right, but I could see logic in a law revision that would prohibit a claim by a defender who is not going to take a further trick. The reason for my question was that a TD at the recent NABC thought such a claim was not permitted. Thanks, everyone, for backing up my opposite belief. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 2 11:14:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g721E2M27143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:14:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.southeast.rr.com (smtp2.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g721DvH27139 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:13:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail4.nc.rr.com (fe4 [24.93.67.51]) by smtp2.southeast.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g7210Fts001550 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 21:00:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hare ([66.26.18.82]) by mail4.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Thu, 1 Aug 2002 20:59:13 -0400 Message-ID: <000501c239bf$d00f8510$6401a8c0@hare> From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: Subject: Fw: [BLML] Late Play Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 20:59:10 -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: "Nancy T Dressing" To: "Marvin L. French" Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 5:02 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > If neither pair was responsible for the slow play, why were you behind???? > I would allow the play to continue on the board and give both pairs a slow > play warning and if they did not catch up in two rounds, I would assess a > slow play penalty..... But again, why were you behind???? > Nancy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marvin L. French" > To: > Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 12:47 PM > Subject: [BLML] Late Play > > > > Washington DC NABC Life Master Pairs > > > > With neither pair at fault for starting a second board very late in the > > round, we were told to play the board later despite being two bids into > the > > auction > > > > Does BLML find this acceptable? > > > > Marv > > Marvin L. French > > San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 2 11:17:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g721HU627157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:17:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g721HOH27153 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:17:25 +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 g7210YL17617; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 21:00:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 20:47:34 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: EBU Appeals 2001 To: Michael Farebrother , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 7/31/02, Michael Farebrother wrote: >I've rambled on too much. I'll stop here. I apologize, and hope that >my point has got across. Why apologize? You're right. :-) 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 Aug 2 11:59:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g721x4027184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:59:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g721wxH27180 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:59:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.63.20] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17aRU4-0005tJ-00; Fri, 02 Aug 2002 02:44:04 +0100 Message-ID: <004b01c239c6$90e304a0$143fe150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020801171138.00aba470@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Why do Laws 40A and 40D exist in their present form? (Was EBU Appeals 2001) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 02:30:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 10:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Why do Laws 40A and 40D exist in their present form? (Was EBU Appeals 2001) > At 01:25 PM 8/1/02, Farley wrote: > > > If the views and interpretations of the WBF are indeed what Grattan > says they are, wouldn't the most straightforward thing to do be to > eliminate all the existing references to ZO/SO powers and write a > single law that says, "A sponsoring organization may publish or > announce additional regulations without restriction. Such regulations > shall supercede any otherwise applicable laws." > > That does seem to be what we are being told is the current reality. > +=+ Much of the text of Regulations or Conditions of Contest is issued under 80F - it does not relate to screens, bidding boxes, systems, conventions, convention cards. ~ 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 Aug 2 13:47:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g723kLE27257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 13:46:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g723kGH27253 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 13:46:16 +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 g723VR305342 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 23:31:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6/NCF_smarthost_v1.01) id g723VSa05691; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 23:31:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 23:31:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200208020331.g723VSa05691@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >I think it's contrary to Law 8 B. >End of Round >In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the >start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by >that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a >progression of players. > >I will be interested to hear opinions that say that as the auction only >is in progress, the play has not commenced. > >Anne > I'm with Anne here. I was trained that if the players have already started the board, you let them finish it. That being said, all too often I've called the round, and seen a slow table ignore the call and try to start their last board. For some reason, players look upon a late play as an insult rather than as a courtesy. "But it's not my our fault!", the same players exclaim week after week, sectional after sectional after regional. I was surprised to read that a director pulled the board after the players had started, but would dearly like to hear the director's version of what happened before reaching any conclusions. Would I be really be surprised if the players had started the board after the round had been called? :-) 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 Fri Aug 2 14:56:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g724tJ027308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:55:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g724tEH27304 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:55:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from attbi.com ([12.234.34.31]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020802044024.RITK23732.sccrmhc01.attbi.com@attbi.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 04:40:24 +0000 Message-ID: <3D4A0CF5.81F935E6@attbi.com> Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 21:39:17 -0700 From: Wally Farley X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD EBM-Compaq1 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: Grattan Endicott Subject: [BLML] Re-writing Laws 40A and 40D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ Why not, indeed? You appear to have mistaken my purpose. I fully agree -- "Why not, indeed?" To me, the most loathsome part of the Law 40 wrinkles are the hidden asterisks -- You may psyche (*); you may open your choice of within-a-King-of an average-hand one-bids with no adverse consequences.(*). * Both footnotes read: " Just kidding. Talk to your SO." I accept the Laws as they are currently interpreted, even though I believe the interpretations are from outer space. I would still be unhappy with interpretations given under my suggested Laws (because I think they do violence to what *I* think "BRIDGE" is) -- but I would no longer consider the lawmakers to be blatant hypocrites. I respect the WBFLC's choices for implementations of the Laws of Bridge. I understand the pressures from many sides upon them. While I do not agree with each of their decisions, this is usual. All I am foaming at the mouth over is their practice of saying "A" when the reality is "~A". If you really tell me that light openers are prohibited, I'll not like the ruling -- but it will be much easier to swallow than the current mess of pottage. Just don't tell me that there can be no regulation of opening one-bids within a King of an average hand and then lend credence to a Rule of 19. Regards, WWFiv Wally Farley Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 2 15:50:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g725oRx27345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:50:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from web12408.mail.yahoo.com (web12408.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.173.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g725oMH27341 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:50:22 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <20020802053540.19514.qmail@web12408.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [212.150.104.238] by web12408.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 02 Aug 2002 06:35:40 BST Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 06:35:40 +0100 (BST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Brian=20Zietman?= Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <200208020331.g723VSa05691@freenet10.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk How are you going to prevent one or both of the pairs discussing their hands with their partners during the rest of the tournament, in preparation for the late play of the hand ? Unscrupulous pairs will have an unfair advantage. In my opinion, late boards can only be played when noone has seen any of the cards. My general practice is to let them continue if the dummy has gone down and give average if they are still bidding. Brian --- "A. L. Edwards" wrote: > > > >I think it's contrary to Law 8 B. > >End of Round > >In general, a round ends when the Director gives > the signal for the > >start of the following round; but if any table has > not completed play by > >that time, the round continues for that table until > there has been a > >progression of players. > > > >I will be interested to hear opinions that say that > as the auction only > >is in progress, the play has not commenced. > > > >Anne > > > > I'm with Anne here. I was trained that if the > players have already > started the board, you let them finish it. > That being said, all too often I've called the > round, and seen a > slow table ignore the call and try to start their > last board. For > some reason, players look upon a late play as an > insult rather than > as a courtesy. "But it's not my our fault!", the > same players exclaim > week after week, sectional after sectional after > regional. > I was surprised to read that a director pulled the > board after > the players had started, but would dearly like to > hear the director's > version of what happened before reaching any > conclusions. > Would I be really be surprised if the players had > started the > board after the round had been called? :-) > 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/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 2 15:51:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g725pmA27357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:51:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g725pgH27353 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:51:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from annescomputer ([62.255.8.19]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020802053658.VFMV23840.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@annescomputer> for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 06:36:58 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c239e6$9ef65400$1308ff3e@annescomputer> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: <200208020331.g723VSa05691@freenet10.carleton.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 06:36:57 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. L. Edwards" To: Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 4:31 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > > > >I think it's contrary to Law 8 B. > >End of Round > >In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the > >start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by > >that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a > >progression of players. > > > >I will be interested to hear opinions that say that as the auction only > >is in progress, the play has not commenced. > > > >Anne > > > > I'm with Anne here. I was trained that if the players have already > started the board, you let them finish it. > That being said, all too often I've called the round, and seen a > slow table ignore the call and try to start their last board. For > some reason, players look upon a late play as an insult rather than > as a courtesy. "But it's not my our fault!", the same players exclaim > week after week, sectional after sectional after regional. > I was surprised to read that a director pulled the board after > the players had started, but would dearly like to hear the director's > version of what happened before reaching any conclusions. > Would I be really be surprised if the players had started the > board after the round had been called? :-) > Indeed. This is something that players will try from time to time. I must admit that if they do start a board in such circumstances I will make them fisinsh it in pretty fast time, standing over them for the purpose. I will fine them in points for their disobedience, but let them play the board. I don't, however allow players to play boards at the end of the movement, unless it is something that I require them to do, maybe because an incorrect board has been played earlier - against an incorrect pair. The reasons for this are multitude but suffice it to say that :- 1. Players often hear information about a board that they "should" have played. Certainly a player who has seen his cards will quickly recognise any comment he hears as relating to that hand. 2. Bridge is a timed game and to be granted a slot at the end to play an unplayed board is unfair to others. 3. "Director" they say "Board 1 was so difficult that we didn't get to play board 2". So there are many pairs that are going to be waiting to play board 2 at the end" . I have sympathy here for Marvin - I would have let him play the board. It might have cost him dearly, but I believe a board once started must be finished. I think I have the Law on my side. Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 2 18:00:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g727x8B27411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:59:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g727x3H27407 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:59:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.50.66] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17aX6R-000Fv2-00; Fri, 02 Aug 2002 08:44:03 +0100 Message-ID: <002b01c239f8$dd536d20$4232e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Wally Farley" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <3D4A0CF5.81F935E6@attbi.com> Subject: [BLML] Re-writing Laws 40A and 40D Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 08:45:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: "Grattan Endicott" Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 5:39 AM Subject: [BLML] Re-writing Laws 40A and 40D > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > +=+ Why not, indeed? > > You appear to have mistaken my purpose. I fully agree -- > "Why not, indeed?" > > To me, the most loathsome part of the Law 40 wrinkles > are the hidden asterisks -- You may psyche (*); you may > open your choice of within-a-King-of an average-hand > one-bids with no adverse consequences.(*). > > * Both footnotes read: " Just kidding. Talk to your SO." > > I accept the Laws as they are currently interpreted, even > though I believe the interpretations are from outer space. > I would still be unhappy with interpretations given under my > suggested Laws (because I think they do violence to what *I* > think "BRIDGE" is) -- but I would no longer consider the > lawmakers to be blatant hypocrites. > +=+ The position is "SO, this is the law unless you use the power the law gives you to regulate otherwise". The committee agreed very early on (1986) that 40B through E qualify 40A and said so. They also agreed that regulations authorized in other laws than 80F are not subject to the conditions of 80F since they do not say* that they are. This has been published repeatedly also.(Apart from those and 80E, I have only just realized this must apply also in the case of 78D.) The asterisks are not hidden, they have just gone unnoticed, partly obscured by rebels who persist in saying the law is what it is not. I think we can take it that ton argues for a change in the law in this respect. He is up against positions that have been long established, and I have made it clear that I think he is tilting at windmills; in the meantime we have both been told by WBF committees what the law is and so it is. For my part I am content with the current position and would like to see it expressed if possible in a way that wholly avoids obscurity or mistranslation (but then, I am one of those who has voted for this position on more than one occasion. I have never disguised my opinion that it is right to give SOs total power to determine what may be played in their own tournaments). Cheers ~ Grattan ~ +=+ (* as, for example, "but see...." in Law 72B3 - 'but' introduces a clause that contrasts with the statement to which it is attached and qualifies it. There are no 'but sees' in the laws I have referenced, each of which has equal force with 80F, and separate effect. That is the authentic published WBF position. So 80F gives additional general powers of regulation beyond those specified in other laws.). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 2 22:14:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g72CDVQ27499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 22:13:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g72CDPH27495 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 22:13:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g72Bwer26521 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 12:58:40 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 12:58 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Re-writing Laws 40A and 40D 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: <002b01c239f8$dd536d20$4232e150@dodona> Grattan wrote: > +=+ The position is "SO, this is the law unless you use the > power the law gives you to regulate otherwise". This is a singularly unhelpful statement - the laws are unclear on what powers "the law gives you to regulate otherwise". > The committee > agreed very early on (1986) that 40B through E qualify 40A > and said so. There is a difference between "qualify" and "completely override". Did the committee also agree that L40B-E override L75B? Where can players find these interpretations? Why, if these interpretations were made prior to 1997, are they not clarified in the lawbook? Players have a right to expect that the lawbook defines the parameters of the game. If law 40 is indeed hierarchical (E>D>C>B>A) it's far from obvious. But perhaps that is why a vital principle like "such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method" is buried in law 40E as opposed to being headlined at the top. > They also agreed that regulations authorized in > other laws than 80F are not subject to the conditions of 80F > since they do not say* that they are. This has been published > repeatedly also.(Apart from those and 80E, I have only just > realized this must apply also in the case of 78D.) The > asterisks are not hidden, they have just gone unnoticed, partly > obscured by rebels who persist in saying the law is what it > is not. This is fine in terms of treating L80F as a legal point. However, it is pretty obvious to most of us that regulations (under whatever law they are made) should not conflict with the laws - when they do players are faced with a dilemma since L72A says "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the laws." If playing in strict accordance with the law means breaking a regulation then that is choice a player must make whenever a conflict situation arises. Obviously one respects the right of players to make whatever choice they see fit at the time but it is (or should be) a wholly unnecessary situation. > For my part I am content with the current position and > would like to see it expressed if possible in a way that > wholly avoids obscurity or mistranslation (but then, I am > one of those who has voted for this position on more than > one occasion. Which part of the above is true Grattan? Are you content or would you wish to it expressed in a way that wholly avoids obscurity? The current situation might be better defined as "relying on obscurity". It is possible to find some of the minuted interpretations of the WBFLC, but despite genuine effort I am sure I have not found them all. Nor have I found any record of when the WBF accepted such interpretations and formally communicated them to the ZOs/SOs or players. > I have never disguised my opinion that it > is right to give SOs total power to determine what may > be played in their own tournaments). And this would be so easy to achieve. Here is a paragraph to include at the beginning of the scope. These laws are intended solely as suggestions. Any ZO/SO may modify, add or delete one or all of these laws in regulating their own competitions. That should do the job. Players will immediately realise that the laws themselves are meaningful only in so far as their SO has adopted them. I have to say that almost nobody reading the current laws would realise that this was the intent. 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 Aug 2 23:56:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g72DtiL27628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 23:55:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.southeast.rr.com (smtp3.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.84]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g72DtcH27623 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 23:55:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail8.nc.rr.com (fe8 [24.93.67.55]) by smtp3.southeast.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g72Dejga005328 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 09:40:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hare ([66.26.18.82]) by mail8.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Fri, 2 Aug 2002 09:40:54 -0400 Message-ID: <001f01c23a2a$38184fb0$6401a8c0@hare> From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: "blml" References: <200208020331.g723VSa05691@freenet10.carleton.ca> <000b01c239e6$9ef65400$1308ff3e@annescomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 09:40:52 -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 I think Marv should post "the rest of the story"! Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 1:36 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "A. L. Edwards" > To: > Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 4:31 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > > > > > > > >I think it's contrary to Law 8 B. > > >End of Round > > >In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the > > >start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play > by > > >that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a > > >progression of players. > > > > > >I will be interested to hear opinions that say that as the auction > only > > >is in progress, the play has not commenced. > > > > > >Anne > > > > > > > I'm with Anne here. I was trained that if the players have already > > started the board, you let them finish it. > > That being said, all too often I've called the round, and seen a > > slow table ignore the call and try to start their last board. For > > some reason, players look upon a late play as an insult rather than > > as a courtesy. "But it's not my our fault!", the same players exclaim > > week after week, sectional after sectional after regional. > > I was surprised to read that a director pulled the board after > > the players had started, but would dearly like to hear the director's > > version of what happened before reaching any conclusions. > > Would I be really be surprised if the players had started the > > board after the round had been called? :-) > > > > > Indeed. > > This is something that players will try from time to time. I must > admit that if they do start a board in such circumstances I will > make them fisinsh it in pretty fast time, standing over them for > the purpose. I will fine them in points for their disobedience, but > let them play the board. > > I don't, however allow players to play boards at the end of the > movement, unless it is something that I require them to do, > maybe because an incorrect board has been played earlier - against > an incorrect pair. > > The reasons for this are multitude but suffice it to say that :- > > 1. Players often hear information about a board that they "should" > have played. Certainly a player who has seen his cards will quickly > recognise any comment he hears as relating to that hand. > 2. Bridge is a timed game and to be granted a slot at the end to > play an unplayed board is unfair to others. > 3. "Director" they say "Board 1 was so difficult that we didn't get > to play board 2". So there are many pairs that are going to be > waiting to play board 2 at the end" . > > I have sympathy here for Marvin - I would have let him play the > board. It might have cost him dearly, but I believe a board once > started must be finished. I think I have the Law on my side. > > Anne > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 3 00:33:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g72EXGC27662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 00:33:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g72EXAH27658 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 00:33:11 +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 KAA26249 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 10:18:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA07418 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 10:18:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 10:18:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208021418.KAA07418@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 Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I'm just catching up. The topic is what the TD can/should do if called late in an MI case. If the TD had been called at the proper time, a call could have been changed. > > *Everyone* was required to call the TD. L9B1A and L9B1B cover this. > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > ...adjustment against the OS, not for the NOS, in cases where the adjustment > involves the "final call". I don't think this is adviseable, but see below. > 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. I agree with all the above, and my original point is that it is legal for the TD to do this if his judgment tells him to do so. What law forbids it? (Yes, David, I know you will cite 21B, but I think your reading is strained at best and certainly not necessary.) If the TD does adjust, I believe he should treat both sides as offending because neither side called the TD earlier. Often this won't matter, but it could easily lead to a split score under L12C2. The result might be the same as in Tim's approach, but it will be easier to explain to the players. In fact, I don't see how TD's would go far wrong following the "both sides offending" approach in all "MI but too late" cases. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 3 01:04:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g72F45v27844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 01:04:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g72F40H27840 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 01:04:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by system.wewnetrzny9 (Mailserver) with SMTP id C77195BCF for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 16:49:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 9A9EA5ED4; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 16:23:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id A9BAD5EF3 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 16:23:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <015c01c23a30$1d47a130$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: References: <00be01c239a9$de804640$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Defensive Claim Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 16:22:59 +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 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 12:19 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Defensive Claim > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > > I would advise against this if there's any remaining thought partner > > has to put into the hand, such as unblocking a suit, holding onto > > specific cards, or the like. It's bad practice. > > > > As far as the practical matter, sure, you can claim anytime you'd > > like. Play ceases and if there's a problem you call the director. I > > just wouldn't expect to get ruled in favor for. > > > But the TD can only require the defense to play in an inferior or careless > manner, not irrationally. Danny Kleinman tells me that if this is allowed he > can now claim when playing with the many clients of his who will make > irrational plays toward the end of a hand. Of course he was joking, as > Danny's ethics are beyond reproach. Call me some greedy BLer but this is exactly why I don't like the present state of affairs. Many weak declarers make irrational plays quite often. Frequently they claim in a position where I can be fairly sure that if they were forced to play the hand out they would manage to go down; they would fail to cash their winners in the right order, they would forget to unblock singleton ace or ruff a loser in dummy. The chance for this is quite high because when they don't claim they do make plays like that from time to time. But try & call the TD to contest the claim for 5 tricks in this position S A KQJx H xxxx A and you will be given a short shrift by the TD. He will give all 5 tricks to the poor man even though you last week you saw the same man cash the HA first . I don't think it is equitable that the man is allowed to throw his cards on the table and simply say "they are all mine". Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Oszczedzaj na czasie, to Twoj czas... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1630 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 3 02:28:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g72GPHZ27880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 02:25:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f204.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.204]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g72GP7H27876 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 02:25:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 09:10:19 -0700 Received: from 24.28.122.53 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 02 Aug 2002 16:10:18 GMT X-Originating-IP: [24.28.122.53] From: "Roger Pewick" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re-writing Laws 40A and 40D Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 11:10:18 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Aug 2002 16:10:19.0200 (UTC) FILETIME=[18BA2C00:01C23A3F] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Should I risk a daring statement? >From: "Grattan Endicott" >To: "Wally Farley" >CC: "bridge-laws" >Subject: [BLML] Re-writing Laws 40A and 40D >Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 08:45:11 +0100 >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Wally Farley" >To: >Cc: "Grattan Endicott" >Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 5:39 AM >Subject: [BLML] Re-writing Laws 40A and 40D > > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > +=+ Why not, indeed? > > > > You appear to have mistaken my purpose. I fully agree -- > > "Why not, indeed?" > > > > To me, the most loathsome part of the Law 40 wrinkles > > are the hidden asterisks -- You may psyche (*); you may > > open your choice of within-a-King-of an average-hand > > one-bids with no adverse consequences.(*). > > > > * Both footnotes read: " Just kidding. Talk to your SO." >+=+ The position is "SO, this is the law unless you use the >power the law gives you to regulate otherwise". The committee >agreed very early on (1986) that 40B through E qualify 40A >and said so. >They also agreed that regulations authorized in >other laws than 80F are not subject to the conditions of 80F >since they do not say* that they are. I fail to see how such a view can be justified by the printed words. L80F contains no phrasing to suggest that exceptions may be allowed. Surely where "*'s" are noted elsewhere for specific exceptions it is a a stretch- no, that is not strong enough- a leap of astronomical proportions- to say that the meaning of the words is that the specific exceptions are not 'merely specific' but extend further beyond. The saying of something, even if unanimous by a group, does not make it so, it merely suggests that more than one person buys into it. The calling of a duck to be a squirrel does not inspire the feeling in me that such a group is so able to have the best interest of those governed at heart. Now, there is nothing contradictory in L80F in saying that you can regulate as you wish so long as you heed the entire body of law. There are many words that could have been used to construct the law and the lawmakers went about [a] choosing them and at later times have [b] chosen to not change them after further scrutiny. One might conclude that that the words specified what was wanted. It would be argumentative to suggest that the words were chosen for political reasons so as to lend themselves to seem like they say one thing while being officially interpreted to mean something wildly different- requiring a leap over logic to do so. A necessary bridge condition for the 8-10 hcp 1NT to be 'worthwhile' is that there be a system to cope with future bidding. It is plain that banning such system solely for such a 1NT also bans the 1NT in its effect. If Stayman is to be banned, it is right that it be banned from everybody in the event. That would be regulation of Stayman as opposed to the banning of a natural 8-10 1NT which L40D goes about 'protecting from ban'. regards roger pewick ps If you want to bring about a lessening in the demand to use 'complicated conventions' one should look to L77. While Vanderbilt was genius in his scoring table he gave us second best. Score heart and spade tricks as 20 and club and diamond as 30 and many good things are liable to result. >This has been published >repeatedly also snipped > Cheers ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 3 05:23:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g72JMQS27995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 05:22:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g72JMLH27991 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 05:22:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id PAA17463 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:07:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA10716 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:07:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:07:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208021907.PAA10716@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re-writing Laws 40A and 40D Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ The position is "SO, this is the law unless you use the > power the law gives you to regulate otherwise". As a practical matter, this is clearly so. If an SO want to announce "Tonight spades will rank as the lowest suit," who is to stop them? (Whist players will realize that my example is not chosen at random.) Despite that, one purpose of the Laws is to _define_ the game of "Duplicate Contract Bridge." Anyone who wants to do so can play a different game. In fact L80E gives ample authority for special rules that constitute minor deviations from the Laws. > repeatedly also.(Apart from those and 80E, I have only just > realized this must apply also in the case of 78D.) Special scoring tables are fairly common. I would have said that when the laws give specific authority to make regulations, then such regulations automatically conform to L80F, but no matter. > For my part I am content with the current position and > would like to see it expressed if possible in a way that > wholly avoids obscurity or mistranslation That would be a good thing for all concerned, whatever the position is to be. Let's leave aside questions of past interpretation and personal motivations -- by the way, I do believe that everyone concerned has the best interests of bridge at heart -- and look again at the actual text of L40. There are at least three types of regulations that have been discussed. 1. "You may not play [conventional opening 2D -or- 1NT response to 1H opening bid to show spades -or- takeout doubles :-)]. Regulations in this class are just the standard convention charts. I think everyone agrees that SO's do and ought to have full powers to make rules of this sort. Reasonable people will always disagree about what are the best rules for specific events, but I don't think anyone is surprised or distressed by this sort of disagreement, even when the disagreement is expressed in somewhat heated terms. 2. "If you use a strong, artificial opening bid, you may not psych it" (or, equivalently, "your hand must have specified minimum strength"). Another example: "You may not open a hand with less than 8 HCP at the one-level." Here not everyone agrees, but L40D gives broad authority to regulate conventions and light one-level initial actions. Any SO that wishes to do so can easily claim authority in the text of the Laws. 3. "If you choose to open light (or do other things we don't like), you may not use any conventions for the rest of the auction (or rest of the event)." This one stretches the limits of the language. No doubt clever lawyers can argue that such regulations make sense and are good for the game, but simple-minded souls such as I find these sorts of regulations inconsistent with the laws text as written. It is nothing more than prohibiting by indirect means what cannot be directly banned. Whatever the merits of doing so might be, doing so by this indirect method strikes me as indecent. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 3 06:06:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g72K5ir28022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 06:05:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bean.epix.net (bean.epix.net [199.224.64.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g72K5cH28018 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 06:05:38 +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 g72Jopsn024938 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:50:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re-writing Laws 40A and 40D Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:51:01 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <200208021907.PAA10716@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200208021907.PAA10716@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:07:36 -0400 (EDT), Steve Willner wrote: >3. "If you choose to open light (or do other things we don't like), you >may not use any conventions for the rest of the auction (or rest of the >event)." > >This one stretches the limits of the language. No doubt clever lawyers >can argue that such regulations make sense and are good for the game, >but simple-minded souls such as I find these sorts of regulations >inconsistent with the laws text as written. It is nothing more than >prohibiting by indirect means what cannot be directly banned. Whatever >the merits of doing so might be, doing so by this indirect method >strikes me as indecent. Couldn't agree more, Steve. The intellectual exercise in bridge is supposed to be in the bidding and play of the hand, not deciphering the *(^&%^%# law book! As I said a while back (and promptly got certain people into a bit of a snit) let those making Laws or Regulations do so *openly*, without this sort of backdoor trickery. If an NCBO wants to bar an ultra-light opening, do it in a direct and honest manner, not by this "no conventional continuations" nonsense. If the Laws don't permit them to do so directly, then they shouldn't do it at all. I still think the best thing that could happen to the next edition of the Laws is for the WBF(LC) to submit the whole thing to a competent technical writer. Sure, it would remove most of, if not all, the legal loopholes and contradictions that certain NCBOs currently use. I think this would be a very desirable thing. We look down on BLs who play the game, why should we be any more forgiving of BLs who administer the game? 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 Aug 3 06:09:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g72K9YR28034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 06:09:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rebecca.tiscali.nl (rebecca.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.181]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g72K9RH28030 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 06:09:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from LNV (unknown [195.240.61.199]) by rebecca.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 6E66A43FB8E; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 21:54:42 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <013001c23a5e$7e883df0$40fef1c3@LNV> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Wally Farley" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <3D4A0CF5.81F935E6@attbi.com> <002b01c239f8$dd536d20$4232e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re-writing Laws 40A and 40D Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 21:54:51 +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 This will be my last post in this thread. Some remarks made by Grattan make it possible to react once more trying to explain my position. But then it is enough. I have some doubts about the objectivity at some points in the discussion, some remarks were tendentious. Let me make one to: it is not so easy to take some distance from decisions made earlier when one was involved that much. > +=+ The position is "SO, this is the law unless you use the > power the law gives you to regulate otherwise". My compliments. These couple of words express the core of this discussion. In my opinion the laws do not give S.O. the power to ignore the laws. Some honorable men did in the seventies and eighties. When it reads: A but see B, applying B and therewith deviating from A is consistent with the laws. Nobody will oppose that. When an interpretation is given where the result is that the laws say A but the lawmakers, or even more respected people, say you can ignore it, those people may expect questions and opposition. With reason. Because there is no end. Even Berlusconi changes the laws to prevent unwelcome decisions. Grattan, and even the whole bridgeworld, should be happy to have a chairman of the lawscommittee who tries to defend the laws as we have promulgated them. The committee > agreed very early on (1986) that 40B through E qualify 40A > and said so. They also agreed that regulations authorized in > other laws than 80F are not subject to the conditions of 80F > since they do not say* that they are. This has been published > repeatedly also.(Apart from those and 80E, I have only just > realized this must apply also in the case of 78D.) Of course it does, since the laws say so. > I think we can take it that ton argues for a change in > the law in this respect. In what respect? I argue for a change in the laws allowing S.O. to do what we think they should be authorized to. And we had even proposals here! He is up against positions that have > been long established, Your interpretations of my messages is not better than some interpretations of the laws. I have not given my opinion about the beauty or the benefit of interpretations given, I have expressed my doubt about the correctness of the outcomes from a legal point of view. and I have made it clear that I think > he is tilting at windmills; Only if we allow the laws to be ignored when we have 'better' purposes to reach. And yes, I have some Don Quichotte aberations, but when I have to choose between him and a windmill? in the meantime we have both > been told by WBF committees what the law is Nicely said, who am I to express doubts. and so it is. > For my part I am content with the current position and > would like to see it expressed if possible in a way that > wholly avoids obscurity or mistranslation (but then, I am > one of those who has voted for this position on more than > one occasion. I have never disguised my opinion that it > is right to give SOs total power to determine what may > be played in their own tournaments). Then we better had changed the laws in 87 and, forgotten then, in 97. > Cheers ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > (* as, for example, "but see...." in Law 72B3 - 'but' > introduces a clause that contrasts with the statement > to which it is attached and qualifies it. There are no > 'but sees' in the laws I have referenced, each of > which has equal force with 80F, and separate effect. > That is the authentic published WBF position. So 80F > gives additional general powers of regulation beyond > those specified in other laws.). Here we are talking about not specified general powers, as far as I have searched the laws. 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 Aug 3 07:21:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g72LKxL28067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 07:20:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g72LKsH28063 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 07:20:54 +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 g72L6AG18046 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:06:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002701c23a68$4effec40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "blml" References: <200208020331.g723VSa05691@freenet10.carleton.ca> <000b01c239e6$9ef65400$1308ff3e@annescomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:01:59 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Anne Jones" > > I have sympathy here for Marvin - I would have let him play the > board. It might have cost him dearly, but I believe a board once > started must be finished. I think I have the Law on my side. > No sympathy needed, we played the board during a later break. Surprised that a TD would have us the suspend the auction for some rounds, and thinking it wrong, I told him that when he brought the board to us. I should have spoken in private, because the female half of this mixed pair thought I was impugning their honesty, certainly not the case. I just wanted to establish with the TD what I thought was a recognized principle. Strictly speaking, I believe this was TD error that could only be remedied by Avg+ to both sides, as we did nothing wrong. (When he brought us the second board with the round about to end, he told us to play it.) Being a sweet guy, I didn't go in that direction and meekly played the board. Against some pairs that I know this board would not have been played later, hang the consequences. Vitold might do well to plainly state in his TD code a rule that is evidently derivable from the Laws now, but not clear: Once players have looked at their hands, a deal must be completed or appropriate artificial scores assigned.. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 3 07:27:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g72LRkd28080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 07:27:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g72LRfH28076 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 07:27:42 +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 g72LCwG20671 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:12:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002a01c23a69$421d78c0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "blml" References: <200208020331.g723VSa05691@freenet10.carleton.ca> <000b01c239e6$9ef65400$1308ff3e@annescomputer> <001f01c23a2a$38184fb0$6401a8c0@hare> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:11:47 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Nancy T Dressing" wrote: > I think Marv should post "the rest of the story"! I did that, except for the result on the board. I played 3NT and got a near-top. Now, suppose we had defended a contract and I had made some brilliant lead, or that we had bid a difficult slam. Is it not possible that the opponents would suspect something? That is one reason I was reluctant to play the board. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 3 07:53:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g72LqmC28101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 07:52:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g72LqhH28097 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 07:52:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g72LbxG00915 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:37:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003f01c23a6c$c1143080$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00be01c239a9$de804640$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <015c01c23a30$1d47a130$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Defensive Claim Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:36:44 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Konrad Ciborowski" . > > Call me some greedy BLer but this is exactly why I don't > like the present state of affairs. > Many weak declarers make irrational plays quite often. > Frequently they claim in a position where I can be fairly > sure that if they were forced to play the hand out they > would manage to go down; they would fail to cash their > winners in the right order, they would forget to unblock > singleton ace or ruff a loser in dummy. The chance for > this is quite high because when they don't claim they > do make plays like that from time to time. But try & call > the TD to contest the claim for 5 tricks in this position > > S A KQJx > H xxxx A > > and you will be given a short shrift by the TD. > He will give all 5 tricks to the poor man even though you > last week you saw the same man cash the HA first . > > I don't think it is equitable that the man is allowed > to throw his cards on the table and simply > say "they are all mine". I agree with Konrad, and will take this opportunity to repeat an old suggestion of mine: A claim may be made only when one hand will win all the tricks claimed (top-down assumed, trumps first), or there is a cross-ruff with high trumps for the number of tricks claimed. And now I add: A defender may not claim one or more tricks to be won by partner's hand. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 3 09:51:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g72Non328157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 09:50:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g72NoiH28153 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 09:50:44 +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 g72NZwL00153 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 19:35:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 19:33:56 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Re-writing Laws 40A and 40D To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <002b01c239f8$dd536d20$4232e150@dodona> 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 8/2/02, Grattan Endicott wrote: >I have never disguised my opinion that it is right to give SOs total >power to determine what may be played in their own tournaments). I am, I think, generally in agreement here - with one caveat: what, exactly, is an SO? In the ACBL, there seems to be some confusion (maybe it's just me): the ACBL says that districts, units and local clubs are SOs, and have those powers the laws delegate to SOs. But the ACBL itself *also* exercises those powers, or seems to do. Can there be more than one SO for a given contest? Can a Zonal Authority (or an NCBO - is the ACBL an NCBO?) exercise powers delegated to SOs? Recently I read (I think in one District Director's web report of the last BoD meeting) that ACBL says that it is only the SO for NABCs. That's nice, but it doesn't seem to be borne out by the ACBL's apparent exercise of powers delegated to SOs for contests below that level ("in any contest where ACBL masterpoints are awarded..."). 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 Aug 3 09:51:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g72NowH28163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 09:50:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g72NoqH28159 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 09:50:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g72Na7L00308 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 19:36:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 19:23:03 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play 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 8/1/02, A. L. Edwards wrote: >'m with Anne here. So am I. :-) [snip] >That being said, all too often I've called the round, and seen a >slow table ignore the call and try to start their last board. [snip] >Would I be really be surprised if the players had started the >board after the round had been called? :-) I wouldn't. Recently, playing at a local club, the TD called the round while we were scoring the second board. The other three players at the table (including my partner) pulled their hands out of board three. I said "I don't think we should start this board. The round's been called." North said "Oh, don't worry about it," and started the bidding. I probably should have called the TD, but I didn't. By the time she discovered we weren't finished, we were in the play. Must've been very annoying for her, as well as for the other pairs we delayed. I'd probably make a lousy TD on these cases. If I caught players doing this, I'd slap 'em with at *least* a half board pp. More if I had to adjust scores at other tables because of it. That oughta piss off just about everybody. :-) 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 Aug 3 09:52:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g72Nq9m28181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 09:52:09 +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 g72Nq4H28177 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 09:52:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.33.201] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17alyj-000MY3-00; Sat, 03 Aug 2002 00:37:05 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c23a7d$ff56d940$c921e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Re-writing Laws 40A and 40D Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 23:05:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 12:58 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re-writing Laws 40A and 40D > In-Reply-To: <002b01c239f8$dd536d20$4232e150@dodona> > Grattan wrote: > > +=+ The position is "SO, this is the law unless you > > use the power the law gives you to regulate otherwise". > > This is a singularly unhelpful statement - the laws are > unclear on what powers "the law gives you to regulate > otherwise". > +=+ Tim, You make it sound as though I should be interested in persuading you what the law is. I am not. By the constitution of the WBF the law is what the WBF says it is. I have expounded that sufficiently. The powers in question have been declared to be "unrestricted". As an officer of the WBF I am bound by what has been decided. It is not a matter of any importance that you should be persuaded. I have far too much on my plate in preparing for Montreal to spend any more time on the subject. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 3 10:35:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g730YoX28204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 10:34:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g730YjH28200 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 10:34:46 +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 g730NC504887 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 16:23:12 -0800 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 16:17:23 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Re-writing Laws 40A and 40D In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Ed Reppert wrote: > I am, I think, generally in agreement here - with one caveat: what, > exactly, is an SO? In the ACBL, there seems to be some confusion (maybe > it's just me): the ACBL says that districts, units and local clubs are > SOs, and have those powers the laws delegate to SOs. But the ACBL itself > *also* exercises those powers, or seems to do. Can there be more than > one SO for a given contest? Can a Zonal Authority (or an NCBO - is the > ACBL an NCBO?) exercise powers delegated to SOs? I don't think a ZA can take away a SO's right to make certain choices. I can't think of an example offhand where one has tried, either, actually. It is not uncommon, for instance, for a sectional or regional to announce its own convention regulations. ("General Convention Chart plus any defence to 1NT openings you wish" or "Midchart but with Multi-2D forbidden" are two such I have seen.) ACBL requires such changes to be included in the tournament advertising for tournaments. Clubs do as they please conventionwise without having to publish in advance; the club in Anchorage, Alaska, for instance, told me they didn't want my money if I wanted to play a GCC-legal Polish Club variant there. (They did let me play it in their regional, but gave me icy stares every round and called the director to ask if my system was legal at least three times every session.) You will also see a variety of appeals structures around. You can set the entry fee to be whatever you wish, but if you award masterpoints you have to pay a sanction fee; you can use whatever directors you wish, but if you use ACBL directors you have to pay at the ACBL rate and cooperate with ACBL management to a certain extent. (If you don't use ACBL directors you might endanger your ability to award masterpoints; but if you are running a small sectional in an out-of-the-way place, you are actually told NOT to use ACBL directors because ACBL doesn't like paying travel costs!) > Recently I read (I think in one District Director's web report of the > last BoD meeting) that ACBL says that it is only the SO for NABCs. > That's nice, but it doesn't seem to be borne out by the ACBL's apparent > exercise of powers delegated to SOs for contests below that level ("in > any contest where ACBL masterpoints are awarded..."). The ACBL-as-a-salesman-of-masterpoints can attach whatever additional strings it wishes that the ACBL-as-ZA can't. Aside from the masterpoint regulations themselves, they don't do too much of that. They do use the masterpoint regulations to arrange things in their own best interest - for instance, only allowing full-size awards in games which are open to anyone to play in, which seems to be a win-win situation for the ACBL's sanction fees, the club manager's balance book, and the travelling bridge player's convenience. I am sure they can and do sometimes overuse this coercive power. Perhaps you remember when the drinking age was raised from 18 to 21 in the USA in the 1980s? The federal government did not have the authority to demand states ban drinking for people under 21; it did have the authority to say "we will provide highway construction funding only to those states in which drinking under 21 is prohibited." Several states threatened to forgo the money, but all 50 gave in before the deadline arrived. Congress has since used the same tactic several more times. It would not surprise me to see the ACBL do the same thing. The current Grand National Teams regulations, for instance, allow a district to choose its winning team by almost any means they wish -- having a team trials, awarding the slot to the team with the best record in regional play in the previous year, random drawing. Not surprisingly, ACBL declines to award masterpoints for winning a GNT qualifying event if the qualifying event is a lottery and not a bridge game. I can imagine some eminently reasonable proposals -- for instance, play a qualifying event, and award the GNT slot to the team of four players who have never played in the GNT finals before who have the best record in the qualifying event -- that might well be implemented but might result in loss of masterpoint awards. The usual effect at the club level is to cancel affiliation with the ACBL and save on fees, instead of remaining affiliated by not awarding masterpoints, if local preferences run foul of the "in all games awarding masterpoints" regulations. Such games still are supposed to follow the laws, and (on paper at least!) such clubs have to abide by the ZA's elections for L12 and L61 and players in those clubs still have the right to appeal to the national authority -- but I have never seen either of those last two points tested. 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 Aug 3 12:49:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g732mFO28267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 12:48:15 +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 g732m9H28263 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 12:48:10 +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 g732XPG21543 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 19:33:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <009c01c23a96$06a0c4a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" References: <3D4A0CF5.81F935E6@attbi.com> <002b01c239f8$dd536d20$4232e150@dodona> <013001c23a5e$7e883df0$40fef1c3@LNV> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re-writing Laws 40A and 40D Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 19:31:41 -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: "Ton Kooijman" . > > In my opinion the laws do not give S.O. the power to ignore the laws. Some > honorable men did in the seventies and eighties. When it reads: A but see B, > applying B and therewith deviating from A is consistent with the laws. > Nobody will oppose that. When an interpretation is given where the result is > that the laws say A but the lawmakers, or even more respected people, say > you can ignore it, those people may expect questions and opposition. With > reason. Because there is no end. Even Berlusconi changes the laws to prevent > unwelcome decisions. Grattan, and even the whole bridgeworld, should be > happy to have a chairman of the lawscommittee who tries to defend the laws > as we have promulgated them. >From the By-Laws of the WBF > . Laws Committee The President shall appoint a Laws Committee and shall designate the Chairman of such Committee. The Committee shall consist of not less than seven members representing at least three Zones. The function and duty of this Committee shall be to consider and take account of all matters relating to the international laws of bridge. The Committee shall make whatever changes in the laws it deems appropriate, subject to approval by the Executive. The Committee shall interpret the laws; shall periodically review the laws; and at least once each decade shall make a comprehensive study and updating of the entire laws structure. The Laws Committee shall fix its own rules of procedure and shall act as provided by such rules or by direction of the Executive. Since Ton is chairman, I consider him, not some member of the Gang of Lausanne, to be the final authority on the interpretation of the Laws. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 3 17:27:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g737QE128380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 17:26:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g737Q9H28376 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 17:26:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.76.204] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17at3z-0007bZ-00; Sat, 03 Aug 2002 08:11:00 +0100 Message-ID: <001501c23abd$6f6c6580$cc4ce150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <3D4A0CF5.81F935E6@attbi.com> <002b01c239f8$dd536d20$4232e150@dodona> <013001c23a5e$7e883df0$40fef1c3@LNV> <009c01c23a96$06a0c4a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re-writing Laws 40A and 40D Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 08:13:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "bridge-laws" Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 3:31 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re-writing Laws 40A and 40D > > Since Ton is chairman, I consider him, not some member of the > Gang of Lausanne, to be the final authority on the interpretation > of the Laws. > +=+ The WBF Laws Committee has stated that it, the committee acting corporately in a meeting, is the final authority. Its minutes are subject to ratification by the Executive Committee. It has minuted that "no opinion, unless the recorded corporate decision of the committee, shall be considered to have the authority of a committee decision". A Lille minute states that the past decisions and recorded intentions of the committee represent the position of the committee until it changes them. In my opinion, and I am confident the committee would support me, all its officers and members have a collective responsibility to defend and support the committee's decisions, as for example its minute no. 10 of 1st Sep 1998 and the decision of 1986, both of which record the committee's position that it is legal to make a regulation that forbids the psyching of a convention. We are also bound, as a committee, by the ruling of the Executive in 1990 that Law 80F does not apply to regulations authorized by other sections of the laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 3 20:09:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g73A88i28579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 20:08:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g73A82H28575 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 20:08:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g739rBn24410 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 10:53:11 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 10:53 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Re-writing Laws 40A and 40D 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: <000701c23a7d$ff56d940$c921e150@dodona> > > Grattan Endicott +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > " Surround yourself with the best people > you can find, delegate authority, and > don't interfere." = Ronald Reagan > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-meads" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 12:58 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Re-writing Laws 40A and 40D > > > > In-Reply-To: <002b01c239f8$dd536d20$4232e150@dodona> > > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ The position is "SO, this is the law unless you > > > use the power the law gives you to regulate otherwise". > > > > This is a singularly unhelpful statement - the laws are > > unclear on what powers "the law gives you to regulate > > otherwise". > > > +=+ Tim, > You make it sound as though I should be interested > in persuading you what the law is. I am not. That was not my intent. I am interested in finding out what powers the law gives SOs to regulate otherwise. Those given in the laws themselves are are limited (and often, apparently, subject to modifications by the WBFLC which are not referenced in those laws). Finding these modifications (which then turn out to be ambiguous) is not easy. Discovering when they were ratified, published, or took/will take effect has proven impossible. As to whether any "ratification" of these interpretations was "informed" in the sense that the ratifiers knew that a particular ratification would enable SOs to effectively ban psyches - to be honest I just don't believe it. Let us take as today's text: 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. This is, by itself, unhelpful. "Unrestricted" and "given circumstances" do not sit well in the same sentence. What circumstances are "not given"? One references the lawbook and find phrases like "within a king of average strength" - aha we say a clear example of a "not given" circumstance. > By the > constitution of the WBF the law is what the WBF says it is. Charles Dodgson would be proud of you. Words mean what you want them to mean and any players who want to understand the law can go hang because there is nowhere for them to find out what this is. 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 Aug 3 20:49:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g73Anfk28603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 20:49:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta202-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta202-rme.xtra.co.nz [210.86.15.145]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g73AnaH28599 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 20:49:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz ([210.86.15.140]) by mta202-rme.xtra.co.nz with ESMTP id <20020803103447.GXOG25601.mta202-rme.xtra.co.nz@mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz> for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 22:34:47 +1200 Received: from w3n7y3 ([210.54.206.248]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20020803103445.TFDX2382.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@w3n7y3> for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 22:34:45 +1200 Message-ID: <001801c23ad9$3f8e4d80$f8ce36d2@w3n7y3> From: "Wayne" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 22:33:44 +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: Ed Reppert To: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 11:23 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > On 8/1/02, A. L. Edwards wrote: > > >'m with Anne here. > > So am I. :-) > > [snip] > > >That being said, all too often I've called the round, and seen a > >slow table ignore the call and try to start their last board. > > [snip] > > >Would I be really be surprised if the players had started the > >board after the round had been called? :-) > > I wouldn't. Recently, playing at a local club, the TD called the round > while we were scoring the second board. The other three players at the > table (including my partner) pulled their hands out of board three. I > said "I don't think we should start this board. The round's been > called." North said "Oh, don't worry about it," and started the bidding. > I probably should have called the TD, but I didn't. By the time she > discovered we weren't finished, we were in the play. Must've been very > annoying for her, as well as for the other pairs we delayed. I had this recently only worse - I specifically asked a table not to play the last board since they were so far behind. When i left they started anyway :-( Amazingly they actually finished in reasonable time - but a little late. Nevertheless I gave them a sever telling off. After the session the most experienced player at the table came and apologized to me :-) Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 4 00:33:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g73EWDW28702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 00:32:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eomer.vianetworks.nl (eomer.vianetworks.nl [212.61.15.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g73EW7H28698 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 00:32:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d440.iae.nl [212.61.5.186]) by eomer.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id CC38F213B7 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 16:15:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <009401c23af7$ee2aa320$1d053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <200208020331.g723VSa05691@freenet10.carleton.ca> <000b01c239e6$9ef65400$1308ff3e@annescomputer> <002701c23a68$4effec40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 16:11:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Could postponing the start of the following round not be a better ( the best) solution? It happens that a table is late because of a ruling and I than reset the clock. Nevertheless it is well-known that my sessions are ending in time. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 11:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > > From: "Anne Jones" > > > > I have sympathy here for Marvin - I would have let him play the > > board. It might have cost him dearly, but I believe a board once > > started must be finished. I think I have the Law on my side. > > > No sympathy needed, we played the board during a later break. Surprised that > a TD would have us the suspend the auction for some rounds, and thinking it > wrong, I told him that when he brought the board to us. I should have spoken > in private, because the female half of this mixed pair thought I was > impugning their honesty, certainly not the case. I just wanted to establish > with the TD what I thought was a recognized principle. > > Strictly speaking, I believe this was TD error that could only be remedied > by Avg+ to both sides, as we did nothing wrong. (When he brought us the > second board with the round about to end, he told us to play it.) Being a > sweet guy, I didn't go in that direction and meekly played the board. > Against some pairs that I know this board would not have been played later, > hang the consequences. > > Vitold might do well to plainly state in his TD code a rule that is > evidently derivable from the Laws now, but not clear: Once players have > looked at their hands, a deal must be completed or appropriate artificial > scores assigned.. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 4 06:59:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g73KvoX28916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 06:57:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g73KviH28912 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 06:57:44 +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 g73Kgup29291 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 16:42:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 16:28:56 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play To: bridge-laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <009401c23af7$ee2aa320$1d053dd4@b0e7g1> 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 8/3/02, Ben Schelen wrote: >Could postponing the start of the following round not be a better ( >the best) solution? It happens that a table is late because of a >ruling and I than reset the clock. Nevertheless it is well-known that >my sessions are ending in time. Consider the club situation here. There is an ACBL guideline that says that players should get 7.5 minutes per board. There is a tradition, at least, that a session should take precisely 3 hours, plus about 15-20 minutes to get the final scores posted. 3 hours, divided by 7.5 minutes, equates to 24 boards. The usual club game here seems to run between 7 and 13 tables per section (sometimes one section, sometimes two). Now, it is "well known" that two board rounds take longer than three board rounds(!) So we typically play eight three board rounds, regardless of the number of tables (and almost always a Mitchell movement). That in itself is problematic, IMO (I'd prefer to play duplicate, not whatever this is). But the problems are compounded by the following two facts: first, there are many players in the clubs here (especially at lower levels of experience) who will take upwards of *ten* minutes to play a board - any board. The "schedule" doesn't make allowance for this, or for delays caused by director calls or other factors (shouldn't a reasonable schedule include a minute or two for moving boards and players and signing the pickup slip?) The second fact is that directors do not strictly enforce the time limits, nor do they make it clear when the announced end of round has come. I often hear "you should have moved for your next round already", when no announcement "move for the next round, please" has been made. There is one director here who often doesn't announce the change at all - and then gets upset when he discovers people haven't moved. Players at the beginning of these games either (a) start playing when *they* are ready, regardless what's going on elsewhere or (b) try to ask the director (who at this point is usually running around like a chicken with its head cut off) "can we start?" When you get a pair from each group at the same table, it can be frustrating for both sides. Players move when they're done playing. It doesn't matter if the round has been called. They go to the table from which they're supposed to get boards, and ask for them (incidently getting a nice view of the dummy, at least, on a board they've yet to play). They tell North "you're supposed to move the boards" even though the round hasn't been called (though I admit often North pays no attention when the round *is* called). The whole thing, IMO, is a damn mess. Maybe I'm just too anal-retentive, but I remember when I first got back into bridge, in Gosport (UK) in 1990. The club there ran like clockwork - full movements, players waited until TD announced "begin" (which he did on time), rounds called on time and clearly, a fifteen minute break halfway through (try *that* here in Rochester. HA!), finished on time, scores posted quickly. All that with a playing director. Compared to that, what I see in clubs around here is a madhouse. 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 Aug 4 07:21:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g73LLAd28937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 07:21:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g73LL5H28933 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 07:21:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.148.160]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020803210616.NPBT290.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 22:06:16 +0100 Message-ID: <002201c23b31$bb6ec3f0$a09468d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <005b01c2278c$98d6e4c0$289968d5@SCRAP> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Wish list Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 22:06:54 +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 David Stevenson: 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. Nigel Guthrie: I am not paranoid; nor am I masochistic -- I play bridge because I enjoy it. My criticisms are of the laws themselves not of the TDs who have the near impossible task of interpreting and enforcing them. (as demonstrated by the number of controversies raging in BLML). Nigel: One of my theses is that poor rules make law-breaking easier to rationalise. For example, EBU BLMLers seem happy to admit to routinely opening one of a suit on sub-rule-of-19 hands, in 3rd seat, at level 3 events, without barring conventional continuations. Nigel: Finally, I intend my criticisms as constructive; I resent and eschew ad hominem attacks. --- 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 Sun Aug 4 07:45:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g73LjSR28955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 07:45:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g73LjNH28951 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 07:45:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.2.12] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17b6Tg-0005BB-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 03 Aug 2002 22:30:24 +0100 Message-ID: <005801c23b35$7818ec80$6615e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Re-writing Laws 40A and 40D Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 22:32:56 +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 Let us take as today's text: > 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. > > This is, by itself, unhelpful. "Unrestricted" and "given > circumstances" do not sit well in the same sentence. What > circumstances are "not given"? > +=+ For 'unrestricted' I will leave you to consult a dictionary. 'Given circumstances would be those specified in the regulation. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 4 07:55:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g73LtW928967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 07:55:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (mta07-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g73LtRH28963 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 07:55:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.153.134]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020803214035.MLVM13709.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 22:40:35 +0100 Message-ID: <008401c23b36$88efb9c0$a09468d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Wish list Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 22:40:43 +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 Currently, Bridge is a different game depending on where you play it. IMO The WBF should restrict SO/ZO law alterations to specially designated "Fairy Bridge" local events. All major competitions should conform to a single internationally agreed set of laws; it is hard enough for bridge-players to draft, interpret, and conform to one set of laws; without organisations like the ACBL and the EBU flexing their muscles with unnecessary changes. Surely some measure of consistency is necessary if Bridge is to be considered for Olympic status. Regard, 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 Sun Aug 4 08:36:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g73MaGB29008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 08:36:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g73MaBH29004 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 08:36:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from annescomputer ([62.255.9.6]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020803222123.VDGK28874.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@annescomputer> for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 23:21:23 +0100 Message-ID: <001301c23b3c$0d0800a0$0609ff3e@annescomputer> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 23:21:01 +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 Yes - agree with all the rant - but how does the law guide us? Can we legally enforce a timed game? Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "bridge-laws" Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > On 8/3/02, Ben Schelen wrote: > > >Could postponing the start of the following round not be a better ( > >the best) solution? It happens that a table is late because of a > >ruling and I than reset the clock. Nevertheless it is well-known that > >my sessions are ending in time. > > > > Consider the club situation here. There is an ACBL guideline that says > that players should get 7.5 minutes per board. There is a tradition, at > least, that a session should take precisely 3 hours, plus about 15-20 > minutes to get the final scores posted. 3 hours, divided by 7.5 minutes, > equates to 24 boards. The usual club game here seems to run between 7 > and 13 tables per section (sometimes one section, sometimes two). Now, > it is "well known" that two board rounds take longer than three board > rounds(!) So we typically play eight three board rounds, regardless of > the number of tables (and almost always a Mitchell movement). That in > itself is problematic, IMO (I'd prefer to play duplicate, not whatever > this is). But the problems are compounded by the following two facts: > first, there are many players in the clubs here (especially at lower > levels of experience) who will take upwards of *ten* minutes to play a > board - any board. The "schedule" doesn't make allowance for this, or > for delays caused by director calls or other factors (shouldn't a > reasonable schedule include a minute or two for moving boards and > players and signing the pickup slip?) The second fact is that directors > do not strictly enforce the time limits, nor do they make it clear when > the announced end of round has come. I often hear "you should have moved > for your next round already", when no announcement "move for the next > round, please" has been made. There is one director here who often > doesn't announce the change at all - and then gets upset when he > discovers people haven't moved. Players at the beginning of these games > either (a) start playing when *they* are ready, regardless what's going > on elsewhere or (b) try to ask the director (who at this point is > usually running around like a chicken with its head cut off) "can we > start?" When you get a pair from each group at the same table, it can be > frustrating for both sides. Players move when they're done playing. It > doesn't matter if the round has been called. They go to the table from > which they're supposed to get boards, and ask for them (incidently > getting a nice view of the dummy, at least, on a board they've yet to > play). They tell North "you're supposed to move the boards" even though > the round hasn't been called (though I admit often North pays no > attention when the round *is* called). > > The whole thing, IMO, is a damn mess. Maybe I'm just too anal-retentive, > but I remember when I first got back into bridge, in Gosport (UK) in > 1990. The club there ran like clockwork - full movements, players waited > until TD announced "begin" (which he did on time), rounds called on time > and clearly, a fifteen minute break halfway through (try *that* here in > Rochester. HA!), finished on time, scores posted quickly. All that with > a playing director. Compared to that, what I see in clubs around here is > a madhouse. > > > > Regards, > > Ed > > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com > pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site > pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE > Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage > > What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 4 09:50:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g73NnI929051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 09:49:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g73NnDH29047 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 09:49:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.153.134]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020803233425.RQYA16050.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 00:34:25 +0100 Message-ID: <006d01c23b46$6d2620c0$869968d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] How are you damaged? Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 00:35:07 +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 TD guideline question based on a recent league ruling: South plays in a hopeless contract and is defeated by several tricks. At the end of play, South asks for a ruling because of opponents' MI during the auction. South explains that he lost extra undertricks because of wrong assumptions based on the MI. The director rules that South played so badly that any injury was self-inflicted. Too late, South realises that, without the misinformation, the auction could have been quite different. For example he had an opportunity to double and defeat a contract by opponents. When you describe a possible legal infraction, should the TD himself infer the common ways that it might disadvantage the NOS? or should he ask "how are you damaged?" and address only the issues that arise therefrom? Would it make a difference if the NOS are beginners? If the director does ask "how are you damaged?" can anyone complain about "self-serving" arguments? Regards, 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: 25/07/2002 -- ======================================================================== (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 Sun Aug 4 09:50:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g73NoVS29063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 09:50:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g73NoQH29059 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 09:50:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.153.134]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020803233538.RRYC16050.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 00:35:38 +0100 Message-ID: <007301c23b46$98a6c150$869968d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 00:36:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott: 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. Nigel Guthrie: (: Abandon hope all ye who enter here :) --- 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: 25/07/2002 -- ======================================================================== (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 Sun Aug 4 16:33:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g746VNR29198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 16:31:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g746VIH29194 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 16:31:18 +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 g746GTK17182; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 23:16:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004201c23b7e$5964ede0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Nigel Guthrie" , "BLML" References: <008401c23b36$88efb9c0$a09468d5@SCRAP> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Wish list Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 23:15:17 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Nigel Guthrie" > Currently, Bridge is a different game depending on where you play it. > IMO The WBF should restrict SO/ZO law alterations to specially > designated "Fairy Bridge" local events. > All major competitions should conform to a single internationally > agreed set of laws; it is hard enough for bridge-players to draft, > interpret, and conform to one set of laws; without organisations > like the ACBL and the EBU flexing their muscles with unnecessary > changes. Surely some measure of consistency is necessary if Bridge > is to be considered for Olympic status. Yes, indeed it is. The Olympic Committee has required a few amendments with which the WBF must comply: The following comes from the WBF website: ###### Rule 29 [of the Olympic Charter - mlf] provides that 'as far as the role of IFs within the Olympic Movement is concerned, their statutes, practice and activities must be in conformity with the Olympic Charter'. Accordingly, the IOC has requested confirmation that 'the WBF doping regulations are in conformity with the Olympic Movement Medical Code' and that 'the WBF adheres to the Court of Arbitration for Sports for the resolution of all form of dispute relating to the sport of bridge'. In order to comply with these requirements, the WBF Constitution and By-laws were suitably amended in August 2000. ###### Does anyone know what these amendments were? I believe the Olympic Charter requires that a recognized IF (International Federation) for a sport have centralized control over the rules of the sport, so that the same rules prevail everywhere. I don't see that the WBF has such control. At the moment I can't find the text of the Olympic Charter. Where do they hide that thing? 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 Aug 4 22:43:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g74CgCQ29405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 22:42:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g74Cg3H29398 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 22:42:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-406.charmeleon.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.135.80.150] helo=4nrw70j) by cmailm1.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17bKTb-0002zH-00; Sun, 04 Aug 2002 13:27:15 +0100 Message-ID: <002501c23bb2$64642f60$965087d9@4nrw70j> From: "grandeval" To: "Nigel Guthrie" , "BLML" References: <006d01c23b46$6d2620c0$869968d5@SCRAP> Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 13:26:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 12:35 AM Subject: [BLML] How are you damaged? > > When you describe a possible legal infraction, should the > TD himself infer the common ways that it might disadvantage > the NOS? or should he ask "how are you damaged?" and > address only the issues that arise therefrom? > +=+ Obviously it is Kojak's view on this that weighs the most. As for ACs, any that I have experience of have tended to be of a mind that if a player was not able to tell the Director how he had been damaged he was not alive to the situation at the crucial time and therefore could not be anticipated to take the course he later claims. This is not an absolute, of course, since there are some situations where he could not be expected to realize the implications. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 4 22:43:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g74CgCl29406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 22:42:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g74Cg2H29397 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 22:42:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-406.charmeleon.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.135.80.150] helo=4nrw70j) by cmailm1.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17bKTZ-0002zH-00; Sun, 04 Aug 2002 13:27:14 +0100 Message-ID: <002401c23bb2$63825ae0$965087d9@4nrw70j> From: "grandeval" To: "Nigel Guthrie" , "BLML" References: <007301c23b46$98a6c150$869968d5@SCRAP> Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 13:24:07 +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: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 12:36 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list > Grattan Endicott: > 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. > > Nigel Guthrie: > (: Abandon hope all ye who enter here :) > +=+ The only route to change lies in a democratic change of NBO representation. During some of the recent correspondence I have noted that members of the WBFLC who have seen it (at least five) have expressed little enthusiasm for change. On the question of regulation of psyching ton apparently thinks the EBL, EBU and ACBL regulations (and any like them) are illegal because the law is what he believes it to be not what the WBFLC has said it is. That is substantial minority support of course but it does not change anything. ~ 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 Aug 5 00:05:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g74E56H29448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 00:05:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eowyn.vianetworks.nl (eowyn.vianetworks.nl [212.61.25.227]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g74E50H29444 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 00:05:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d394.iae.nl [212.61.5.140]) by eowyn.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B6AC20F3C for ; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 15:50:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <004701c23bbd$8644aaa0$8c053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <001301c23b3c$0d0800a0$0609ff3e@annescomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 15:31:42 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Yes we can: Law 80E and F. Besides that we form a special group for beginners and low level players. That group plays one board less. But if the players at a table have sufficient time left, they may play an extra board that is on the table as well. At a club we often use a movement with the boards stationary on the tables, whereas the NS go one table up and the EW one table down. By doing so the TD can pay more attention to the pairs. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 12:21 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > Yes - agree with all the rant - but how does the law guide us? Can we > legally enforce a timed game? > Anne > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Reppert" > To: "bridge-laws" > Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 9:28 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > > > > On 8/3/02, Ben Schelen wrote: > > > > >Could postponing the start of the following round not be a better ( > > >the best) solution? It happens that a table is late because of a > > >ruling and I than reset the clock. Nevertheless it is well-known that > > >my sessions are ending in time. > > > > > > > > Consider the club situation here. There is an ACBL guideline that says > > that players should get 7.5 minutes per board. There is a tradition, > at > > least, that a session should take precisely 3 hours, plus about 15-20 > > minutes to get the final scores posted. 3 hours, divided by 7.5 > minutes, > > equates to 24 boards. The usual club game here seems to run between 7 > > and 13 tables per section (sometimes one section, sometimes two). Now, > > it is "well known" that two board rounds take longer than three board > > rounds(!) So we typically play eight three board rounds, regardless of > > the number of tables (and almost always a Mitchell movement). That in > > itself is problematic, IMO (I'd prefer to play duplicate, not whatever > > this is). But the problems are compounded by the following two facts: > > first, there are many players in the clubs here (especially at lower > > levels of experience) who will take upwards of *ten* minutes to play a > > board - any board. The "schedule" doesn't make allowance for this, or > > for delays caused by director calls or other factors (shouldn't a > > reasonable schedule include a minute or two for moving boards and > > players and signing the pickup slip?) The second fact is that > directors > > do not strictly enforce the time limits, nor do they make it clear > when > > the announced end of round has come. I often hear "you should have > moved > > for your next round already", when no announcement "move for the next > > round, please" has been made. There is one director here who often > > doesn't announce the change at all - and then gets upset when he > > discovers people haven't moved. Players at the beginning of these > games > > either (a) start playing when *they* are ready, regardless what's > going > > on elsewhere or (b) try to ask the director (who at this point is > > usually running around like a chicken with its head cut off) "can we > > start?" When you get a pair from each group at the same table, it can > be > > frustrating for both sides. Players move when they're done playing. It > > doesn't matter if the round has been called. They go to the table from > > which they're supposed to get boards, and ask for them (incidently > > getting a nice view of the dummy, at least, on a board they've yet to > > play). They tell North "you're supposed to move the boards" even > though > > the round hasn't been called (though I admit often North pays no > > attention when the round *is* called). > > > > The whole thing, IMO, is a damn mess. Maybe I'm just too > anal-retentive, > > but I remember when I first got back into bridge, in Gosport (UK) in > > 1990. The club there ran like clockwork - full movements, players > waited > > until TD announced "begin" (which he did on time), rounds called on > time > > and clearly, a fifteen minute break halfway through (try *that* here > in > > Rochester. HA!), finished on time, scores posted quickly. All that > with > > a playing director. Compared to that, what I see in clubs around here > is > > a madhouse. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Ed > > > > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com > > pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or > http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site > > pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE > > Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage > > > > What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is > called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin > Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 > > -- > > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au > with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 5 05:32:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g74JV6l29652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 05:31:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g74JV0H29648 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 05:31:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id PAA12635 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 15:16:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA09138 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 15:16:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 15:16:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208041916.PAA09138@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Anne Jones" > Yes - agree with all the rant - but how does the law guide us? Can we > legally enforce a timed game? Kaplan's idea was that slow play is a conduct offense, basically a form of rudeness to the other participants. Most SO's manage to enforce the rules against rudeness, although there are, alas, some that don't. Actually, I suspect that the best enforcement is peer pressure, both for slow play and for rudeness. If neither one is tolerated, and everyone knows it, problems should be rare. I have no idea what to do, though, once things have progressed to the state Ed describes. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 5 05:45:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g74Jj0629672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 05:45:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g74JitH29668 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 05:44:55 +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 PAA12869 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 15:30:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA09357 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 15:30:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 15:30:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208041930.PAA09357@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > When you describe a possible legal infraction, should the > TD himself infer the common ways that it might disadvantage > the NOS? or should he ask "how are you damaged?" and > address only the issues that arise therefrom? L81C6 contains the words "to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner." The key word is "rectify." While some disagree (see below), the word seems to me to signify "making right," which typically would mean adjusting the score to what would have happened absent an infraction. (I'm using shorthand here; "applying L12C2/12C3" might be better.) > From: "grandeval" > +=+ Obviously it is Kojak's view on this that weighs the > most. I look forward to his post. (Or have I missed it?) > As for ACs, any that I have experience of have > tended to be of a mind that if a player was not able to tell > the Director how he had been damaged he was not alive > to the situation at the crucial time This might be appropriate at high levels of play; certainly it is always worthy of consideration in deciding what is "likely/at all probable." On the other hand, at my much lower level of play than Grattan's, I usually have enough trouble deciding what to do with the information I am given and don't give much thought to what actions I might have taken if given different information. Similarly, it's enough for me to try to decide what an opponent's hesitation suggests without also worrying about what his partner's logical alternatives might be. Basically, I have enough trouble keeping track of what actually has happened at the table without trying to imagine what might have happened in different circumstances. I hope my limited abilities are not a license for opponents to give MI and use UI against me. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 5 11:34:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g751Xu629827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:33:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g751XoH29823 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:33:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g751IwL23904 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 21:18:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 20:57:31 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <004701c23bbd$8644aaa0$8c053dd4@b0e7g1> 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 8/4/02, Ben Schelen wrote: >Yes we can: Law 80E and F. I had responded separately to Anne because she replied directly to me. In that response, I cited other laws than these, but these too seem to allow it. I'll post my reply to Anne here in a minute. >Besides that we form a special group for beginners and low level >players. That group plays one board less. But if the players at a >table have sufficient time left, they may play an extra board that is >on the table as well. Interesting idea. Don't know if it would fly here. >At a club we often use a movement with the boards stationary on the >tables, whereas the NS go one table up and the EW one table down. By >doing so the TD can pay more attention to the pairs. ACBL club TDs, around here at least, will *not* use a movement that isn't already available in ACBLScore. Larry Harris is the author of the "Bridge Director's Companion", of which I have the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Editions. In the 3rd, he wrote of the Chalfant movement, which he claimed had been approved by the ACBL in 1977, and which is similar to what you describe here - boards are stationary, players move. But Chalfant movements aren't in ACBLScore (the program may or may not be modifiable by the user to include them, I don't know) and (surprise, surprise!) Chalfant movements are not included in the fourth edition of Larry's book. 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 Aug 5 14:59:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g754wOi29902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:58:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g754wJH29898 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:58:19 +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 g754hVf24879 for ; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 21:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002b01c23c3a$865544a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 21:40:25 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > ACBL club TDs, around here at least, will *not* use a movement that > isn't already available in ACBLScore. Larry Harris is the author of the > "Bridge Director's Companion", of which I have the 2nd, 3rd and 4th > Editions. In the 3rd, he wrote of the Chalfant movement, which he > claimed had been approved by the ACBL in 1977, and which is similar to > what you describe here - boards are stationary, players move. But > Chalfant movements aren't in ACBLScore (the program may or may not be > modifiable by the user to include them, I don't know) You can put any movement into ACBLScore by merely specifying which pairs will meet on each round, and which boards they will play when meeting. This is accomplished via the EDMOV command. The resultant movement can be either a two-winner Mitchell type game or a one-winner game. An example would be an arrow-switched Mitchell, which is easy to design because you just specify "one-winner" and then switch the N/S and E/W pair numbers on one or more rounds. Of course it takes a lot of work to determine and enter all the numbers for a complicated movement, and there may be difficulty utilizing the setup for future use. 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 Aug 5 16:41:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g756f7c29947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 16:41:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.210]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g756f1H29943 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 16:41:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-913.tailslide.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.195.145] helo=4nrw70j) by cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17bbJf-0000Yp-00; Mon, 05 Aug 2002 07:26:07 +0100 Message-ID: <000801c23c49$1de63320$91c3193e@4nrw70j> From: "grandeval" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200208041930.PAA09357@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 00:49:02 +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 Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 8:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? > > L81C6 contains the words "to rectify an error or > irregularity of which he becomes aware in any > manner." The key word is "rectify." While some > disagree (see below), the word seems to me to > signify "making right," which typically would mean > adjusting the score to what would have happened > absent an infraction. (I'm using shorthand here; > "applying L12C2/12C3" might be better.) > +=+ Whilst still hunting for the best turn of phrase my view of 'equity' is that it is a fair outcome, absent any irregularity, given the balance of probabilities as they were in the position reached in the instant before the irregularity occurred. ~ 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 Aug 5 18:13:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g758Cwa29992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:12:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g758CqH29988 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:12:53 +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 g757w2f14505 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 09:58:02 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Aug 05 09:53:12 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KKXNPNYPNY001VI3@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 05 Aug 2002 09:57:17 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 05 Aug 2002 09:56:44 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 09:57:15 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Wish list To: "'grandeval'" , 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 > > Grattan Endicott: > > 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. It is not so mysterious. We do have independent debates, one in which you and may be others do repeat that what we have decided once or twice is what it is and a second where I and may be others have our doubts whether we should have taken such a decision. What relates us is that we both base our remarks on the laws but it could be wise to explicitly make that distinction. Your statement ends that part of the discussion immediately. But the second one might be continued for a while. It might give us a fair idea about feelings on this subject round the world. And isn't that nice input for people who want to improve our laws? I don't have the feeling that you are happy with that distinction, so let me give another example, regarding the death penalty. It is like me saying that such penalty shouldn't be exercised anymore, or should be removed from the possible list of penalties and you saying that it is legal to give such penalty (showing me the laws where it is based on). Your advantage is that you are right and I just express an opinion, which could be debated. To make the example more realistic I will use the human rights convention as established in Geneva '48 and tell that countries still exercising the death penalty are abusing that higher law. You keep waving with the country laws giving that authority. And you are right and I am just expressing an opinion and once in a while I feel that there is never a chance that this condition can be altered. So more clear: you are not 'debating with them', you have your own facts repeated. But saying that there is never a chance that their condition can be altered sounds too arrogant and hopeless. > > Nigel Guthrie: > > (: Abandon hope all ye who enter here :) > > > +=+ The only route to change lies in a democratic change > of NBO representation. During some of the recent > correspondence I have noted that members of the WBFLC > who have seen it (at least five) have expressed little > enthusiasm for change. On the question of regulation of > psyching ton apparently thinks the EBL, EBU and ACBL > regulations (and any like them) are illegal If I have used that qualification I was wrong, it is not illegal. That decision should not have been taken (that is my personal opinion but I have also some arguments for it). because the law is > what he believes it to be not what the WBFLC has said it is. > That is substantial minority support of course but it does not > change anything. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ You are right 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 Aug 5 18:31:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g758VU900009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:31:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout10.sul.t-online.com (mailout10.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g758VPH00005 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:31:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd02.sul.t-online.de by mailout10.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17bd2Z-0006sf-0I; Mon, 05 Aug 2002 10:16:35 +0200 Received: from vwalther.de (320051711875-0001@[80.134.79.252]) by fmrl02.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 17bd2P-0ei3v6C; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 10:16:25 +0200 Message-ID: <3D4E3331.1070507@vwalther.de> Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 10:11:29 +0200 From: "Volker R. Walther" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play References: <001301c23b3c$0d0800a0$0609ff3e@annescomputer> <004701c23bbd$8644aaa0$8c053dd4@b0e7g1> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.62.3.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 320051711875-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ben Schelen wrote: > Yes we can: Law 80E and F. > > At a club we often use a movement with the boards stationary on the tables, > whereas the NS go one table up and the EW one table down. By doing so the TD > can pay more attention to the pairs. > But the players can pay more attention th the boards, too. I used this Movement too, when playing Team-Contests with an odd Number of tables. The main disadvantage is, that you will here something like " I don't know how to reach 6 Spades" always from the same Corner of the room. If that happens, everybody knows which board is involved. Greetings, Volker -- Adressen meiner Homepage: http://www.vwalther.de oder (schlechter zu merken, aber ohne Werbung) http://home.t-online.de/home/volker.r.walther -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 5 20:16:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g75AGIQ00055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 20:16:18 +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 g75AGCH00051 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 20:16:13 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g75A1Ln12368 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:01:21 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:01 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] 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: Ton wrote: > > On the question of regulation of > > psyching ton apparently thinks the EBL, EBU and ACBL > > regulations (and any like them) are illegal > > If I have used that qualification I was wrong, it is not illegal. That > decision should not have been taken (that is my personal opinion but I > have also some arguments for it). There are, I believe, at least six distinct scenarios relating to psyching/conventions and I think Ton is saying that the existing blanket interpretation may not address all of them appropriately. 1. Restricting the psyching of conventional bids whereby the agreed response structure provides extremely high "risk protection" against the psyche and playing the "psyched meaning" as systemic would be classified a HUM (example psyching a strong 2C on a weak hand with diamonds). 2. Restricting the use of conventions which, although seldom psyched in themselves, provide a high level of risk protection to the psycher (example, playing Drury opposite a habitual 3rd hand psycher) - these are often referred to as psychic controls (though I can find no reference to such a term in the laws). 3. Restricting all psyching in certain special terms competitions (eg novice events). 4. Restricting the psyching of conventional bids even though the response structure provides no special protection. 5. Restricting all psyching against certain opponents (eg against novice pairs in mainstream events). 6. Rendering psyches unplayable in mainstream competition by attaching conditions to the use of all (or certain ubiquitous) conventional bids. Even I, as a vociferous supporter of the right to psyche, have no real discomfort with scenarios 1, I can live with scenarios 2/3. I'd prefer the WBF to forbid 4 but can (but can see that might be difficult if empowering them to do 1). 5, although it seems a view espoused by many just feels wrong and 6 is, IMO, a complete betrayal of 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 Tue Aug 6 08:30:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g75MT8J00471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 08:29:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g75MT3H00467 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 08:29:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.3.178] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17bq6s-000C71-00; Mon, 05 Aug 2002 23:13:55 +0100 Message-ID: <005701c23ccd$e55af1a0$ec84403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'grandeval'" , "Nigel Guthrie" , "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 23:13:15 +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: "'grandeval'" ; "Nigel Guthrie" ; "BLML" Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 8:57 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Wish list > > > > Grattan Endicott: > > > 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. > > It is not so mysterious. We do have independent debates, > one in which you and may be others do repeat that what we > have decided once or twice is what it is and a second where > I and may be others have our doubts whether we should have > taken such a decision. What relates us is that we both base our > remarks on the laws but it could be wise to explicitly make that > distinction. Your statement ends that part of the discussion > immediately. But the second one might be continued for a > while. It might give us a fair idea about feelings on this subject > round the world. And isn't that nice input for people who want > to improve our laws? > > I don't have the feeling that you are happy with that > distinction, > > +=+ I feel no distress over the distinction. But I am not happy if the impression is given that a current WBF, or ACBL, or EBL or NBO regulation "infringes the laws" when the final authority has said that it does not. This may be a matter of language, but writing publicly it is important to express a view like this with care. In Kaplan's opinion a regulation banning psyches of conventional bids was allowed by 40D but did not "match up to 75B". In 1986 he was in a minority of one in the WBFLC in maintaining this last position. The 1990 decision was supported by all of the 14 or so members of the investigating body except for one who abstained. For reasons that may be apparent it would surprise me greatly if any desire to remove such powers from SOs were much supported today in the current WBFLC. Certainly it is a matter of interest to ascertain the feelings of the bridge population world-wide. However, I would not be persuaded if opinion were merely obtained from the coterie of blml, which I do not regard as representative of the masses. ~ 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 Aug 6 12:27:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g762QW100617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 12:26:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g762QSH00613 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 12:26:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA28165 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 12:27:11 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 12:06:49 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 12:11:16 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 06/08/2002 12:06:24 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >+=+ I feel no distress over the distinction. But I am not >happy if the impression is given that a current WBF, or ACBL, >or EBL or NBO regulation "infringes the laws" when the final >authority has said that it does not. [snip] I beg to differ. In one sense the WBF Laws Commission is the "final authority" in interpreting the Laws, as it is the highest judicial body in world bridge. However, the WBF Laws Commission does not have the power to promulgate an interpretation which is directly contrary to the words of the Laws. (Just as the United States Supreme Court cannot promulgate an interpretation which is directly contrary to the words of the United States Constitution.) As I recall, some years ago the WBF LC promulgated a clarifying interpretation of Law 25B. As I further recall, NBOs queried the "clarifying" interpretation of the WBF LC, pointing out that the words of Law 25B contradicted the WBF LC "clarification". I believe that the WBF LC was then forced to withdraw or modify its interpretation. (It is possible that my above statement of fact is missing some 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 Tue Aug 6 14:05:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7644r000671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 14:04:53 +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 g7644nH00667 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 14:04:49 +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 OAA14904 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 14:05:33 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 13:45:08 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 13:49:35 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 06/08/2002 01:44:43 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >+=+ Whilst still hunting for the best turn of phrase >my view of 'equity' is that it is a fair outcome, absent >any irregularity, given the balance of probabilities as >they were in the position reached in the instant before >the irregularity occurred. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ A definition of equity with which both Jeff Rubens and myself would agree. However, in a Law 16 violation, Jeff Rubens sees "the irregularity" as Player A's break of tempo; while I see "the irregularity" as Player B's subsequent selection of a logical alternative demonstrably suggested by Player A's break of tempo. Technically, both Player A and Player B have committed irregularities, so there is no such thing as *the* irregularity. Before which of several irregularities is the instant where equity is to be defined? 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 Aug 6 16:38:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g766bIq00734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 16:37:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g766bDH00730 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 16:37:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.17.4] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17bxis-0009ln-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 07:21:38 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c23d12$17cb4ba0$0411e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 07:23:46 +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: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 4:49 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? > > >+=+ Whilst still hunting for the best turn of phrase > >my view of 'equity' is that it is a fair outcome, absent > >any irregularity, given the balance of probabilities as > >they were in the position reached in the instant before > >the irregularity occurred. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > A definition of equity with which both Jeff Rubens and > myself would agree. > > However, in a Law 16 violation, Jeff Rubens sees "the > irregularity" as Player A's break of tempo; while I see > "the irregularity" as Player B's subsequent selection of > a logical alternative demonstrably suggested by Player > A's break of tempo. > > Technically, both Player A and Player B have committed > irregularities, so there is no such thing as *the* > irregularity. > > Before which of several irregularities is the instant > where equity is to be defined? > +=+ By general consent the infraction lies in player B's failure to select the least favourable alternative. This is how a Director would interpret the situation under current guidance. However, I am aware of Law 73A2; this is presumably the basis for Jeff Rubens' assertion. I have never seen it enunciated but I suppose you could argue that the infraction calling for redress is not complete until both A and B have contributed their parts to 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 Aug 6 22:43:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76CgIQ00973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 22:42:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g76CgBH00969 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 22:42:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h82.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.82]) by ns1.telekom.ru (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g76CRDai031671; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 16:27:13 +0400 Message-ID: <3D4FCF18.9CA770B4@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 17:28:56 +0400 From: vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [ru] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: grandeval , BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? References: <006d01c23b46$6d2620c0$869968d5@SCRAP> <002501c23bb2$64642f60$965087d9@4nrw70j> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) grandeval wrote: > Grattan Endicott ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > > > > When you describe a possible legal infraction, should the > > TD himself infer the common ways that it might disadvantage > > the NOS? or should he ask "how are you damaged?" and > > address only the issues that arise therefrom? > > > +=+ Obviously it is Kojak's view on this that weighs the > most. As for ACs, any that I have experience of have > tended to be of a mind that if a player was not able to tell > the Director how he had been damaged he was not alive > to the situation at the crucial time and therefore could not > be anticipated to take the course he later claims. This is > not an absolute, of course, since there are some situations > where he could not be expected to realize the implications. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ There is Russian proverb: Till sun rises - dew will eat away eyes (word-by-word translation). That's why I try to use joint EBU mind and cite their position: White Book: 81.7 Irregularity not noticed by players When called to the table to sort out one problem, a TD may notice a quite separate one. Though duty-bound to deal with any irregularity that may arise, a TD will be unwilling to remedy a damage you have not claimed and will do so only if it is obvious. (See EBU 10.5 for more detailed guidance on this matter.) 10.5 Evidence of how a player has been damaged by an infraction Usually a player will know how he or she has been damaged, will be able to tell the TD how this was, and will not need to be prompted by partner or ‘led’ by the TD. However, weaker or less experienced players may need to be carefully questioned by the TD to establish what their actions would have been: many such players need heIp to determine what their action would have been in hypothetical circumstances. Their partner’s comment will rarely be helpful, and should be discouraged at least until the TD has completed questioning the player. Orange Book: 2.2 Less experienced players 2.2.1 TDs must always apply the law, but where they are allowed to exercise discretion they may treat more gently the less experienced player who is unlikely to be aware of every technicality. 2.2.2 The Laws are not intended to provide scope for knowledgeable players to gain advantage at the expense of inexperienced players. In my opinion these thouthful statements describe the way for TD's thinking and ruling: 1. Before usage of L81C6 TD must be absolutely sure that there was infraction 2. If so - there may be two cases: (a) NOS had no ability nor possibility to notice this infraction (they are weak, non-experience pair or infraction was hidden from even experienced pair) and (b) NOS had ability and possibility to notice the infraction but failed to do. 3. In case (a) if there was damage I agreed with Grattan - there should be restore "equity", and both pair should be informed about the decision (for possible appealing). 4. In case (b) the NOS result should stand and OS result should be adjust - any benefit (consequent and subsequent) should be taken off, and again both pair should be informed about the decision (for possible appealing) 5. There should be no other penalty for such un-noticed by players infraction Best wishes, 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 Tue Aug 6 23:07:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76D75n00994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:07:05 +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 g76D6xH00990 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:07:00 +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 g76Cq7f21477 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 14:52:07 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Aug 06 14:47:20 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KKZCA9BPYM001WYY@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 14:51:05 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 14:50:33 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 14:51:00 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] How are you damaged? 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 > > > > A definition of equity with which both Jeff Rubens and > > myself would agree. > > > > However, in a Law 16 violation, Jeff Rubens sees "the > > irregularity" as Player A's break of tempo; while I see > > "the irregularity" as Player B's subsequent selection of > > a logical alternative demonstrably suggested by Player > > A's break of tempo. > > > > Technically, both Player A and Player B have committed > > irregularities, so there is no such thing as *the* > > irregularity. > > > > Before which of several irregularities is the instant > > where equity is to be defined? > > > +=+ By general consent the infraction lies in player > B's failure to select the least favourable alternative. > This is how a Director would interpret the situation > under current guidance. However, I am aware of > Law 73A2; this is presumably the basis for Jeff > Rubens' assertion. Let us ask him to read 73D1 as well. ton > I have never seen it enunciated but I suppose > you could argue that the infraction calling for > redress is not complete until both A and B have > contributed their parts to 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 Aug 6 23:13:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76DCuc01036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:12:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g76DCaH01012 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:12:37 +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 17c3u9-0005eq-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 13:57:44 +0100 Message-ID: <6JcgyxDCsyT9EwzL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 02:48:50 +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: <200208021418.KAA07418@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200208021418.KAA07418@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 >I agree with all the above, and my original point is that it is legal >for the TD to do this if his judgment tells him to do so. What law >forbids it? (Yes, David, I know you will cite 21B, but I think your >reading is strained at best and certainly not necessary.) It is perfectly clear. Why you want to encourage people to break the Laws is beyond me. I just cannot believe it is right to give an advantage to someone who breaks a law over someone who follows a 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 Tue Aug 6 23:13:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76DD1O01040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:13:01 +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 g76DCiH01029 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:12:45 +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 17c3uI-0005eo-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 13:57:52 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 03:05:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play References: <001301c23b3c$0d0800a0$0609ff3e@annescomputer> In-Reply-To: <001301c23b3c$0d0800a0$0609ff3e@annescomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anne Jones writes >Yes - agree with all the rant - but how does the law guide us? Can we >legally enforce a timed game? Certainly. There are all sorts of relevant Laws, but just read L81C4, L82A, L90A, L90B2 for example. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 6 23:13:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76DCud01037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:12:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g76DCaH01010 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:12:38 +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 17c3u9-0005en-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 13:57:44 +0100 Message-ID: <45ygeaD5kyT9Ewx4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 02:41:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play 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 >I wouldn't. Recently, playing at a local club, the TD called the round >while we were scoring the second board. The other three players at the >table (including my partner) pulled their hands out of board three. I >said "I don't think we should start this board. The round's been >called." North said "Oh, don't worry about it," and started the bidding. >I probably should have called the TD, but I didn't. By the time she >discovered we weren't finished, we were in the play. Must've been very >annoying for her, as well as for the other pairs we delayed. > >I'd probably make a lousy TD on these cases. If I caught players doing >this, I'd slap 'em with at *least* a half board pp. More if I had to >adjust scores at other tables because of it. That oughta piss off just >about everybody. :-) When players disobey TD more serious action must be taken. If this is happening then the TD should say "Move, please, no more boards to be started" so they cannot say he did not tell them. If someone starts a board then not only should he issue a PP to both sides but he should also stop the board. Most of the time TDs should be very tolerant and easy-going, but this method of time-wasting is unacceptable, and disobedience is as well. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 6 23:13:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76DD0Y01039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:13:01 +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 g76DCaH01011 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:12:37 +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 17c3u9-0005ew-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 13:57:44 +0100 Message-ID: <45yge+D5tyT9EwRs@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 02:50:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Wish list References: <008401c23b36$88efb9c0$a09468d5@SCRAP> In-Reply-To: <008401c23b36$88efb9c0$a09468d5@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 >Currently, Bridge is a different game depending on where you play it. >IMO The WBF should restrict SO/ZO law alterations to specially >designated "Fairy Bridge" local events. >All major competitions should conform to a single internationally >agreed set of laws; it is hard enough for bridge-players to draft, >interpret, and conform to one set of laws; without organisations >like the ACBL and the EBU flexing their muscles with unnecessary >changes. Surely some measure of consistency is necessary if Bridge >is to be considered for Olympic status. It is probably better for bridge if we were to do our best for the majority of players. I do not see Olympic status is a reasonable excuse for making the game poorer. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 6 23:13:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76DDBp01041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:13:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g76DCaH01013 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:12:38 +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 17c3u9-0005eo-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 13:57:44 +0100 Message-ID: <2pWjanDolyT9EwQN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 02:42:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play References: <001801c23ad9$3f8e4d80$f8ce36d2@w3n7y3> In-Reply-To: <001801c23ad9$3f8e4d80$f8ce36d2@w3n7y3> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne writes >I had this recently only worse - > >I specifically asked a table not to play the last board since they were so >far behind. > >When i left they started anyway :-( > >Amazingly they actually finished in reasonable time - but a little late. > >Nevertheless I gave them a sever telling off. You should have cancelle3d the score as well. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 6 23:13:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76DD0e01038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:13:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g76DChH01028 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:12:44 +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 17c3uI-0005en-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 13:57:52 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 02:55:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? References: <006d01c23b46$6d2620c0$869968d5@SCRAP> In-Reply-To: <006d01c23b46$6d2620c0$869968d5@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 >TD guideline question based on a recent league ruling: >South plays in a hopeless contract and is defeated by >several tricks. At the end of play, South asks for a >ruling because of opponents' MI during the auction. >South explains that he lost extra undertricks >because of wrong assumptions based on the MI. >The director rules that South played so badly that any >injury was self-inflicted. Fair enough, that is the normal interpretation of the Laws. >Too late, South realises that, without the misinformation, >the auction could have been quite different. For example >he had an opportunity to double and defeat a contract by >opponents. In this case his opponents should have had their score adjusted, but he should keep his score. >When you describe a possible legal infraction, should the >TD himself infer the common ways that it might disadvantage >the NOS? or should he ask "how are you damaged?" and >address only the issues that arise therefrom? The TD himself, plus the people with whom he confers, will decide damage. They will be somewhat sceptical of giving people hte benefit of things they have not mentioned, but they will not dismiss them entirely either. >Would it make a difference if the NOS are beginners? Yes, they would be more likely to assume damage the players have not seen. >If the director does ask "how are you damaged?" can anyone >complain about "self-serving" arguments? Of course. People will always complain about self-serving arguments. Such complaints can be safely ignored. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 6 23:54:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76Ds9R01089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:54:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g76Ds4H01085 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:54:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A1814B99007C; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 06:39:13 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: RE: [BLML] Late Play Message-Id: <060802218.23953@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 06:39:16 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS writes: >>I specifically asked a table not to play the last board since they were so far behind. >>When I left they started anyway :-( >>Amazingly they actually finished in reasonable time - but a little late. >>Nevertheless I gave them a severe telling off. >You should have cancelled the score as well. Under what Law? For what conceivable reason? Why should the scores of all the other players be distorted by the imposition of an average on a board when the board has been played and a result obtained? This is sheer megalomania, and if any EBU tournament director behaved in such a fashion in my presence, I would use the powers vested in me to order his immediate execution. 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 Aug 7 00:18:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76EILK01111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 00:18:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g76EIFH01107 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 00:18:16 +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 g76E3Nf03939 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 16:03:23 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Aug 06 15:58:36 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KKZERUBKV4001WNY@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 16:02:32 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 16:01:59 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 16:02:22 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Late Play To: "'David Burn'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > DWS writes: > > >>I specifically asked a table not to play the last board since > they were so far behind. > > >>When I left they started anyway :-( > > >>Amazingly they actually finished in reasonable time - but a > little late. > > >>Nevertheless I gave them a severe telling off. > > >You should have cancelled the score as well. > > Under what Law? For what conceivable reason? Why should the scores > of all the other players be distorted by the imposition of an > average on a board when the board has been played and a result > obtained? This is sheer megalomania, hear, hear, time to agree with somebody, well not just somebody, again. and if any EBU tournament > director behaved in such a fashion in my presence, I would use > the powers vested in me, genetically you mean? we have clubs in the Netherlands where you are not allowed to start play of a board when the last five minutes of the round have started. Ridiculous. Normal bridge players are able to play 3 boards in that time when they need to. And now they have to play that board at the end, everybody waiting for results, having had the time to collect all information they need to play this one board perfectly. Once in a while one pair has to play two boards this way, probably after having made a deal with the bar. Awarding penalties for slow play should do the job. ton to order his immediate execution. > > 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 Aug 7 00:27:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76ERUK01126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 00:27:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g76EROH01122 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 00:27:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-4013.bb.online.no [80.212.223.173]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA20238 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 16:12:24 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006c01c23d53$4885e6b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <060802218.23953@webbox.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 16:12:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Do you agree that it is within the powers assigned to the Director in Law 81C3 to decide that no new board may be started when there remains less than a specified amount of time in that round? (Unless of course the SO has already done so in their regulations). In the actual case discussed, how can you feel sure that the result obtained on a board that has been played in a rush offers equity for comparison with all the other boards in the tournament? Cancelling the board entirely is certainly not out of order. I consider David's remark very appropriate, and rather than giving the two pairs at the table average minus for their late play (which they both would have received under normal conditions) I would give them both a blank zero score on this board as a PP for ignoring instructions from the Director. Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 3:39 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Late Play > > DWS writes: > > >>I specifically asked a table not to play the last board since > they were so far behind. > > >>When I left they started anyway :-( > > >>Amazingly they actually finished in reasonable time - but a > little late. > > >>Nevertheless I gave them a severe telling off. > > >You should have cancelled the score as well. > > Under what Law? For what conceivable reason? Why should the scores > of all the other players be distorted by the imposition of an > average on a board when the board has been played and a result > obtained? This is sheer megalomania, and if any EBU tournament > director behaved in such a fashion in my presence, I would use > the powers vested in me to order his immediate execution. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 7 00:42:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76EgcI01143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 00:42:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g76EgWH01139 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 00:42:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.40.24.38] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17c5IW-0007IK-00; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 15:26:57 +0100 Message-ID: <002101c23d55$196725e0$26182850@pacific> From: To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Grattan Endicott'" , "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 15:24:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "'Grattan Endicott'" ; "bridge-laws" Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 1:51 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] How are you damaged? > > > > > > > A definition of equity with which both Jeff Rubens and > > > myself would agree. > > > > > > However, in a Law 16 violation, Jeff Rubens sees "the > > > irregularity" as Player A's break of tempo; while I see > > > "the irregularity" as Player B's subsequent selection of > > > a logical alternative demonstrably suggested by Player > > > A's break of tempo. > > > > > > Technically, both Player A and Player B have committed > > > irregularities, so there is no such thing as *the* > > > irregularity. > > > > > > Before which of several irregularities is the instant > > > where equity is to be defined? > > > > > +=+ By general consent the infraction lies in player > > B's failure to select the least favourable alternative. > > This is how a Director would interpret the situation > > under current guidance. However, I am aware of > > Law 73A2; this is presumably the basis for Jeff > > Rubens' assertion. > > > Let us ask him to read 73D1 as well. > > ton > > +=+ Indeed. Mind you, I suppose Rubens believes he is dealing with something not 'inadvertent'. Be that as it may, there is no damage to redress if B does not use the UI from A. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 7 00:43:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76Eh3O01151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 00:43:03 +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 g76EgsH01145 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 00:42:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-4013.bb.online.no [80.212.223.173]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA00879 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 16:27:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <007201c23d55$75634630$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 16:27:54 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." .......... > we have clubs in the Netherlands where you are not allowed to start play of > a board when the last five minutes of the round have started. Ridiculous. > Normal bridge players are able to play 3 boards in that time when they need > to. And now they have to play that board at the end, everybody waiting for > results, having had the time to collect all information they need to play > this one board perfectly. Once in a while one pair has to play two boards > this way, probably after having made a deal with the bar. Awarding penalties > for slow play should do the job. I would say that 5 minutes is too much, the limit we usually set in Norway is in the order of two or three minutes. Incidently, in many tournaments when there are three minutes left of the round and a board is still to be played the players at the table have the choice between taking A- and try to play the board under the risk of receiving an even worse score as PP for being late when the shift signal is given. But in order to understand this you must be aware that most (serious) tournaments in Norway these days are played as barometer events, everybody playing the same boards in the same round and all results from each round being published during the following round. We just cannot tolerate delays, and there is no such thing as playing boards after the normal end of the tournament. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 7 01:05:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76F4Xv01175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 01:04:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g76F4SH01171 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 01:04:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A20156C30092; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 07:49:37 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Message-Id: <060802218.28177@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 07:49:39 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven wrote: >Do you agree that it is within the powers assigned to the Director in Law 81C3 to decide that no new board may be started when there remains less than a specified amount of time in that round? No, I don't, but I don't see that it matters. The TD can tell me not to play a board if he wants to, though TDs ought to be wary of doing that, for the money that I have paid to play 24 boards is as good as anyone else's. What he can't do is cancel the result on a board that I *have* played just because he he is angry with me for having played it. He can fine me for disobeying his instructions, he can throw me out of the tournament, he can display his craze for power and his petulance in whatever way he sees fit. But if there is an entry on the traveller, then it stays there. >In the actual case discussed, how can you feel sure that the result obtained on a board that has been played in a rush offers equity for comparison with all the other boards in the tournament? I can't. But am I to cancel the later results of the pair at table seven, who have been drinking beer all evening, because the result obtained on a board played by drunk people does not offer equitable comparison? Shall I discount the results obtained by Mr Humble on boards where his opponents have pre-empted, because he isn't very good at dealing with that sort of thing? Sven, a result is a result. If it was obtained by four players playing the correct board, then you compute the score for it and you use that score when calculating the ranking list. >Cancelling the board entirely is certainly not out of order. Yes, it is. It is a ridiculous thing to do. The idea that anyone would do it has its origin in the "cult of the Director", which is spreading rapidly. The most alarming manifestation of it has just come from the United States, where some completely mad people have decided to get rid of appeals committees. But elsewhere, directors have taken to giving rulings as if auditioning for the lead role in "Carry On Sergeant", and there have been a number of suggestions on this list that people should be given procedural penalties for sneezing, or some non-offence of similar gravity. >I consider David's remark very appropriate You see what I mean? The cult is spreading... >and rather than giving the two pairs at the table average minus for their late play (which they both would have received under normal conditions) Eh? They have *played the board*. They receive a number of match points equal to one for every pair they have beaten plus one half for every pair with whom they have tied. >I would give them both a blank zero score on this board as a PP for ignoring instructions from the Director. Tomorrow, Igor, the world! Ha, ha! 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 Aug 7 01:45:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76Fiqq01199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 01:44:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.210]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g76FilH01195 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 01:44:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-183.gold-spangled.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.137.18.183] helo=pc) by cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17c6HS-00058K-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 16:29:55 +0100 Message-ID: <001301c23d5e$12d58b00$b712893e@pc> From: "LarryBennett" To: References: <060802218.23953@webbox.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 16:28:21 +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 Burned at the stake no doubt ! lnb This is sheer megalomania, and if any EBU tournament | director behaved in such a fashion in my presence, I would use | the powers vested in me to order his immediate execution. | | 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-L AWS/ | -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 7 02:05:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76G55p01227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 02:05:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g76G50H01223 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 02:05:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from tnt-14-45.easynet.co.uk ([212.134.24.45] helo=k6b8p4) by smarthost4.mail.uk.easynet.net with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17c6b0-0005Kl-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 16:50:07 +0100 From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 16:48:46 +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 In-Reply-To: <300702211.30950@webbox.com> X-Message-Flag: Follow up Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > David Burn wrote: > 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. I had always assumed this was an obvious typo since "not based on a partnership understanding" is clearly intended to qualify "intentionally misleading call". If, however, we move the 'close bracket' so that it reads: 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). ... we now have a sensible (if dubiously constructed) Law and the remainder of David's lengthy posting becomes whimsical nonsense. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 7 02:25:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76GNpQ01244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 02:23:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g76GNkH01240 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 02:23:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17c6t6-0004mc-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 17:08:52 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 15:08:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? 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 writes > >>+=+ Whilst still hunting for the best turn of phrase >>my view of 'equity' is that it is a fair outcome, absent >>any irregularity, given the balance of probabilities as >>they were in the position reached in the instant before >>the irregularity occurred. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >A definition of equity with which both Jeff Rubens and >myself would agree. > >However, in a Law 16 violation, Jeff Rubens sees "the >irregularity" as Player A's break of tempo; while I see >"the irregularity" as Player B's subsequent selection of >a logical alternative demonstrably suggested by Player >A's break of tempo. > >Technically, both Player A and Player B have committed >irregularities, so there is no such thing as *the* >irregularity. What law has player A breached? >Before which of several irregularities is the instant >where equity is to be defined? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 7 02:41:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76GcfQ01257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 02:38:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g76GcaH01253 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 02:38:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A81055330060; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 09:23:44 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Message-Id: <060802218.33824@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 09:23:47 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown wrote: >If, however, we move the 'close bracket' so that it reads: >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). >.... we now have a sensible (if dubiously constructed) Law and the remainder of David's lengthy posting becomes whimsical nonsense. Perhaps, though moving the parenthesis in fact does nothing at all to alter the sense. What is required is a form of words indicating that the misleading nature of the call, rather than the call itself, must not be based on a partnership understanding. What we have, in both the current Laws and the reformatted version above, is a form of words indicating that any call not based on a partnership understanding may be made (while saying nothing about any call based on a partnership understanding). This is an obvious mistake, and somebody will probably put it right in a few years' time. But even if changing the punctuation did alter the sense - so what? If my aunt had whiskers, she would be my uncle, if I had an aunt. If I repunctuated all the Laws, I could invent an entirely different game, and everything that anyone has ever said about the game as presently played would be nonsense. For example, we could cut dealing time in half: A member of each side should be present during the shuffle, and deal unless the Director instructs otherwise. This exercise would be only marginally less pointless than Brambledown's post, though it might be slightly more amusing. What we are dealing with (or trying to) is the Laws as they are currently written, and their current meanings. 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 Aug 7 02:58:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76GuPc01275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 02:56:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (adsl-66-126-103-122.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [66.126.103.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g76GuKH01271 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 02:56:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from simba.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@simba.irvine.com [192.160.8.19]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA03020; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 09:41:25 -0700 Message-Id: <200208061641.JAA03020@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 06 Aug 2002 13:49:35 +1000." Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 09:43:06 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: > >+=+ Whilst still hunting for the best turn of phrase > >my view of 'equity' is that it is a fair outcome, absent > >any irregularity, given the balance of probabilities as > >they were in the position reached in the instant before > >the irregularity occurred. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > A definition of equity with which both Jeff Rubens and > myself would agree. > > However, in a Law 16 violation, Jeff Rubens sees "the > irregularity" as Player A's break of tempo; while I see > "the irregularity" as Player B's subsequent selection of > a logical alternative demonstrably suggested by Player > A's break of tempo. I've read Rubens' BW editorials and I don't recall him saying anything like this. Do you (or anyone else) have a reference? If so, that would be helpful. -- thanks, 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 Aug 7 03:05:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76H4tP01301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 03:04:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g76H4lH01297 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 03:04:50 +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 g76GnqpU003789 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 12:49:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA02980 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 12:51:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200208061651.MAA02980@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re-writing Laws 40A and 40D To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 12:51:30 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Brian Meadows" at Aug 02, 2002 03:51:01 PM 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 Brian Meadows writes: > > On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:07:36 -0400 (EDT), Steve Willner wrote: > > > > >3. "If you choose to open light (or do other things we don't like), you > >may not use any conventions for the rest of the auction (or rest of the > >event)." > > > >This one stretches the limits of the language. No doubt clever lawyers > >can argue that such regulations make sense and are good for the game, > >but simple-minded souls such as I find these sorts of regulations > >inconsistent with the laws text as written. It is nothing more than > >prohibiting by indirect means what cannot be directly banned. Whatever > >the merits of doing so might be, doing so by this indirect method > >strikes me as indecent. > > Couldn't agree more, Steve. The intellectual exercise in bridge > is supposed to be in the bidding and play of the hand, not > deciphering the *(^&%^%# law book! I believe that it may have had an unintended consequence too. In the EBU's Appeals Booklet DWS notes the number of appeals without any merit (and I agree with him on the point). It seems plausable to me that without intending to the EBU has created a belief that the Laws are merely the place where the debate starts -- that the more effective advocate can prevail through the appeals process. I hasten to add that I could see no evidence that this is actually happening. THere were no "creative" ruling either by the director or the AC. > > As I said a while back (and promptly got certain people into a > bit of a snit) let those making Laws or Regulations do so > *openly*, without this sort of backdoor trickery. If an NCBO > wants to bar an ultra-light opening, do it in a direct and honest > manner, not by this "no conventional continuations" nonsense. If > the Laws don't permit them to do so directly, then they shouldn't > do it at all. I happened to be re-reading an old Bridge World this morning. The Editorial was a debate between Kaplan and Rubens on this very subject. Kaplan is quite clear that the (proposed at the time) laws in question were intended to grant the SOs the powers that they've used. I'll post the Editorial some time this week. > I still think the best thing that could happen to the next > edition of the Laws is for the WBF(LC) to submit the whole thing > to a competent technical writer. I believe the ambiguity is intentional. > Sure, it would remove most of, > if not all, the legal loopholes and contradictions that certain > NCBOs currently use. I think this would be a very desirable > thing. We look down on BLs who play the game, why should we be > any more forgiving of BLs who administer the game? Dunno. I'm with you on the substance of the debate. I wouldn't bother with the wordsmithing though. I know casebooks work very well for football (American style -- touch/flag/tackle), baseball, basketball and golf (and probably other games) Rules are hard to write. It's easier to demonstrate the intent. Having said that I'm with you though, I have a lot of sympathy for the opposing point of view. The one thing that is quite clear to me is that everybody in this discussion is trying to act in the overall best interests of the 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 Aug 7 03:11:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76HB4p01337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 03:11:04 +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 g76HAwH01329 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 03:10:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from annescomputer ([62.255.8.140]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020806165604.YLYJ23840.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@annescomputer> for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 17:56:04 +0100 Message-ID: <002401c23d6a$18a528e0$8c08ff3e@annescomputer> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: <060802218.28177@webbox.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 17:55:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As I said at the start of this thread - Once a table has started playing a board, I believe that board is part of the round it is are playing. It must be allowed to finish the board and the result must stand. Any censure is limited to a fine in points for disobedience or any other sin the TD wishes to identify. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 3:49 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > > Sven wrote: > > >Do you agree that it is within the powers assigned to the Director > in Law 81C3 to decide that no new board may be started when there > remains less than a specified amount of time in that round? > > No, I don't, but I don't see that it matters. The TD can tell > me not to play a board if he wants to, though TDs ought to be > wary of doing that, for the money that I have paid to play 24 > boards is as good as anyone else's. What he can't do is cancel > the result on a board that I *have* played just because he he > is angry with me for having played it. He can fine me for disobeying > his instructions, he can throw me out of the tournament, he can > display his craze for power and his petulance in whatever way > he sees fit. But if there is an entry on the traveller, then > it stays there. > > >In the actual case discussed, how can you feel sure that the > result obtained on a board that has been played in a rush offers > equity for comparison with all the other boards in the tournament? > > I can't. But am I to cancel the later results of the pair at > table seven, who have been drinking beer all evening, because > the result obtained on a board played by drunk people does not > offer equitable comparison? Shall I discount the results obtained > by Mr Humble on boards where his opponents have pre-empted, because > he isn't very good at dealing with that sort of thing? Sven, > a result is a result. If it was obtained by four players playing > the correct board, then you compute the score for it and you > use that score when calculating the ranking list. > > >Cancelling the board entirely is certainly not out of order. > > Yes, it is. It is a ridiculous thing to do. The idea that anyone > would do it has its origin in the "cult of the Director", which > is spreading rapidly. The most alarming manifestation of it has > just come from the United States, where some completely mad people > have decided to get rid of appeals committees. But elsewhere, > directors have taken to giving rulings as if auditioning for > the lead role in "Carry On Sergeant", and there have been a number > of suggestions on this list that people should be given procedural > penalties for sneezing, or some non-offence of similar gravity. > > >I consider David's remark very appropriate > > You see what I mean? The cult is spreading... > > >and rather than giving the two pairs at the table average minus > for their late play (which they both would have received under > normal conditions) > > Eh? They have *played the board*. They receive a number of match > points equal to one for every pair they have beaten plus one > half for every pair with whom they have tied. > > >I would give them both a blank zero score on this board as a > PP for ignoring instructions from the Director. > > Tomorrow, Igor, the world! Ha, ha! > > David Burn > London, England > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 7 03:37:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76Hbep01377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 03:37:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eowyn.vianetworks.nl (eowyn.vianetworks.nl [212.61.25.227]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g76HbYH01373 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 03:37:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d335.iae.nl [212.61.5.81]) by eowyn.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 30A732113E for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 19:22:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <009701c23d6d$69999e40$4d053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <060802218.23953@webbox.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 19:14:37 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I would support DB and TK. I need a result on the board but I will give a severe PP. If you peer constantly and have given a warning or a PP you will see that being late has gone. Believe me, I have never problems and handle 40 tables on my lone. Another way of "table presence" Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 3:39 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Late Play > > DWS writes: > > >>I specifically asked a table not to play the last board since > they were so far behind. > > >>When I left they started anyway :-( > > >>Amazingly they actually finished in reasonable time - but a > little late. > > >>Nevertheless I gave them a severe telling off. > > >You should have cancelled the score as well. > > Under what Law? For what conceivable reason? Why should the scores > of all the other players be distorted by the imposition of an > average on a board when the board has been played and a result > obtained? This is sheer megalomania, and if any EBU tournament > director behaved in such a fashion in my presence, I would use > the powers vested in me to order his immediate execution. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 7 04:25:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76IOrD01412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 04:24:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g76IOlH01408 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 04:24:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-35-59-139.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.59.139] helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17c8mI-0003V5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 19:09:55 +0100 Message-ID: <001501c23d74$38e30d20$8b3b23d9@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 19:08:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > >However, in a Law 16 violation, Jeff Rubens sees "the > >irregularity" as Player A's break of tempo; while I see > >"the irregularity" as Player B's subsequent selection of > >a logical alternative demonstrably suggested by Player > >A's break of tempo. > > > >Technically, both Player A and Player B have committed > >irregularities, so there is no such thing as *the* > >irregularity. > > What law has player A breached? The one that says: Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste (however, sponsoring organisations may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick). 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 Aug 7 04:28:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76IS1G01425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 04:28:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.wanadoo.nl (smtp2.wanadoo.nl [194.134.35.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g76IRuH01421 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 04:27:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from compaq5286 (90dyn107.com21.casema.net [62.234.21.107]) by smtp2.wanadoo.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19A9D1FFCF for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 20:13:00 +0200 (MEST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020806195658.00d7be70@pop3.tiscali.nl> X-Sender: synte076@pop3.tiscali.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 20:07:21 +0200 To: "bridge-laws" From: Simon Kuipers Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play In-Reply-To: <009701c23d6d$69999e40$4d053dd4@b0e7g1> References: <060802218.23953@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 19:14 06-08-2002 , Ben Schelen wrote: >I would support DB and TK. >I need a result on the board but I will give a severe PP. >If you peer constantly and have given a warning or a PP you will see that >being late has gone. >Believe me, I have never problems and handle 40 tables on my lone. Another >way of "table presence" Ton's remark was about club play in The Netherlands. Please do not forget the following: 1. At club nights in NL the TD is usually playing himself as well - so there is not so much opportunity for him to establish his "table presence". 2. Common play in clubs here is 4 boards in a round of 30 minutes. Almost all TD's here who apply this "rule" do think it is not very probable to expect that two pairs, not having been able to play 3 boards in 25 minutes, will play the remaining board in less than 5 minutes - and most of the time they are right. Playing in clubs with (almost) the same people every week is very different from playing in a tournament. Simon -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 7 04:35:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76IZ5d01437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 04:35:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g76IZ0H01433 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 04:35:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-4013.bb.online.no [80.212.223.173]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA21015 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 20:20:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001f01c23d75$e0ccc7a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <001501c23d74$38e30d20$8b3b23d9@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 20:19:59 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 8:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? > DWS wrote: > > > >However, in a Law 16 violation, Jeff Rubens sees "the > > >irregularity" as Player A's break of tempo; while I see > > >"the irregularity" as Player B's subsequent selection of > > >a logical alternative demonstrably suggested by Player > > >A's break of tempo. > > > > > >Technically, both Player A and Player B have committed > > >irregularities, so there is no such thing as *the* > > >irregularity. > > > > What law has player A breached? > > The one that says: > > Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or > inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste (however, sponsoring > organisations may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of > auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick). > > David Burn > London, England It says "undue" ... This law is not violated on every variation in tempo! Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 7 04:36:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76IaUp01449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 04:36:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail50.fg.online.no (mail50-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g76IaOH01445 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 04:36:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-4013.bb.online.no [80.212.223.173]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA22224 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 20:21:26 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003001c23d76$12f0a030$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <060802218.28177@webbox.com> <002401c23d6a$18a528e0$8c08ff3e@annescomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 20:21:24 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" ........... > As I said at the start of this thread - Once a table has started playing > a board, I believe that board is part of the round it is are playing. It > must be allowed to finish the board and the result must stand. Any > censure is limited to a fine in points for disobedience or any other sin > the TD wishes to identify. > > Anne Once a table has legally started playing a board the round for that table is extended if neccessary until the play of the board is completed (Law 8B). But this does not allow any table to begin a new board after a time limit set by regulations or by the Director's specific instructions. Disobeying such regulations or in particular the Director's instructions shows contempt which should be heavily penalized (even in the strange case when the Director is later convinced of having been in error!). Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 7 06:21:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76KKu701493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 06:20:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.210]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g76KKoH01489 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 06:20:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-457.binger.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.237.201] helo=4nrw70j) by cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17cAaa-0003ED-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 21:05:57 +0100 Message-ID: <000601c23d84$cf2ff800$c9ed193e@4nrw70j> From: "grandeval" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 08:24:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 3:11 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list > > Grattan wrote: > > >+=+ I feel no distress over the distinction. But I am not > >happy if the impression is given that a current WBF, or ACBL, > >or EBL or NBO regulation "infringes the laws" when the final > >authority has said that it does not. > > [snip] > > I beg to differ. In one sense the WBF Laws Commission > is the "final authority" in interpreting the Laws, as it is > the highest judicial body in world bridge. > > However, the WBF Laws Commission does not have the power to promulgate an interpretation which is directly contrary to > the words of the Laws. (Just as the United States Supreme > Court cannot promulgate an interpretation which is directly > contrary to the words of the United States Constitution.) > +=+ However, the view expressed by Denis Howard was that the laws place no restriction on the power to regulate given in Laws such as 40D. Edgar Kaplan also agreed this to be the case in respect of 40D. These findings relate to the terms in which the law is written. The Laws Committee has itself agreed with this reading of the language of the law, and I am amongst those who have voted for it on repeated occasions. ~ 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 Aug 7 07:57:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76Lv1Y01538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 07:57:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g76LuuH01534 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 07:56:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-39-82-104.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.39.82.104] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17cC5b-0003FH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 22:42:04 +0100 Message-ID: <005401c23d91$db9f5600$685227d9@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "bridge-laws" References: <000601c23d84$cf2ff800$c9ed193e@4nrw70j> Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 22:40:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > +=+ However, the view expressed by Denis Howard was that > the laws place no restriction on the power to regulate given > in Laws such as 40D. Edgar Kaplan also agreed this to be > the case in respect of 40D. These findings relate to the terms > in which the law is written. The Laws Committee has itself > agreed with this reading of the language of the law, and I am > amongst those who have voted for it on repeated occasions. I am as certain as I can be that when the current Laws were written, they were not expressly written in order to address the possibility that it would at some point become desirable to prevent certain tendencies from developing by prohibiting the developers of those tendencies from using conventions. If they had been written with this purpose in mind, they would have been more explicit on the point. But when the development of those tendencies was perceived as a threat to the game at certain levels, it was natural for the administrators to ask this question: "Can we stifle these tendencies at those levels within the context of the existing Laws?" The answer to this question is, as Edgar, Grattan, and others determined, "Yes, we can, for the words of Laws 40 and 80 permit us to do so". At a time when I knew next to nothing about these things (as opposed to the present time, when I know next to next to nothing), I had occasion to study the relevant words and the WBF pronouncement as to their meaning very closely; it is quite obvious to me, now as then, that the bodies concerned actually do have the rights they think they have according to the words in the Laws. The question, therefore, is not (and has actually never been) "Are the EBU and the ACBL acting according to Law when they make regulations that, in effect, render certain tendencies unplayable?" They are. The question is only "Should the EBU and the ACBL so act, in order better to meet the expectations of the majority of their members?" Now, we have on BLML some members of the EBU and the ACBL who think that the answer to this question is "No". Very well - they are entitled to their opinions, and they are entitled to have those opinions heard by and represented in the councils of those bodies. They are by the same token entitled to depict the contrary opinion as "a betrayal of the game", or some such equally emotive phrase, for as Ogden Nash put it, freedom of speech is the birthright of each. But these people are not entitled to continue to argue that the rights assumed by the various governing bodies are not rights conferred upon them by Law. Or at least, if they consider themselves so entitled, then the people who make and administer the Law are equally entitled to reach a point at which they do not have to listen cordially any more, and to say with Father William: "I have answered three questions, and that is enough", Said his father. "Don't give yourself airs. Do you think I can listen all day to such stuff? Be off, or I'll kick you downstairs!" 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 Aug 7 08:07:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76M7R901558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 08:07:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g76M7MH01554 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 08:07:22 +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 RAA03742 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 17:52:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA27995 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 17:52:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 17:52:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208062152.RAA27995@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > The question, therefore, is not (and has actually never been) "Are the > EBU and the ACBL acting according to Law when they make regulations > that, in effect, render certain tendencies unplayable?" They are. Obviously the Laws can be read that way. More important, the ACBL and EBU have the practical authority to do whatever they want. > The > question is only "Should the EBU and the ACBL so act, in order better to > meet the expectations of the majority of their members?" There are at least two more questions this thread has raised: 2. Should the WBF discourage its member NCBO's from "so acting" by changing the words in the Law? 3. If the answer to 2 is "no," should the WBF change the Laws text to make explicit the authority the NCBO's now have? Should it give them explicit authority to regulate the "tendencies" in question? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 7 08:28:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76MSUR01576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 08:28:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g76MSOH01572 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 08:28:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from pavilion ([12.91.170.124]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020806221327.UGEV7441.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@pavilion> for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 22:13:27 +0000 From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Wish list Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 18:08:18 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200208062152.RAA27995@cfa183.harvard.edu> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Willner > Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 2:52 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list > > 3. If the answer to 2 is "no," should the WBF change the > Laws text to > make explicit the authority the NCBO's now have? Should it > give them > explicit authority to regulate the "tendencies" in question? I've been coming under the impression that the WBFLC members do not want to impose their opinions in this matter on other organizations. By making such powers explict, wouldn't they be specifically endorsing their use? If the politics of the situation are as I'm (mis-)led to believe, though they can and regardless of whether they should, they wouldn't make a point of this issue by making the law more explicit. -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 Wed Aug 7 09:04:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76N1cU01616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 09:01:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g76N1XH01612 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 09:01:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA25635 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 09:02:17 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 08:41:50 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 08:18:27 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 07/08/2002 08:41:26 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] > if a player was not able to tell > the Director how he had been damaged he was not alive > to the situation at the crucial time and therefore could not > be anticipated to take the course he later claims. This is > not an absolute, of course, since there are some situations > where he could not be expected to realize the implications. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ At the recent Australian Interstate Championships, my side committed an irregularity against a weak pair from the Northern Territory. When it came time for the TD to determine whether the NT pair had been damaged, both the NT pair and the TD were unsure whether damage had occurred. But with my superior powers of analysis, I volunteered excellent reasons for the TD to adjust the score against my side, which the TD then did. Was I obeying Law 72A2, or infracting Law 72A6? 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 Aug 7 09:51:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g76Np8U01639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 09:51:08 +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 g76Np3H01635 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 09:51:03 +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 JAA05717 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 09:51:48 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 09:31:21 +0000 (EST) Received: from immcbrn1.immi.gov.au ([164.97.95.58]) by C3W-NOTES.AU.CSC.NET (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.6) with SMTP id 2002080709305555:12573 ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 09:30:55 +1000 Received: by immcbrn1.immi.gov.au(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.7 (934.1 12-30-1999)) id 4A256C0D.00808F3C ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 09:24:12 +1000 X-Lotus-FromDomain: IMMI To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <4A256C0D.00808EAB.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 09:35:47 +1000 Subject: RE: [BLML] How are you damaged? Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 07/08/2002 09:30:56 AM, Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 07/08/2002 09:30:56 AM, Serialize complete at 07/08/2002 09:30:56 AM Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Well, Jeff has some more peculiour ideas of what the laws say. >I can't imagine that within the LC he will get any support for that >interpretation. >The more so where law 73 explicitly says that break in tempo's are not >irregularities in itself. >So the irrgularity we are talking about here only can be the call which >might have been suggested by the hesitation, where there are L.A. Let us go >from there. > >ton If the word "Otherwise" was deleted from Law 73D1 I would agree with Ton. But, given that that word is included in the Law, many tempo breaks are intrinsically irregularities. 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 Aug 7 10:26:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g770PoM01661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 10:25:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g770PjH01657 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 10:25:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-39-82-104.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.39.82.104] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17cEPc-0004HT-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 01:10:52 +0100 Message-ID: <009401c23da6$a567bd60$685227d9@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200208062152.RAA27995@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 01:09:03 +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 Steve wrote: > There are at least two more questions this thread has raised: > 2. Should the WBF discourage its member NCBO's from "so acting" by > changing the words in the Law? The WBF does not see its membership as consisting of individual bridge players, except perhaps those that participate in World Championships or events of similar standing. The WBF sees its membership as consisting of Zones and countries; it is quite happy to leave the implementation of the Laws to those Zones and those countries as far as actual games of bridge are concerned. By the same token, Zonal authorities are happy to delegate questions of implementation to member countries, and NBOs to delegate those questions to regional bodies and to clubs. Is this a good thing? I do not think so, for it gives rise to the situation that we have at present and on which many contributors to this list (including myself) have commented adversely: nobody knows what the rules of the game really are. This is ridiculous, of course, but the trouble is that if the rules of the game were to be the same everywhere, then they would have to be what they are in World Championships. I don't have a problem with this myself, but there are a few bridge clubs that can't afford to buy screens for all their tables, and as soon as anyone suggests that you ought not to play a method that you can't explain to the opponents, someone else says that this would mean the end of bridge as we know it because no one would ever be able to play with a pick-up partner. It does not mean this at all, of course - it means only that you would not be able to sit down with a pick-up partner and, because you wish to impress one another with your level of expertise, agree to play a lot of rubbish that each of you only half understands. But that is human nature, and the major problem with the rules of bridge is that they try to take human nature into account. The rules of all other sports do not, which is why there is not a Golf Laws Mailing List or an appeals committee in baseball. > 3. If the answer to 2 is "no," should the WBF change the Laws text to > make explicit the authority the NCBO's now have? Should it give them > explicit authority to regulate the "tendencies" in question? Yes, of course. They have that authority anyway, so there would be no harm in spelling it out. But I do not expect that before I die, anyone will know what the rules actually are, and maybe this is as it should be, for different levels of the game need different sets of rules. Unless anyone is prepared to create these, we will have to live with the position that authorities at every level from the highest to the second lowest will continue to delegate responsibility for what really goes on when you sit down at a table and pick up thirteen cards. After that, it's up to the poor bloody infantry. 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 Aug 7 11:34:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g771XiM01700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 11:33:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g771XdH01696 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 11:33:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA23915 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 11:34:22 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 11:13:56 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 11:07:45 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 07/08/2002 11:13:31 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] >Be that as it may, there is no damage to redress if B >does not use the UI from A. ~ G ~ +=+ Not so. The nub of Jeff Rubens' argument is that A's tempo break infraction damages the A-B partnership by restricting B's choice between logical alternatives. Furthermore, in a pairs event, the field is damaged when A's UI-causing infraction results in B's choice amongst remaining logical alternatives providing a windfall gain to the opponents of A and B. Like Ton and Grattan I do not support the Jeff Rubens argument. But its logical basis could be removed if the Laws were changed to make inadvertent tempo breaks non-irregularities in all circumstances. 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 Aug 7 15:13:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g775CWH01797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:12:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.172]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g775CKH01784 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:12:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-373.kook.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.169.117] helo=4nrw70j) by cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17cIsx-0003no-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 05:57:27 +0100 Message-ID: <001501c23dcf$0fd5f540$75a9193e@4nrw70j> From: "grandeval" To: "bridge-laws" References: <000601c23d84$cf2ff800$c9ed193e@4nrw70j> <005401c23d91$db9f5600$685227d9@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 05:46:00 +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 Grattan Endicott To: "bridge-laws" Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 10:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list ---------------------------------------------------- with snips ---------------------------------------------------- > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ However, the view expressed by Denis Howard was that > > the laws place no restriction on the power to regulate given > > in Laws such as 40D. Edgar Kaplan also agreed this to be > > the case in respect of 40D. These findings relate to the terms > > in which the law is written. The Laws Committee has itself > > agreed with this reading of the language of the law, and I am > > amongst those who have voted for it on repeated occasions. > > I am as certain as I can be that when the current Laws were written, > they were not expressly written in order to address the possibility that > it would at some point become desirable to prevent certain tendencies > from developing by prohibiting the developers of those tendencies from > using conventions. If they had been written with this purpose in mind, > they would have been more explicit on the point. > > But when the development of those tendencies was perceived as a threat > to the game at certain levels, it was natural for the administrators to > ask this question: "Can we stifle these tendencies at those levels > within the context of the existing Laws?" The answer to this question > is, as Edgar, Grattan, and others determined, "Yes, we can, for the > words of Laws 40 and 80 permit us to do so". At a time when I knew next > to nothing about these things (as opposed to the present time, when I > know next to next to nothing), I had occasion to study the relevant > words and the WBF pronouncement as to their meaning very closely; it is > quite obvious to me, now as then, that the bodies concerned actually do > have the rights they think they have according to the words in the Laws. > +=+ Only as consciously as this when specific questions arose, but as a general description OK. The implementation was left to Zones, SOs, according to their several views of what was fitting in their tournaments. +=+ > > The question is only "Should the EBU and the ACBL so act, in order > better to meet the expectations of the majority of their members?" > +=+ Certainly, after this correspondence, an inevitable subject for the WBF Laws Drafting Subcommittee. +=+ > > But these people are not entitled to continue to argue that the rights > assumed by the various governing bodies are not rights conferred > upon them by Law. Or at least, if they consider themselves so > entitled, then the people who make and administer the Law are > equally entitled to reach a point at which they do not have to listen > cordially any more, and to say with Father William: > > "I have answered three questions, and that is enough", > Said his father. "Don't give yourself airs. > Do you think I can listen all day to such stuff? > Be off, or I'll kick you downstairs!" > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ Amen +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 7 15:13:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g775CXn01798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:12:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.172]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g775CMH01789 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:12:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-373.kook.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.169.117] helo=4nrw70j) by cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17cIsz-0003no-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 05:57:30 +0100 Message-ID: <001601c23dcf$11366fa0$75a9193e@4nrw70j> From: "grandeval" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 05:57:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 2:07 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? > > [snip] > The nub of Jeff Rubens' argument is that A's > tempo break infraction damages the A-B partnership > by restricting B's choice between logical alternatives. > +=+ If they damage themselves it is their own affair. We do not give them redress if they misdefend, revoke, expose a card, or whatever. +=+ > > Furthermore, in a pairs event, the field is damaged > when A's UI-causing infraction results in B's choice > amongst remaining logical alternatives providing a > windfall gain to the opponents of A and B. > +=+ Unless anything changes the laws do not take account of damage to the field. 'The field' has no rights in what occurs at a particular table. ~ 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 Aug 7 15:13:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g775CVw01796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:12:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.172]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g775CJH01783 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:12:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-373.kook.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.169.117] helo=4nrw70j) by cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17cIsw-0003no-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 05:57:26 +0100 Message-ID: <001401c23dcf$0f0c8ac0$75a9193e@4nrw70j> From: "grandeval" To: References: <200208062152.RAA27995@cfa183.harvard.edu> <009401c23da6$a567bd60$685227d9@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 05:39:42 +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: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 1:09 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list > Steve wrote: > > > There are at least two more questions this thread has raised: > > > 2. Should the WBF discourage its member NCBO's from "so acting" by > > changing the words in the Law? > > The WBF does not see its membership as consisting of individual bridge > players, except perhaps those that participate in World Championships or > events of similar standing. The WBF sees its membership as consisting of > Zones and countries; it is quite happy to leave the implementation of > the Laws to those Zones and those countries as far as actual games of > bridge are concerned. By the same token, Zonal authorities are happy to > delegate questions of implementation to member countries, and NBOs to > delegate those questions to regional bodies and to clubs. > +=+ The Zones are not 'members' they are limbs of the WBF. The members are NBOs. Individuals are members of their NBOs, there is no direct membership of the WBF for individuals. ~ 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 Aug 7 19:54:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g779s4Y01913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 19:54:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g779rwH01909 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 19:53:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.40.24.114] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17cNGl-000HKA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 10:38:19 +0100 Message-ID: <000801c23df5$f24b53e0$72182850@pacific> From: To: "Bridge Laws" References: <060802218.23953@webbox.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 16:28:30 +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 Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 2:39 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Late Play > > Under what Law? For what conceivable > reason? Why should the scores of all the > other players be distorted by the imposition > of an average on a board when the board > has been played and a result obtained? This > is sheer megalomania, and if any EBU tournament > director behaved in such a fashion in my presence, > I would use the powers vested in me to order his > immediate execution. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ Unto my flock I daily preached Kings are by God appointed And damned are those who dare resist, Or touch the Lord's anointed +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 7 20:50:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77AoSq01947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 20:50:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g77AoNH01943 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 20:50:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from tnt-14-88.easynet.co.uk ([212.134.24.88] helo=k6b8p4) by smarthost0.mail.uk.easynet.net with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17cOA2-000OdE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 11:35:26 +0100 From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 11:34:03 +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: <060802218.33824@webbox.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > David Burn wrote: > This exercise would be only marginally less pointless than > Brambledown's post, though it might be slightly more amusing. > What we are dealing with (or trying to) is the Laws as they are > currently written, and their current meanings. I'm surprised that David found my post pointless. It is immediately obvious that L40A as written ("A player may make any call or play ...provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding"), is a nonsense. While it is amusing to envisage the entire bridge world grinding to a halt with the Burn revelation that no opening call is legal, ISTM marginally more helpful to guess at what had gone wrong in the drafting of this law. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 7 21:39:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77Bcrh01973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 21:38:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g77BclH01969 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 21:38:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-39-82-104.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.39.82.104] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17cOut-0001tM-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 12:23:51 +0100 Message-ID: <001b01c23e04$a9259900$685227d9@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:22:02 +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 Brambledown wrote: > I'm surprised that David found my post pointless. I'm sorry. I was being more than usually cantankerous yesterday, and as regulars will know, that means very cantankerous indeed. > It is immediately > obvious that L40A as written ("A player may make any call or play > ...provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership > understanding"), is a nonsense. Well, it can't be all that immediately obvious, or someone might have noticed it before the Laws went to press. Ton isn't happy that I have noticed it, and would prefer me to stick to poetry. At the Commonwealth Games, somebody asked me what a double dactyl was, and having regard to a hand that John Armstrong showed me from the day's play, I was able to scribble on a scorecard: Higgledy piggledy Anthony Forrester, Though he could plainly have Made all the tricks, Followed a line that was Totally crazy, and Incomprehensibly Went off in six. I think it was DWS who spotted that in the 1987 code, duplicate bridge was illegal, for Law 6 said: No result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted pack or if the deal had previously been played. It now says something else, and one can hope that the same thing will happen to Law 40 in the next revision. Duplicate bridge is no longer illegal, merely very difficult, for Law 7 says: No player shall touch any cards other than his own whereas I am pretty sure that on Monday evening, most of the cards I touched belonged to the Young Chelsea bridge club. Certainly, none of them were mine. > While it is amusing to envisage the > entire bridge world grinding to a halt with the Burn revelation that no > opening call is legal No, no. Law 40 does not say that you may not make a call that is based on a partnership understanding, only that you may make one that isn't. The rest of Law 40 says what calls you may make that are based on partnership understandings, and Law 17 says that you must make one of them when it's your turn. Bridge is still legal, provided you bring your own cards. > ISTM marginally more helpful to guess at what had > gone wrong in the drafting of this law. What had gone wrong is what goes wrong occasionally if you write sentences like some of Edgar's or Grattan's. You forget what you were trying to say at the end of them, because the beginning of them is so far away. Lest this should appear to be more cantankerosity on my part, I should say that there is no one for whose prose and whose draftsmanship I have a higher admiration than Grattan, unless it was Edgar. But every so often... 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 Aug 7 22:04:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77C4Ux02006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:04:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g77C4JH01994 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:04:20 +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 17cPJc-0003e4-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 12:49:26 +0100 Message-ID: <3tHjLPFzOHU9EwYK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 02:11:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play References: <060802218.23953@webbox.com> <009701c23d6d$69999e40$4d053dd4@b0e7g1> In-Reply-To: <009701c23d6d$69999e40$4d053dd4@b0e7g1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ben Schelen writes >I would support DB and TK. >I need a result on the board but I will give a severe PP. Hold it, Ben, you are answering a different question now. If you need a result you would not have told them not to play the board. The case we are talking about is where you, the TD, have instructed the table not to play the board but they have played it anyway. Do you really think this is acceptable? >If you peer constantly and have given a warning or a PP you will see that >being late has gone. >Believe me, I have never problems and handle 40 tables on my lone. Another >way of "table presence" -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 7 22:04:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77C4Ut02005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:04:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g77C4JH01993 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:04:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 17cPJb-0003e3-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 12:49:25 +0100 Message-ID: <29cj$BFeMHU9EwZe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 02:08:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play References: <060802218.23953@webbox.com> In-Reply-To: <060802218.23953@webbox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >DWS writes: > >>>I specifically asked a table not to play the last board since >they were so far behind. > >>>When I left they started anyway :-( > >>>Amazingly they actually finished in reasonable time - but a >little late. > >>>Nevertheless I gave them a severe telling off. > >>You should have cancelled the score as well. > >Under what Law? For what conceivable reason? Why should the scores >of all the other players be distorted by the imposition of an >average on a board when the board has been played and a result >obtained? This is sheer megalomania, and if any EBU tournament >director behaved in such a fashion in my presence, I would use >the powers vested in me to order his immediate execution. There is a level of selfishness and bloody-mindedness amongst players which needs to be controlled. if you really think it acceptable that players shoud just disobey TD's instructions with all the carnage that is likely to follow from that then I am surprised. As for a Law number, there are a few, but L91A comes ot mind. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 7 22:04:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77C4XU02007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:04:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g77C4JH01995 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:04:20 +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 17cPJc-0003e5-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 12:49:26 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 02:16:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? References: <001501c23d74$38e30d20$8b3b23d9@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <001501c23d74$38e30d20$8b3b23d9@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> >However, in a Law 16 violation, Jeff Rubens sees "the >> >irregularity" as Player A's break of tempo; while I see >> >"the irregularity" as Player B's subsequent selection of >> >a logical alternative demonstrably suggested by Player >> >A's break of tempo. >> > >> >Technically, both Player A and Player B have committed >> >irregularities, so there is no such thing as *the* >> >irregularity. >> >> What law has player A breached? > >The one that says: > >Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or >inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste (however, sponsoring >organisations may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of >auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick). You do not think that the wording of L73D1 limits the amount that hesitations breach the Laws? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 7 22:30:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77CTrF02123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:29:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g77CThH02119 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:29:43 +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 g77CEmf19830 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 14:14:48 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Aug 07 14:10:00 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KL0P9T0LXM001XVS@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 14:14:08 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 14:13:36 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 14:08:54 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Late Play 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 Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Late Play > > > Ben Schelen writes > >I would support DB and TK. > >I need a result on the board but I will give a severe PP. > David S: > Hold it, Ben, you are answering a different question now. > If you need > a result you would not have told them not to play the board. The case > we are talking about is where you, the TD, have instructed > the table not > to play the board but they have played it anyway. Do you really think > this is acceptable? Hold it, David, you are answering a different question now. The answer being 'no, this is not acceptable'. But that answer doesn't lead to 'let us cancel the board'. Once a result is obtained it should stay. What about the pair that received the zero? Lucky them! 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 Aug 7 22:42:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77Cftc02150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:41:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g77CfmH02146 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:41:49 +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 g77CRBb28498 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:27:11 +0100 Message-ID: <4dgp7hAKHRU9EwbA@asimere.com> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:25:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play References: <060802218.28177@webbox.com> In-Reply-To: <060802218.28177@webbox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <060802218.28177@webbox.com>, David Burn writes > >Sven wrote: > >>Do you agree that it is within the powers assigned to the Director >in Law 81C3 to decide that no new board may be started when there >remains less than a specified amount of time in that round? > >No, I don't, but I don't see that it matters. The TD can tell >me not to play a board if he wants to, though TDs ought to be >wary of doing that, for the money that I have paid to play 24 >boards is as good as anyone else's. What he can't do is cancel >the result on a board that I *have* played just because he he >is angry with me for having played it. He can fine me for disobeying >his instructions, he can throw me out of the tournament, he can >display his craze for power and his petulance in whatever way >he sees fit. But if there is an entry on the traveller, then >it stays there. > I must admit that a result is a result. However if I have already cancelled play on the board, then there is already a result for the board, and it can't be played again. The fact that the players never actually saw the cards is not relevant. 12C1 for the ArtAdj, 15B for not playing it again. I'm pretty happy about cancelling the score. btw I wouldn't, but I'd issue a 20% fine, instead of A- > >>Cancelling the board entirely is certainly not out of order. > >Yes, it is. It is a ridiculous thing to do. The idea that anyone >would do it has its origin in the "cult of the Director", which >is spreading rapidly. >Eh? They have *played the board*. Uh? An ArtAdj was awarded and they played it again. >They receive a number of match >points equal to one for every pair they have beaten plus one >half for every pair with whom they have tied. > >>I would give them both a blank zero score on this board as a >PP for ignoring instructions from the Director. > that is ludicrous. 20% of a board is a HUGE fine, 50% is summary execution. For goodness sake, these guys came to play a game, not face the Spanish Inquisition. >Tomorrow, Igor, the world! Ha, ha! > >David Burn >London, England > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 7 22:50:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77Coa602190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:50:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g77CoTH02185 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:50:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g77CZqb28528 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:35:52 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:34:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? References: <006d01c23b46$6d2620c0$869968d5@SCRAP> 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 >Nigel Guthrie writes >>TD guideline question based on a recent league ruling: >>South plays in a hopeless contract and is defeated by >>several tricks. At the end of play, South asks for a >>ruling because of opponents' MI during the auction. >>South explains that he lost extra undertricks >>because of wrong assumptions based on the MI. >>The director rules that South played so badly that any >>injury was self-inflicted. > > Fair enough, that is the normal interpretation of the Laws. > >>Too late, South realises that, without the misinformation, >>the auction could have been quite different. For example >>he had an opportunity to double and defeat a contract by >>opponents. > > In this case his opponents should have had their score adjusted, but >he should keep his score. As a result of mis-information a player didn't double a contract. You are aware of this? You don't adjust in his favour? Don't believe you. John > >>When you describe a possible legal infraction, should the >>TD himself infer the common ways that it might disadvantage >>the NOS? or should he ask "how are you damaged?" and >>address only the issues that arise therefrom? > > The TD himself, plus the people with whom he confers, will decide >damage. They will be somewhat sceptical of giving people hte benefit of >things they have not mentioned, but they will not dismiss them entirely >either. > >>Would it make a difference if the NOS are beginners? > > Yes, they would be more likely to assume damage the players have not >seen. > >>If the director does ask "how are you damaged?" can anyone >>complain about "self-serving" arguments? > > Of course. People will always complain about self-serving arguments. >Such complaints can be safely ignored. > -- 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 Aug 7 22:57:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77Culr02270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:56:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g77CueH02266 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:56:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-35-165-28.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.165.28] helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17cQ8C-0007Uc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 13:41:40 +0100 Message-ID: <002901c23e0f$877f65a0$1ca523d9@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <060802218.23953@webbox.com> <29cj$BFeMHU9EwZe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:39:40 +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 DWS wrote: > >Under what Law? For what conceivable reason? Why should the scores > >of all the other players be distorted by the imposition of an > >average on a board when the board has been played and a result > >obtained? This is sheer megalomania, and if any EBU tournament > >director behaved in such a fashion in my presence, I would use > >the powers vested in me to order his immediate execution. > > There is a level of selfishness and bloody-mindedness amongst players > which needs to be controlled. If you really think it acceptable that > players should just disobey TD's instructions with all the carnage that > is likely to follow from that then I am surprised. > > As for a Law number, there are a few, but L91A comes to mind. There is a fallacy called "secundum quid", into which contributors to this list (including myself) invariably fall. It consists, in essence, of arguing that a general principle applies to a specific case, while ignoring precisely those features of the specific case that render the general principle inoperative ("argumentum a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid", for the classical scholars). Here is a simple pseudo-syllogism by way of an example: Men can see. Blind men are men. Therefore, blind men can see. Now, it is a general principle that the instructions of a TD should be obeyed, and in general, a TD is justified in issuing warnings or imposing penalties when they are not. But in the specific case where players embark on the play of a board when the TD would rather they didn't, and they finish the board without major disruption to the movement or major inconvenience to other players, it is wholly inappropriate for a TD to impose a penalty. And it is in any case illegal for a TD to cancel a result obtained on a board played in accordance with the movement (L91A confers no such right, and neither does any other Law). Were there to have been major disruption, it would in my view be appropriate for a warning to be issued in the first instance, with penalties to follow thereafter. But this is a last resort, not an automatic recourse. 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 Aug 8 00:21:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77EL4O02373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 00:21:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g77EKrH02364 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 00:20:55 +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 17cRRk-0006CO-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 15:05:59 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:18:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play References: <060802218.23953@webbox.com> <29cj$BFeMHU9EwZe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <29cj$BFeMHU9EwZe@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 >David Burn writes >>DWS writes: >> >>>>I specifically asked a table not to play the last board since >>they were so far behind. >> >>>>When I left they started anyway :-( >> >>>>Amazingly they actually finished in reasonable time - but a >>little late. >> >>>>Nevertheless I gave them a severe telling off. >> >>>You should have cancelled the score as well. >> >>Under what Law? For what conceivable reason? Why should the scores >>of all the other players be distorted by the imposition of an >>average on a board when the board has been played and a result >>obtained? This is sheer megalomania, and if any EBU tournament >>director behaved in such a fashion in my presence, I would use >>the powers vested in me to order his immediate execution. > > There is a level of selfishness and bloody-mindedness amongst players >which needs to be controlled. if you really think it acceptable that >players shoud just disobey TD's instructions with all the carnage that >is likely to follow from that then I am surprised. > > As for a Law number, there are a few, but L91A comes ot mind. Having considered this overnight, I suppose you could just make sutre that you make any DP greater than any score they have acquired on suich a board. But I still disapprove. TDs are trying to run the game for everyone, and I am never happy at a pair of prima donnas who think their needs are everything, and everyone else can go hang. As a principle, I do not think any result should stand when played on a board where the TD has instructed that the board should not be played. As for the suggestion that megalomania is involved, David has always had surprising views on the subject of TDs, but it is the interest of the players generally that is in the forefront of good TDs' thinking, and specifically in this case. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 00:21:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77EL3j02372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 00:21:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g77EKrH02365 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 00:20:55 +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 17cRRl-0006CS-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 15:06:00 +0100 Message-ID: <3PmMSuAWDRU9Ewb6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:21:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? 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 writes > >[snip] > >>Be that as it may, there is no damage to redress if B >>does not use the UI from A. ~ G ~ +=+ > >Not so. The nub of Jeff Rubens' argument is that A's >tempo break infraction damages the A-B partnership >by restricting B's choice between logical alternatives. > >Furthermore, in a pairs event, the field is damaged >when A's UI-causing infraction results in B's choice >amongst remaining logical alternatives providing a >windfall gain to the opponents of A and B. What difference does it make if "the field is damaged"? This is "normal playing luck" which makes trivial differences at other tables the whole time. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 00:54:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77EsFe02401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 00:54:15 +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 g77Es9H02397 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 00:54:09 +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 17cRxx-000C01-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 15:39:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:38:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play References: <060802218.23953@webbox.com> <29cj$BFeMHU9EwZe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <002901c23e0f$877f65a0$1ca523d9@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <002901c23e0f$877f65a0$1ca523d9@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> >Under what Law? For what conceivable reason? Why should the scores >> >of all the other players be distorted by the imposition of an >> >average on a board when the board has been played and a result >> >obtained? This is sheer megalomania, and if any EBU tournament >> >director behaved in such a fashion in my presence, I would use >> >the powers vested in me to order his immediate execution. >> >> There is a level of selfishness and bloody-mindedness amongst players >> which needs to be controlled. If you really think it acceptable that >> players should just disobey TD's instructions with all the carnage >that >> is likely to follow from that then I am surprised. >> >> As for a Law number, there are a few, but L91A comes to mind. >Now, it is a general principle that the instructions of a TD should be >obeyed, and in general, a TD is justified in issuing warnings or >imposing penalties when they are not. But in the specific case where >players embark on the play of a board when the TD would rather they >didn't, and they finish the board without major disruption to the >movement or major inconvenience to other players, it is wholly >inappropriate for a TD to impose a penalty. This is quite wrong. Apart from the fact that we do not know in the example case whether there was any inconvenience or disruption to players, there might have been, and that is good enough. If we follow David's argument, then we would never prosecute anyone for going across a red light unless an accident resulted. When something is illegal, and likely to cause annoyance, embarrassment, trouble, delay or anything else then it is important that it be stopped, and neither the Laws of the land, nor the rules of bridge, need to wait to see if any of these things happened. Playing boards in complete defiance of instructions is likely to cause trouble, and that is all you need. > And it is in any case >illegal for a TD to cancel a result obtained on a board played in >accordance with the movement (L91A confers no such right, and neither >does any other Law). It is not in accordance with the movement when the TD instructs otherwise. I am sure there is no Law that says results on boards stand in such cases! OK, perhaps you need a Law. Let's try L78D. We shall disallow any score made in defiance of a TD's instructions. > Were there to have been major disruption, it would >in my view be appropriate for a warning to be issued in the first >instance, with penalties to follow thereafter. But this is a last >resort, not an automatic recourse. This is wrong. TDs will rarely give such instructions, but when they are given it is important that they be obeyed. You referred to megalomania earlier, and we cannot allow megalomania amongst a minority of players to be rewarded at the expense of the majority of players. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 00:56:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77EuEp02414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 00:56:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g77Eu8H02410 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 00:56:09 +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 17cRzt-000Kxd-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 15:41:14 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:40:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play 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 > >Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Late Play >> >> >> Ben Schelen writes >> >I would support DB and TK. >> >I need a result on the board but I will give a severe PP. >> > >David S: > >> Hold it, Ben, you are answering a different question now. >> If you need >> a result you would not have told them not to play the board. The case >> we are talking about is where you, the TD, have instructed >> the table not >> to play the board but they have played it anyway. Do you really think >> this is acceptable? > > >Hold it, David, you are answering a different question now. The answer being >'no, this is not acceptable'. But that answer doesn't lead to 'let us cancel >the board'. Once a result is obtained it should stay. What about the pair >that received the zero? Lucky them! When the TD said the board would not be played he awarded a result on the board, maybe A/A. One a result is obtained it should stay, you say? Exactly, that is why we do not allow them another result. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 00:58:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77EwCD02426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 00:58:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g77Ew6H02422 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 00:58:06 +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 17cS1o-000LQo-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 15:43:13 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:41:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? References: <006d01c23b46$6d2620c0$869968d5@SCRAP> 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 >>Nigel Guthrie writes >>>TD guideline question based on a recent league ruling: >>>South plays in a hopeless contract and is defeated by >>>several tricks. At the end of play, South asks for a >>>ruling because of opponents' MI during the auction. >>>South explains that he lost extra undertricks >>>because of wrong assumptions based on the MI. >>>The director rules that South played so badly that any >>>injury was self-inflicted. >> >> Fair enough, that is the normal interpretation of the Laws. >> >>>Too late, South realises that, without the misinformation, >>>the auction could have been quite different. For example >>>he had an opportunity to double and defeat a contract by >>>opponents. >> >> In this case his opponents should have had their score adjusted, but >>he should keep his score. > >As a result of mis-information a player didn't double a contract. You >are aware of this? You don't adjust in his favour? Don't believe you. Nigel has predicated a case where a player's action was bad enough to be called wild or gambling. Are you suggesting I do not follow EBU Directives? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 01:16:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77FG4902447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 01:16:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f49.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.49]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g77FFxH02443 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 01:16:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 08:01:01 -0700 Received: from 24.28.122.53 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 15:01:01 GMT X-Originating-IP: [24.28.122.53] From: "Roger Pewick" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 10:01:01 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Aug 2002 15:01:01.0910 (UTC) FILETIME=[3EDACF60:01C23E23] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Reply-To: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play >Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:40:07 +0100 > >Kooijman, A. writes > > > >Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Late Play > >> > >> > >> Ben Schelen writes > >> >I would support DB and TK. > >> >I need a result on the board but I will give a severe PP. > >> > > > >David S: > > > >> Hold it, Ben, you are answering a different question now. > >> If you need > >> a result you would not have told them not to play the board. The case > >> we are talking about is where you, the TD, have instructed > >> the table not > >> to play the board but they have played it anyway. Do you really think > >> this is acceptable? > > > > > >Hold it, David, you are answering a different question now. The answer >being > >'no, this is not acceptable'. But that answer doesn't lead to 'let us >cancel > >the board'. Once a result is obtained it should stay. What about the pair > >that received the zero? Lucky them! > > When the TD said the board would not be played he awarded a result on >the board, maybe A/A. One a result is obtained it should stay, you say? >Exactly, that is why we do not allow them another result. > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ This of course rests upon the TD having awarded a score prior to the commencement of playing it. Or does it? regards roger pewick _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 03:32:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77HU6o00395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 03:30:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g77HU0K00391 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 03:30:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (223.76-200-80.adsl.skynet.be [80.200.76.223]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g77HTtI07457 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 19:29:55 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D515911.2010509@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 19:29:53 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: <001b01c23e04$a9259900$685227d9@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have taken the liberty of including this poem in my bulletins here. (I needed something to fill a space). Brian Callaghan agreed that it scanned. David Burn wrote: > Brambledown wrote: > Games, somebody asked me what a double dactyl was, and having regard to > a hand that John Armstrong showed me from the day's play, I was able to > scribble on a scorecard: > > Higgledy piggledy > Anthony Forrester, > Though he could plainly have > Made all the tricks, > Followed a line that was > Totally crazy, and > Incomprehensibly > Went off in six. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium currently at the World University Bridge Championships in Brugge http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html Brugge homepage : http://www.ruca.ua.ac.be/dua/brugge02/Brugge2002.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 06:15:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77KD1G00454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 06:13:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (mta01-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g77KCtK00450 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 06:12:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.153.148]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020807201251.EQTX16050.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 21:12:51 +0100 Message-ID: <006401c23e4e$d0d50db0$949968d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <006d01c23b46$6d2620c0$869968d5@SCRAP> <002501c23bb2$64642f60$965087d9@4nrw70j> <3D4FCF18.9CA770B4@elnet.msk.ru> Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 21:12:46 +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 > > When you describe a possible legal infraction, should the > > TD himself infer the common ways that it might disadvantage > > the NOS? or should he ask "how are you damaged?" and > > address only the issues that arise therefrom? Vitold: There is Russian proverb: Till sun rises - dew will eat away eyes (word-by-word translation). That's why I try to use joint EBU mind and cite their position: White Book: 81.7 Irregularity not noticed by players When called to the table to sort out one problem, a TD may notice a quite separate one. Though duty-bound to deal with any irregularity that may arise, a TD will be unwilling to remedy a damage you have not claimed and will do so only if it is obvious. (See EBU 10.5 for more detailed guidance on this matter.) 10.5 Evidence of how a player has been damaged by an infraction Usually a player will know how he or she has been damaged, will be able to tell the TD how this was, and will not need to be prompted by partner or led by the TD. However, weaker or less experienced players may need to be carefully questioned by the TD to establish what their actions would have been: many such players need heIp to determine what their action would have been in hypothetical circumstances. Their partner's comment will rarely be helpful, and should be discouraged at least until the TD has completed questioning the player. Orange Book: 2.2 Less experienced players 2.2.1 TDs must always apply the law, but where they are allowed to exercise discretion they may treat more gently the less experienced player who is unlikely to be aware of every technicality. 2.2.2 The Laws are not intended to provide scope for knowledgeable players to gain advantage at the expense of inexperienced players. Vtold: In my opinion these thouthful statements describe the way for TD's thinking and ruling: 1. Before usage of L81C6 TD must be absolutely sure that there was infraction 2. If so - there may be two cases: (a) NOS had no ability nor possibility to notice this infraction (they are weak, non-experience pair or infraction was hidden from even experienced pair) and (b) NOS had ability and possibility to notice the infraction but failed to do. 3. In case (a) if there was damage I agreed with Grattan - there should be restore "equity", and both pair should be informed about the decision (for possible appealing). 4. In case (b) the NOS result should stand and OS result should be adjust - any benefit (consequent and subsequent) should be taken off, and again both pair should be informed about the decision (for possible appealing) 5. There should be no other penalty for such un-noticed by players infraction Nigel: Thank you, Vitold, for your explanation of the law. To me the law seems wrong to remedy damage only in response to specific complaints. Suppose an opponent revokes against me. Must I explain how I was damaged and specify the penalty before receiving any redress? IMO, the TD should try remedy ANY disadvantage arising directly from the infraction even if nobody else at the table is aware of it. Experienced bridge-players may be legal novices or may be unfamiliar with local laws, so it is seems wrong to treat novices differently. Of course, players should also be allowed to bring matters to the TD's attention that he may have overlooked. --- 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 Thu Aug 8 07:22:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77LM7A00482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 07:22:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from col-msxproto2.col.missouri.edu ([128.206.7.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g77LM2K00478 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 07:22:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] ([128.206.98.1]) by col-msxproto2.col.missouri.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Wed, 7 Aug 2002 16:22:00 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 16:43:38 -0500 To: BLML From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Aug 2002 21:22:00.0350 (UTC) FILETIME=[778BF3E0:01C23E58] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g77LM4K00479 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I thought I had made a comment on this one, but I can't find it either in the Out mailbox or in the BLML mailbox on my computer. So here's another trial. >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. > When I first looked at south's hand I thought that the last thing I would do in south's place is double. (Well, playing with Nan P I double. But she usually has a trick in reserve when she opens the bidding.) Light third hand openings used to be standard proceedure in the US. For example, I find in Goren's New Contract Bridge Complete the following hand, given as a third seat opening bid: S: Qxx; H: AKJxx; D: xx; C: xxx. In Kaplan's How To Play Winning Birdge I find this one given as a third seat opener: S: T64; H: AQT83; D: 962; C: QJT62 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 Aug 8 08:07:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77M6mJ00509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 08:06:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g77M6hK00504 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 08:06:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.8.10] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17cYwk-000EUU-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 23:06:28 +0100 Message-ID: <005301c23e5f$2d6675e0$0a08e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" References: <001b01c23e04$a9259900$685227d9@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:59:07 +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: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 12:22 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 > Higgledy piggledy > Anthony Forrester, > Though he could plainly have > Made all the tricks, > Followed a line that was > Totally crazy, and > Incomprehensibly > Went off in six. > > What had gone wrong is what goes wrong > occasionally if you write sentences like some of > Edgar's or Grattan's. You forget what you were > trying to say at the end of them, because the > beginning of them is so far away. Lest this should > appear to be more cantankerosity on my part, I > should say that there is no one for whose prose > and whose draftsmanship I have a higher > admiration than Grattan, unless it was Edgar. > But every so often..... > +=+ I claim one measure of superiority over Edgar. When I have done my worst I am always inclined to get someone to look it over for the obvious. Kaplan always knew best. The two whom I most respect in this regard, and most often ask, are - in alphabetical order - Burn and Schoder. They are very good at seeing the obvious. The test is coming, though, round about 2005 or 6 or 7 or..... ~ G ~ +=+ Double dactyl - isn't that a cretaceous ornithischian dinosaur with one long foot at the front and two short feet behind? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 08:07:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77M6wZ00514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 08:06:58 +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-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 g77M6qK00510 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 08:06:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.8.10] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17cYwt-000EUU-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 23:06:37 +0100 Message-ID: <005401c23e5f$3300c960$0a08e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <060802218.23953@webbox.com> <29cj$BFeMHU9EwZe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <002901c23e0f$877f65a0$1ca523d9@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 23:03:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 1:39 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > > > Now, it is a general principle that the instructions of a TD should be > obeyed, and in general, a TD is justified in issuing warnings or > imposing penalties when they are not. > +=+ Not to mention that it is an cold-blooded violation of Law 90B8. Penalize the offenders 50% of a top if you will. ~ 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 Aug 8 08:54:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77Mrfi00547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 08:53:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g77MrbK00543 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 08:53:37 +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 JAA25648 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:09:09 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 08:28:31 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 08:29:28 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 08/08/2002 08:28:07 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] Sven asked: >>In the actual case discussed, how can you feel sure that the >>result obtained on a board that has been played in a rush offers >>equity for comparison with all the other boards in the tournament? David Burn replied: >I can't. But am I to cancel the later results of the pair at >table seven, who have been drinking beer all evening, because >the result obtained on a board played by drunk people does not >offer equitable comparison? Shall I discount the results obtained >by Mr Humble on boards where his opponents have pre-empted, because >he isn't very good at dealing with that sort of thing? Sven, >a result is a result. If it was obtained by four players playing >the correct board, then you compute the score for it and you >use that score when calculating the ranking list. [snip] I disagree with both Sven and David. My position is that "a result is a result" *if* lawfully obtained. For example, if a player violates the second clause of L7B1 by not inspecting their cards, then any "result" obtained may be invalid. 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 Aug 8 08:55:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77Mswm00559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 08:54:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g77MssK00555 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 08:54:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA26290 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:10:28 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 08:49:58 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 08:40:09 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 08/08/2002 08:49:34 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] > What difference does it make if "the field is damaged"? This is >"normal playing luck" which makes trivial differences at other tables >the whole time. > >-- >David Stevenson I wholeheartedly agree with the Stevensonian position. On the other hand, Bobby Wolff's comments in Appeals Committee casebooks imply that his actions as an Appeals Committee member are partly predicated on the logically untenable and arguably unjust notion of "protecting the field". If and when the WBF revises its Appeals Committee Code of Practice, should the WBF include jurisprudential principles in the Code? 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 Aug 8 09:07:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77N7OK00575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:07:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g77N7KK00571 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:07:20 +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 JAA28362 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:22:53 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 09:02:23 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:00:51 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 08/08/2002 09:01:59 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] >>Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or >>inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste (however, sponsoring >>organisations may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of >>auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick). >> >>David Burn >>London, England >It says "undue" ... This law is not violated on every variation in tempo! > >Sven I guess that the word "undue" was included to prevent bridge-lawyers from requiring their opponents to bid like a metronome. IMHO, only "undue" tempo breaks restrict partner's choice between logical alternatives under L16. That is, IMHO, "non-undue" tempo breaks do not transmit UI. Grattan/Ton - was that the intention of the WBF LC when inserting the adjective "undue"? Should the 2005 L73A2 be more specific; rather than merely relying on a solitary, ambiguous, adjective? 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 Aug 8 09:20:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77NK6R00592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:20:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g77NK0K00588 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:20:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g77NJrL19794; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 19:19:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 19:16:16 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play To: David Stevenson , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 8/7/02, David Stevenson wrote: >If we follow David's argument, then we would never prosecute anyone >for going across a red light unless an accident resulted. Interesting you should choose that example, considering that I have long felt that "going across a red light" and similar traffic offenses should not be prosecuted at all - instead, if damage ensues, the offender should be required to make reparations (a civil, rather than a criminal, judgement). 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 Aug 8 09:45:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g77NixH00615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:44:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g77NisK00611 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:44:55 +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 g77Ninp21436; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 19:44:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 19:44:41 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play 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 8/7/02, David Stevenson wrote: >When the TD said the board would not be played he awarded a result on >the board, maybe A/A. One a result is obtained it should stay, you >say? Exactly, that is why we do not allow them another result. Seems to me we may have lost sight of the subject of this thread. Seems to me the scenario is that a table is late in the round, and hasn't time to play the last board in that round before the director calls the round (in fact, iirc, he *already* called the round). The normal ruling, and the assumption I as a player would make unless specifically told otherwise, is that this board would be a late play. So at that point, no result has been awarded. So this argument won't fly. Now, if such a situation arises, and it is SO policy (or TD determines for some reason) that there will be no late play, that's a different story. Side note: we have a TD here who regularly tells players that the board they aren't supposed to play now will be a late play - and then there's "never" time at the end for that late play. Once, I was involved in such a situation, and we were awarded avg-, in spite of the fact that (a) we were finished with our last round more than 5 minutes before "end of round" should have come, and were prepared to play the late board, (b) there was no reason I could see to rule that we were even partly at fault for the late play (our table opponents for that board, *and* the EW pair we were following, were both slower than molasses in January), and (c) our opponents left immediately they finished their last board - they didn't stick around to find out if the late play would be allowed. I complained about the avg-, to no avail. :-( 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 Aug 8 10:07:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7806X600633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 10:06:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7806SK00629 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 10:06:29 +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 RAA14956; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 17:06:21 -0700 Message-Id: <200208080006.RAA14956@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 07 Aug 2002 19:16:16 EDT." Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 17:08:15 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > On 8/7/02, David Stevenson wrote: > > >If we follow David's argument, then we would never prosecute anyone > >for going across a red light unless an accident resulted. > > Interesting you should choose that example, considering that I have long > felt that "going across a red light" and similar traffic offenses should > not be prosecuted at all - instead, if damage ensues, the offender > should be required to make reparations (a civil, rather than a criminal, > judgement). I really hate your idea. It might work if the prospect of civil liabilities were as effective a deterrent to everyone as the prospect of being pulled over by a cop. Maybe it would be for most people, but unfortunately they let 16- and 17-year-olds drive, and also older people who think like 16- and 17-year-olds. So your idea would be workable only if we denied licenses to teenagers, most young adults, idiots, immature people, people without basic common sense . . . hey, maybe this isn't such a bad idea after all. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 11:12:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g781BvC00683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 11:11:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g781BpK00679 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 11:11:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g781C5b30300 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 02:12:05 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 02:09:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? References: <006d01c23b46$6d2620c0$869968d5@SCRAP> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst writes >>In article , David Stevenson >> writes >>>Nigel Guthrie writes >>>>TD guideline question based on a recent league ruling: >>>>South plays in a hopeless contract and is defeated by >>>>several tricks. At the end of play, South asks for a >>>>ruling because of opponents' MI during the auction. >>>>South explains that he lost extra undertricks >>>>because of wrong assumptions based on the MI. >>>>The director rules that South played so badly that any >>>>injury was self-inflicted. >>> >>> Fair enough, that is the normal interpretation of the Laws. >>> >>>>Too late, South realises that, without the misinformation, >>>>the auction could have been quite different. For example >>>>he had an opportunity to double and defeat a contract by >>>>opponents. >>> >>> In this case his opponents should have had their score adjusted, but >>>he should keep his score. >> >>As a result of mis-information a player didn't double a contract. You >>are aware of this? You don't adjust in his favour? Don't believe you. > > Nigel has predicated a case where a player's action was bad enough to >be called wild or gambling. Are you suggesting I do not follow EBU >Directives? > ok, I'll buy this. But you know my views on the amount of damage to be assessed. 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 Aug 8 14:05:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7844OX00757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 14:04:24 +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 g7844JK00753 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 14:04:20 +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 OAA19365 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 14:19:52 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 13:59:21 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Cc: HURLEY Steve Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:12:12 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 08/08/2002 01:58:57 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: >At the recent Australian Interstate Championships, my side >committed an irregularity against a weak pair from the >Northern Territory. > >When it came time for the TD to determine whether the NT >pair had been damaged, both the NT pair and the TD were >unsure whether damage had occurred. > >But with my superior powers of analysis, I volunteered >excellent reasons for the TD to adjust the score against >my side, which the TD then did. > >Was I obeying Law 72A2, or infracting Law 72A6? To answer my own question, no law really seems to fit this situation. I suspect that Edgar Kaplan would argue that I had acted improperly against the interest of my own team, citing the principle underpinning L72A5 and L72B3. * * * The complete case raised a number of interesting legal points West North East South NT Me NT Pard 1NT (11-14) Dble 3C* Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass *Alerted and explained by pard as natural and game-forcing. *System agreement is natural and pre-emptive. Before the opening lead, as required by L75D2, I summoned the TD and then corrected the misexplanation. L21B1 now gave East the option of altering their final pass. However, the TD informed East with words to the effect of, "Because of the misinformation, you may change your Pass if you so desire." East naturally assumed that the Pass he was allowed to change was the Pass over the misexplained 3C, so promptly bid 3D. Realising that his ambiguous explanation had caused East's insufficient bid, the TD promptly cancelled the 3D call - without giving my pard a chance to exercise an option under L27A. The TD told West that East's 3D call was UI, so West led hearts, and we scored +430. On a diamond lead our score would have been -200. This was the TD's eventual adjusted score, on the assumption (which I improperly?? analysed for East-West and the TD) that East would have immediately bid 3D over a properly explained 3C bid. I committed a further impropriety by not informing our non- playing captain of the doubtful TD ruling, so that he could decide whether to appeal. (This was because our team had had a surprising maximum loss to the dark horse NT team, and a successful appeal would not have significantly improved our 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 Thu Aug 8 15:32:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g785VDF00796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:31:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g785V7K00792 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:31:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-0132.bb.online.no [80.212.208.132]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA21980 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 07:30:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001701c23e9c$c2d64dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 07:30:52 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: ........... > I disagree with both Sven and David. > > My position is that "a result is a result" *if* lawfully obtained. Exactly my point! A result is not lawfully obtained if it is obtained by directly ignoring a clear order from the Director. (Law 90B8 etc.) The legally obtained result on a board where TD says: "You are too late and will not begin this board" is the implicitly assigned artificial score that the Director intends to apply. Any score obtained by playing it out in conflict with the Director's instruction is illegal and should be stricken out, even if it should turn out that they in fact finished the board in time! (Which they did not in the case that started this thread). Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 15:45:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g785ina00813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:44:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail49.fg.online.no (mail49-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.49]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g785ihK00809 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:44:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-0309.bb.online.no [80.212.209.53]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA07086 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 07:44:35 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002301c23e9e$aa9a77c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 07:44:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 1:00 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? > > [snip] > > >>Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or > >>inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste (however, sponsoring > >>organisations may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of > >>auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick). > >> > >>David Burn > >>London, England > > >It says "undue" ... This law is not violated on every variation in tempo! > > > >Sven > > I guess that the word "undue" was included to prevent bridge-lawyers > from requiring their opponents to bid like a metronome. > > IMHO, only "undue" tempo breaks restrict partner's choice between > logical alternatives under L16. You need to read the laws more carefully, and most important you need to make yourself understand the laws rather that trying to interpret them by the letter of each paragraph isolated from the other paragraphs. "Undue" is a recognition that we are not metronomes or machines. A variation in tempo is not itself a violation unless there is no acceptable bridge reason for it. (See law 73D2) But even a non-undue variation in tempo establishes (or may establish) UI which partner must carefully refrain from using (Laws 73C, 73D1 and 16A) although it is valid information for opponents which they may use, however only at their own risk (again Law 73D1). > > That is, IMHO, "non-undue" tempo breaks do not transmit UI. Nonsense Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 16:07:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7867DK00830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 16:07:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g78678K00826 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 16:07:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA11363 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 16:22:43 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 16:02:12 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:49:53 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 08/08/2002 04:01:47 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] >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. [snip] Would the EBU have outlawed the psyche which occurred on the following hand in the recent Australian Championships? Best wishes Richard * * * Papa the Greek Board: 12 A Q 9 Dealer: W K J T 9 5 Vul: NS Q T Q 8 4 The Hideous Hog Karapet the Unlucky J T 6 5 K 8 3 Q 8 2 A 7 6 4 8 7 A K J 3 T 9 6 5 K 3 Colin the Corgi 7 4 2 3 9 6 5 4 2 A J 7 2 The Hideous Hog always added a few points for his cardplay, so the West hand was an automatic opening in the Hog style. As the Hog accidently had sorted a spade into the heart suit, the Hog opened 1H. Papa also upgraded his hand to overcall a strong 1NT. Karapet found himself staring at an extremely lucky number of high cards on this auction, so doubled. Colin passed, conventionally requesting a redouble. The Hog smoothly passed, Papa redoubled, and now Colin bid 2C, promising both minors. Exuding confidence, the Hog doubled 2C. (The Hog reasoned that -180 defending 2Cx was better than -800 playing 3NTx). All passed 2Cx. However, during the play Colin carelessly played the Hog to hold long hearts. So the Hog scored a lucky heart ruff to give the Hog- Karapet partnership a score of +500. Karapet the Unlucky was flabbergasted. Did these lucky results mean that he was finally going to win a match? Alas, no. The other 12 boards were great results for Papa and Colin, so Karapet had yet another unlucky narrow loss. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 16:38:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g786cB800848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 16:38:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g786c6K00844 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 16:38:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.2.75] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17cgvf-000Bzk-00; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 07:37:52 +0100 Message-ID: <001801c23ea6$9eab12a0$4b02e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" , "David Stevenson" , "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 07:30:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "David Stevenson" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > On 8/7/02, David Stevenson wrote: > > >If we follow David's argument, then we would > >never prosecute anyone for going across a red > >light unless an accident resulted. > > Interesting you should choose that example, > considering that I have long felt that "going across > a red light" and similar traffic offenses should > not be prosecuted at all - instead, if damage > ensues, the offender should be required to make > reparations (a civil, rather than a criminal, > judgement). > > Regards, > > Ed +=+ "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." (J.S.Mill) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 17:07:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7876bp00873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 17:06:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7876VK00869 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 17:06:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-35-41-4.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.41.4] helo=electrobear) by tungsten.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17chNL-0005pZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 08:06:28 +0100 From: "Ed Colley" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] How are you damaged? Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 08:03:53 +0100 Message-ID: <000001c23ea9$c3b96ee0$010a07ac@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 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 Stevenson writes: > John (MadDog) Probst writes > >In article , David Stevenson > > writes > >>Nigel Guthrie writes > >>>TD guideline question based on a recent league ruling: > >>>South plays in a hopeless contract and is defeated by > several tricks. > >>>At the end of play, South asks for a ruling because of > opponents' MI > >>>during the auction. South explains that he lost extra undertricks > >>>because of wrong assumptions based on the MI. > >>>The director rules that South played so badly that any > >>>injury was self-inflicted. > >> > >> Fair enough, that is the normal interpretation of the Laws. > >> > >>>Too late, South realises that, without the misinformation, the > >>>auction could have been quite different. For example he had an > >>>opportunity to double and defeat a contract by opponents. > >> > >> In this case his opponents should have had their score > adjusted, but > >>he should keep his score. > > > >As a result of mis-information a player didn't double a > contract. You > >are aware of this? You don't adjust in his favour? Don't > believe you. > > Nigel has predicated a case where a player's action was bad > enough to be called wild or gambling. Are you suggesting I > do not follow EBU Directives? I understood "wild or gambling" referred to double-shot actions, i.e. actions which will usually turn out poorly but have some small probability of beating the appropriate adjusted score. If the actions chosen are merely poor, and have no chance of outscoring the likely adjusted score, I see no reason not to adjust. - 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 Thu Aug 8 19:13:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g789Cp400925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 19:12:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g789CkK00921 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 19:12:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-39-33-46.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.39.33.46] helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17cjLW-000300-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 10:12:42 +0100 Message-ID: <006701c23ebb$80404fa0$2e2127d9@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <001701c23e9c$c2d64dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 10:10:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven wrote: > The legally obtained result on a board where TD says: > "You are too late and will not begin this board" is the implicitly > assigned artificial score that the Director intends to apply. To save DWS some time, I will point out that "assigned artificial" scores are not possible; adjusted scores are either assigned or artificial. But now we have a new concept, the Implicitly Assigned Adjusted Score. Do we need a new acronym for this? The ImpAssAdj score, as opposed to the ExpAssAdj score? To be quite honest, I have never heard so much bosh since Gerald Ford was President. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 19:41:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g789f6t00943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 19:41:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail50.fg.online.no (mail50-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g789f0K00935 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 19:41:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-4075.bb.online.no [80.212.223.235]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA26832 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 11:40:50 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <008c01c23ebf$abb66c10$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <001701c23e9c$c2d64dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <006701c23ebb$80404fa0$2e2127d9@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 11:40:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Burn" > Sven wrote: > > > The legally obtained result on a board where TD says: > > "You are too late and will not begin this board" is the implicitly > > assigned artificial score that the Director intends to apply. > > To save DWS some time, I will point out that "assigned artificial" > scores are not possible; adjusted scores are either assigned or > artificial. OK, slip of the pen, should have been artificial adjusted score > > But now we have a new concept, the Implicitly Assigned Adjusted Score. > Do we need a new acronym for this? The ImpAssAdj score, as opposed to > the ExpAssAdj score? To be quite honest, I have never heard so much bosh > since Gerald Ford was President. Oh come on! If a board is not played for any reason (although it was intended to be played) there shall always be an artificial adjusted score on that board at the affected table (Law 12C1). So when the Director for some reason decides that a board is not to be played at a table he implicitly also decides that he shall award an artificial adjusted score on that board for that table. The scores will be A-, A or A+ depending on what responsibility he deems on who was to blame for the situation. He may tell the players immediately, or he may publish the adjusted score(s) later - that makes no difference. It is the artificial adjusted scores on that board that are the legally obtained scores, any scores obtained on a later play in violation of the instructions from the director are illegal and should be cancelled. Was it really neccessary forcing me to spell this out? (Sigh!) Sven PS: My recommendation to any director feeling he has to cancel a board this way is that he opens the traveller and writes the fact to the slip immediately. That will effectively prevent the players from starting the board, they have already seen the previous results. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 20:10:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78AAgB00967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:10:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailm4.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailm4.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.211]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g78AAbK00963 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:10:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-123.damrod.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.152.123] helo=pc) by cmailm4.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17ckFU-0006UY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 11:10:33 +0100 Message-ID: <001301c23ec3$bf44d7e0$7b98883e@pc> From: "LarryBennett" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <001701c23e9c$c2d64dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <006701c23ebb$80404fa0$2e2127d9@pbncomputer> <008c01c23ebf$abb66c10$6400a8c0@WINXP> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 11:06:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Physically removing the board works well as well. Larry | | PS: My recommendation to any director feeling he has to cancel a board | this way is that he opens the traveller and writes the fact to the slip | immediately. That will effectively prevent the players from starting the | board, they have already seen the previous results. | | | -- | ================================================ ======================== | (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with | "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. | A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-L AWS/ | -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 20:16:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78AFhA00983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:15:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g78AFbK00979 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:15:38 +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 g78AFVf08834 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:15:32 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Aug 08 12:10:43 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KL1ZERLJKY001YWB@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 12:15:16 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 12:14:43 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 12:15:14 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Late Play To: "'Sven Pran'" , Bridge Laws Submissions 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 > PS: My recommendation to any director feeling he has to cancel a board > this way is that he opens the traveller and writes the fact > to the slip > immediately. That will effectively prevent the players from > starting the > board, they have already seen the previous results. > This is all very good, we should ask Vitold to add it to the CoP for TD's. But it is not the issue we were talking about (or I thought we were talking about). The case was that a pair despite the instruction not to play a board due to slow play still played it and reached a real bridge result. And there are very inventive arguments to explain why you shouldn't accept that result, for example David's one, saying that there was already a bridge result. (I am almost sure that this wasn't told the players in this case.) I never would for one (split) second consider the possibility to void this play to fall back on the artificial score. It is a wrong way to demonstrate your (TD) power. Yes you should tell the players that you don't like their behaviour and it should be penalized. So I am not with David B. in this respect. They deserve a penalty already. The TD has to show some (smiling) power. Thinking of that I suddenly come up with a fantastic idea (don't discourage me too strongly). The difference between a favorable and an unfavorable result giving an AAS is 20% of a board. So that expresses the penalty in case of 'normal' offences. Why don't we use that more often? ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 20:28:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78ARwc00996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:27:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g78ARrK00992 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:27:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-0875.bb.online.no [80.212.211.107]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA25627 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:27:44 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00b601c23ec6$38605800$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <001701c23e9c$c2d64dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <006701c23ebb$80404fa0$2e2127d9@pbncomputer> <008c01c23ebf$abb66c10$6400a8c0@WINXP> <001301c23ec3$bf44d7e0$7b98883e@pc> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:27:38 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sure it does, and in Norway with barometer moves I would have done that (in fact that is exactly what I do when needed!). But assuming this was Mitchell or Howell movement removing the board more likely causes disturbance in the progression - I wouldn't want the next pairs to take the wrong board. regards Sven From: "LarryBennett" > Physically removing the board works well as > well. > > Larry > | > | PS: My recommendation to any director feeling > he has to cancel a board > | this way is that he opens the traveller and > writes the fact to the slip > | immediately. That will effectively prevent the > players from starting the > | board, they have already seen the previous > results. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 20:36:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78AaQ301008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:36:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail45.fg.online.no (mail45-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g78AaKK01004 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:36:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-1325.bb.online.no [80.212.213.45]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA08734 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:36:11 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00c401c23ec7$67004480$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:35:57 +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 Obviously I have more concern for Law 90B8 than you seem to exhibit. Next to cheating I consider ignoring a Director's instruction one of the most severe offences in Bridge (or for that sake in any sport). Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Sven Pran'" ; "Bridge Laws Submissions" Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 12:15 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Late Play > > > > PS: My recommendation to any director feeling he has to cancel a board > > this way is that he opens the traveller and writes the fact > > to the slip > > immediately. That will effectively prevent the players from > > starting the > > board, they have already seen the previous results. > > > > > This is all very good, we should ask Vitold to add it to the CoP for TD's. > > But it is not the issue we were talking about (or I thought we were talking > about). The case was that a pair despite the instruction not to play a board > due to slow play still played it and reached a real bridge result. > > And there are very inventive arguments to explain why you shouldn't accept > that result, for example David's one, saying that there was already a bridge > result. (I am almost sure that this wasn't told the players in this case.) > > I never would for one (split) second consider the possibility to void this > play to fall back on the artificial score. It is a wrong way to demonstrate > your (TD) power. Yes you should tell the players that you don't like their > behaviour and it should be penalized. So I am not with David B. in this > respect. They deserve a penalty already. The TD has to show some (smiling) > power. > > Thinking of that I suddenly come up with a fantastic idea (don't discourage > me too strongly). The difference between a favorable and an unfavorable > result giving an AAS is 20% of a board. So that expresses the penalty in > case of 'normal' offences. Why don't we use that more often? > > ton > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 21:56:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78BuJf01059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 21:56:19 +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-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 g78BuAK01052 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 21:56:11 +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 17cltb-000FlE-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 12:56:06 +0100 Message-ID: <9iPeJEDwzcU9EwJx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 02:44:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick writes >>From: David Stevenson >>Kooijman, A. writes >> >Hold it, David, you are answering a different question now. The answer >>being >> >'no, this is not acceptable'. But that answer doesn't lead to 'let us >>cancel >> >the board'. Once a result is obtained it should stay. What about the pair >> >that received the zero? Lucky them! >> When the TD said the board would not be played he awarded a result on >>the board, maybe A/A. One a result is obtained it should stay, you say? >>Exactly, that is why we do not allow them another result. >This of course rests upon the TD having awarded a score prior to the >commencement of playing it. Or does it? When discussing how the Laws should be applied I tend to assume competent TDs. If you cancel a board you do not say "You cannot play it" without also [a] saying why and [b] saying what score they get [eg A/A]. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 21:56:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78BuJL01060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 21:56:19 +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-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 g78BuAK01051 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 21:56:11 +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 17cltb-000Fl7-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 12:56:06 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 02:41:29 +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 Robert E. Harris writes >When I first looked at south's hand I thought that the last thing I would >do in south's place is double. (Well, playing with Nan P I double. But >she usually has a trick in reserve when she opens the bidding.) Light >third hand openings used to be standard proceedure in the US. I do not understand the rationale behind this and several other similar posts. If the bidding goes P P 1H 1NT and you hold ten HCP what is the advantage in not doubling [apart from fielding psyches]? If partner has a light opening and you double, he will pull and you will be in the correct spot. If he has not got a light opening you will murder the opposition. But everyone on BLML [and at the YC according to Probst] assumes that partner is both light and stupid, ie that if he is light he will forget your original pass, leave the double in, and look surprised if it makes. Is this really bridge? If so, I must start increasing the frequency of my psychic fourth in hand 1NT overcalls. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 22:06:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78C5pP01138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 22:05:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g78C5jK01134 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 22:05:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id AE9511C201CA; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 05:05:41 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Message-Id: <080802220.18342@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 05:05:45 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven wrote: >Obviously I have more concern for Law 90B8 than you seem to exhibit. >Next to cheating I consider ignoring a Director's instruction one of the most severe offences in Bridge Yes, I expect you probably do. It isn't. Directors are there to enable people to play bridge, not to stop them from doing so. 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 Aug 8 22:48:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78Cm6j01213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 22:48:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail46.fg.online.no (mail46-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g78Cm0K01209 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 22:48:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-3943.bb.online.no [80.212.223.103]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA09457 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 14:47:47 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000d01c23ed9$c7cc3730$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <080802220.18342@webbox.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 14:47:37 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Burn" > Sven wrote: > > >Obviously I have more concern for Law 90B8 than you seem to > exhibit. > > >Next to cheating I consider ignoring a Director's instruction > one of the most severe offences in Bridge > > Yes, I expect you probably do. It isn't. Directors are there > to enable people to play bridge, not to stop them from doing > so. I don't stop them from playing bridge? I stop them from causing the rest of the field being unable to play bridge for an average of five minutes while they complete their delayed play. And I don't give instructions without a reason, especially not instructions like the one we are considering here. But then I expect obedience to those few instructions I do give. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 22:52:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78CpsA01225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 22:51:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g78CpnK01221 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 22:51:50 +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 17cmlU-0005eR-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 13:51:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:50:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play References: <080802220.18342@webbox.com> In-Reply-To: <080802220.18342@webbox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes > >Sven wrote: > >>Obviously I have more concern for Law 90B8 than you seem to >exhibit. > >>Next to cheating I consider ignoring a Director's instruction >one of the most severe offences in Bridge > >Yes, I expect you probably do. It isn't. Directors are there >to enable people to play bridge, not to stop them from doing >so. Does that include the people following the rules, or just the ones who don't bother? The main job of a TD is to act as a cricket umpire, and decide between two sides. What I dislike is a few posts recently that seem to suggest that TDs who rule in favour of those who do not break the rules are wrong. Assuming a competent TD, if he does not allow a board to be played then there is a reason, and the reason is nothing to do with his own desire to get to dinner: it is the effect on the competition generally and other competitors in particular. The idea that TDs must treat law-breakers with sweetness and light would be alright if it did not mean you have to upset the other players. But it doesn't, *especially* where time is concerned, where a minority of selfish players expect the rest of the world to suffer for them, and only the TDs can protect the unselfish. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 23:34:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78DWgs01254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 23:32:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eowyn.vianetworks.nl (eowyn.vianetworks.nl [212.61.25.227]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g78DWZK01250 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 23:32:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d493.iae.nl [212.61.5.239]) by eowyn.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 05463213D7 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:32:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <00b001c23edf$b6cccf20$ef053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <060802218.23953@webbox.com> <009701c23d6d$69999e40$4d053dd4@b0e7g1> <3tHjLPFzOHU9EwYK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 14:47:58 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David, The original question was: "Is it acceptable that the board is played later despite being two bids into the auction." So the pairs neither at fault were instructed during play! And my first reaction was: Is it not better (or best) to postpone the next round? (Instead of playing later, the players have seen the hands, or a Law12C1 decision) Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 3:11 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > Ben Schelen writes > >I would support DB and TK. > >I need a result on the board but I will give a severe PP. > > Hold it, Ben, you are answering a different question now. If you need > a result you would not have told them not to play the board. The case > we are talking about is where you, the TD, have instructed the table not > to play the board but they have played it anyway. Do you really think > this is acceptable? > > >If you peer constantly and have given a warning or a PP you will see that > >being late has gone. > >Believe me, I have never problems and handle 40 tables on my lone. Another > >way of "table presence" > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 23:36:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78DZQu01266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 23:35:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g78DZLK01262 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 23:35:22 +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 JAA11519 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:35:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id JAA08960 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:35:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:35:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208081335.JAA08960@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Penalties X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Kooijman, A." > Thinking of that I suddenly come up with a fantastic idea (don't discourage > me too strongly). The difference between a favorable and an unfavorable > result giving an AAS is 20% of a board. So that expresses the penalty in > case of 'normal' offences. Why don't we use that more often? The EBU "standard penalty" is 10% of a top. In the ACBL, PP's are rare but are nearly always 25% of a top when they are given. The former has struck me as too small and the latter too big; maybe Ton has hit on a rationale for "just right." If the EBU standard penalty is applied to contestants "partially at fault," and a double penalty is applied for contestants "directly at fault," then Ton's suggestion is already in effect. (Is that the way things are done after all?) Specifying standard penalties would be a good item for Vitold's TD Code. By the way, I think the code is a terrific idea and desperately needed here in ACBL-land. I've been meaning to write some more extensive comments but have not found time. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 23:39:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78Ddgq01279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 23:39:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g78DdaK01275 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 23:39:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id JAA11758 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:39:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id JAA08973 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:39:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:39:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208081339.JAA08973@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > If you cancel a board you do not say "You cannot play > it" without also [a] saying why and [b] saying what score they get [eg > A/A]. Perhaps in deciding whether to allow the score, the director should consider whether he intended to cancel the board altogether or to schedule a late play. Ed's example, where a director doesn't bother to inform the players what the ruling is, is not rare around here. The TD code should, of course, cover 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 Thu Aug 8 23:56:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78Dtwe01296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 23:55:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g78DtqK01292 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 23:55:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-1372.bb.online.no [80.212.213.92]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA06151 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:55:42 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002601c23ee3$4554d140$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <060802218.23953@webbox.com> <009701c23d6d$69999e40$4d053dd4@b0e7g1> <3tHjLPFzOHU9EwYK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00b001c23edf$b6cccf20$ef053dd4@b0e7g1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:55:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ben Schelen" > David, > > The original question was: > "Is it acceptable that the board is played later despite being two bids into > the auction." > So the pairs neither at fault were instructed during play! > And my first reaction was: Is it not better (or best) to postpone the next > round? > (Instead of playing later, the players have seen the hands, or a Law12C1 > decision) > > Ben Maybe it was, but the original question I saw was where the Director, on noticing that at one table a board had not yet been started when there was little chance for the players to complete the board without causing delay to the entire arrangement, instructed the players not to begin that board. Once the Director left the table they ignored his instruction and started the board anyway. Such activity is contempt and completely unacceptable. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 8 23:56:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78DuNB01306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 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 guppy.vub.ac.be (virtueelmuseum.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g78DuEK01298 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 23:56:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id PAA28737; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:54:01 +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 PAA23154; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:56:08 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020808155936.00a77b00@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 16:05:20 +0200 To: "Kooijman, A." , "'David Burn'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Late Play 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 16:02 6/08/2002 +0200, Kooijman, A. wrote: >we have clubs in the Netherlands where you are not allowed to start play of >a board when the last five minutes of the round have started. Ridiculous. >Normal bridge players are able to play 3 boards in that time when they need >to. AG : I think you're quite optimistic there. Normal bridge players (or is this an oxymoron ?) aren't 5+ minutes later after 2 boards (even 3, assuming you play 4-board rounds). The players which are able to play their last board in 5- minutes usually aren't the same that played their first two in 18+ minutes. This disallowance is there to prevent this table running (er, creeping) at the same pace for the last board, taking the total delay above 5 minutes. Of course, making them play the board after everyone is done is an heresy ; rather give them a L12C1 score. >And now they have to play that board at the end, everybody waiting for >results, having had the time to collect all information they need to play >this one board perfectly. Once in a while one pair has to play two boards >this way, probably after having made a deal with the bar. Awarding penalties >for slow play should do the job. > >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 Aug 9 00:07:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78E7gB01333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 00:07:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g78E7ZK01329 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 00:07:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g78E7Tb31673 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:07:50 +0100 Message-ID: <$q4uWWADqnU9EwYW@asimere.com> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:04:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play References: <00c401c23ec7$67004480$6400a8c0@WINXP> In-Reply-To: <00c401c23ec7$67004480$6400a8c0@WINXP> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <00c401c23ec7$67004480$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >Obviously I have more concern for Law 90B8 than you seem to exhibit. > >Next to cheating I consider ignoring a Director's instruction one of the >most severe offences in Bridge (or for that sake in any sport). > >Sven I agree. ... and it's nothing to do with the cult of director. When a player decides to play in an event of any sort he implicitly agrees to be bound by the laws of bridge. By implication he also agrees to be governed by the tournament Director. For certain, if he doesn't then the game is not Bridge. cheers john > On the occasions where players have played a hand contrary to my instruction, I have explained that the score doesn't count and that instead of getting an "unplayed" or an average or the option for a late play they now have 30% each. Whilst the customers don't like it much, they accept that the ruling is reasonable. I also think it's lawful. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 9 00:14:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78EE3e01350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 00:14:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g78EDvK01346 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 00:13:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g78EECb31679 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:14:12 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:11:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play References: <080802220.18342@webbox.com> <000d01c23ed9$c7cc3730$6400a8c0@WINXP> In-Reply-To: <000d01c23ed9$c7cc3730$6400a8c0@WINXP> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000d01c23ed9$c7cc3730$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >From: "David Burn" > >> Sven wrote: >> >> >Obviously I have more concern for Law 90B8 than you seem to >> exhibit. >> >> >Next to cheating I consider ignoring a Director's instruction >> one of the most severe offences in Bridge >> >> Yes, I expect you probably do. It isn't. Directors are there >> to enable people to play bridge, not to stop them from doing >> so. > When I give an instruction it is to enable people to play bridge. "Shuffle deal and commence play" is such an instruction. "Do not play this board" is also such one. You're being ludicrous here, DALB. Perhaps I overstepped the mark with Robert Proops (a very noisy player even by YC standards) where I read him the law about reasonable instructions and then told him to "Drop Dead". He accepted the instruction was reasonable, (as indeed did the rest of the room) and did indeed quieten down for a few minutes. Even this instruction was an attempt to enable people to play bridge. >I don't stop them from playing bridge? > >I stop them from causing the rest of the field being unable to >play bridge for an average of five minutes while they complete >their delayed play. > >And I don't give instructions without a reason, especially >not instructions like the one we are considering here. But >then I expect obedience to those few instructions I do give. > >Sven > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Aug 9 00:21:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78EK5L01365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 00:20:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g78EK0K01361 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 00:20:00 +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 g78EKFb31706 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:20:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:17:31 +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 >Robert E. Harris writes > >>When I first looked at south's hand I thought that the last thing I would >>do in south's place is double. (Well, playing with Nan P I double. But >>she usually has a trick in reserve when she opens the bidding.) Light >>third hand openings used to be standard proceedure in the US. > > I do not understand the rationale behind this and several other >similar posts. > > If the bidding goes P P 1H 1NT and you hold ten HCP what is the >advantage in not doubling [apart from fielding psyches]? If partner has >a light opening and you double, he will pull and you will be in the >correct spot. If he has not got a light opening you will murder the >opposition. If he has a light opener he will be very square, and won't have a bid available. Even if he has full opening values we are probably not favourites to beat the contract. I see little bridge merit in doubling when partner opened a ferdinand, and little more if he's opened 1st or 2nd, unless I have close to an opener, *and* a three card fit for partner or a darn good opening lead. It cost me money until I stopped doing it. I have more sympathy for the double if it's pairs. > > But everyone on BLML [and at the YC according to Probst] assumes that >partner is both light and stupid, ie that if he is light he will forget >your original pass, leave the double in, and look surprised if it makes. > > Is this really bridge? If so, I must start increasing the frequency >of my psychic fourth in hand 1NT overcalls. > -- 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 Aug 9 00:34:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78EWsO01384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 00:32:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (virtueelmuseum.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g78EWnK01380 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 00:32:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id QAA05344; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 16:30:36 +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 QAA19821; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 16:32:43 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020808160711.00a78910@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 16:41:55 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] Equity vs L12C2, and another timing problem 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, We all know what "the most favorable likely result" means, or at least we all have our ideas about this, as numerous posts have proven in the recent past. We also know you can't let partner's timing influence you, but what are the limits of the argument 'he helped you' ? Here are two cases that I encountered as an AC member. I'm aware that the decision we took in the first one didn't conform with the letter of the Law ; however, equity perhaps has to be considered. NS vul, W dealer, competent players all around. W N E S 1NT* 2S** X XX@ p 3C p p p * 12-15 ** 2-suited (5S and 4+m) and not alerted as such. It should have been. @ SOS East calls the TD because she wouldn't (or at least could have avoided to) double, had she known North had a backup suit. South, when asked by the TD what he would have done, had East passed, answers 'I don't know ; perhaps I would have taken it out (3C, P/C), perhaps not'. Here are the possibilities, assuming the correct information had been given early enough : 1) East doubles ; then, as we have seen, NS wil play 3C, which results in +110. 2) East passes ; then 1.1) South takes out ; the final contract is 3C, same score. 1.2) South lets 2S in ; then 2S might go down (-100), but it is quite probable that 2S will make (+110 once again). Each of the unfavorable (to NS) occurrences (East's pass, South's pass, bad play) is quite likely, but it needs all three to get them a minus score. It is thus quite difficult to assess whether -100 is a "likely result" (say, 30% of 40% of 40% is 4.8 %, not enough). Thus, there are three questions : 1) must the "likeky continuations" be taken one by one (giving a net result of -100) or globally (giving a net result of +110, a result which would have happened more than 90% of the time) ? 2) What should one do when one doesn't know if a result is likely ? 3) since no response to question 1) could be found anywhere, and since the results at other tables aren't conclusive (EW are one of the few pairs in the field to play weak NT), the AC decided to award a weighted score of 0. Yes, we know that we should be hung for this, but, you see, admitting we didn't know what to do and having to live with it would be a more dreadful punishment still. Does anyone sympathize ? Now for the second case. In a fierce competitive auction, South hesitates quite a time, then doubles 5D. North takes out to 5S, in their known fit. As East happens to have a genuine freak, this was the right thing to do (-200 rather than -750). But North's rather common distribution doesn't make the 5S bid automatic, and by a long way. N/S now exhibit their CC, which contain mention of a Meckwellian gadget : in forcing pass situations (and this was one, after a strong club and a positive response), a double is more encouraging than a pass. To cut it short, North has a normal 5S bid over a forcing pass, he thus has a normal 5S bid over a Meckwell double. The question is : since this gadget is quite uncommon, and since by their own admission N/S don't play it for a very long time, could it be argued that the long tempo (which in itself was plausible, South's hand being offensive-oriented, but not hugely so) helped North remember his strange convention ? (the truth is different : as N/S couldn't prove they were playing this way, we brushed away their argument as self-serving) Thank you for your help, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 9 00:59:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78EwET01409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 00:58:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (www.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g78Ew8K01405 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 00:58:09 +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 QAA08970; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 16:55:55 +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 QAA06313; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 16:58:02 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020808165822.00a7aa90@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 17:07:14 +0200 To: "John (MadDog) Probst" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner 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 15:17 8/08/2002 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article , David Stevenson > writes > >Robert E. Harris writes > > > >>When I first looked at south's hand I thought that the last thing I would > >>do in south's place is double. (Well, playing with Nan P I double. But > >>she usually has a trick in reserve when she opens the bidding.) Light > >>third hand openings used to be standard proceedure in the US. > > > > I do not understand the rationale behind this and several other > >similar posts. > > > > If the bidding goes P P 1H 1NT and you hold ten HCP what is the > >advantage in not doubling [apart from fielding psyches]? If partner has > >a light opening and you double, he will pull and you will be in the > >correct spot. If he has not got a light opening you will murder the > >opposition. > >If he has a light opener he will be very square, and won't have a bid >available. Even if he has full opening values we are probably not >favourites to beat the contract. I see little bridge merit in doubling >when partner opened a ferdinand, and little more if he's opened 1st or >2nd, unless I have close to an opener, *and* a three card fit for >partner or a darn good opening lead. It cost me money until I stopped >doing it. > >I have more sympathy for the double if it's pairs. AG : this remembers me a case when we escaped by a hair's breadth being penalized for "fielding partner's light bid" in the following sequence : 1D 1S 1NT pass Gilles had passed a 13 count. My hand was my usual horrid overcall. When asked why he didn't double, he first explained that the double wouldn't have been penalties This is the truth ; we play it as TO of diamonds, but the sequence is uncommon and not specifically listed as such on our CC. Thus the argument couldn't be used. Then he argued that "with so much in my hand, somebody had to be overbiddng ; and the most probable culprit is the overcaller, especially when t's Alain, double especially when the bid is 1S". The TD eventually allowed us to escape "but not the next time". My answer : "next time, it'll be written on our CC that this double is not for penalties". It is now. 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 Aug 9 01:11:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78FB7o01433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 01:11:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g78FB2K01429 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 01:11:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.40.42.16] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17cow4-0002di-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 16:10:48 +0100 Message-ID: <005401c23eed$79122a00$102a2850@pacific> From: To: References: <200208081335.JAA08960@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalties Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 16:07:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 2:35 PM Subject: [BLML] Penalties > > Specifying standard penalties would be a good item > for Vitold's TD Code. By the way, I think the code > is a terrific idea and desperately needed here in > ACBL-land. I've been meaning to write some more > extensive comments but have not found time. > -- +=+ Somehow I do not think the writ of Vitold's Code will run in ACBL-land, nor in various other lands, with their diverse customs and practices. Personally I think we ought to recognize that attitudes and expectations differ widely between the Poles and the Zones; there is no great reason to demand absolute uniformity so long as they have the principles in common. One word of caution: the subject here is not a Laws subject - the decisions in this area are for Rules & Regulations Committees and Appeals Committees. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. ~ 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 Aug 9 01:40:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78Fdxb01457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 01:39:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (www.prometheus.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g78FdnK01453 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 01:39:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id RAA14756; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 17:37:37 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id RAA00715; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 17:39:45 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020808174628.00a7f8c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 17:48:56 +0200 To: , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalties In-Reply-To: <005401c23eed$79122a00$102a2850@pacific> References: <200208081335.JAA08960@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 16:07 8/08/2002 +0100, gester@lineone.net wrote: > > > > Specifying standard penalties would be a good item > > for Vitold's TD Code. By the way, I think the code > > is a terrific idea and desperately needed here in > > ACBL-land. I've been meaning to write some more > > extensive comments but have not found time. > > -- >+=+ Somehow I do not think the writ of Vitold's Code >will run in ACBL-land, nor in various other lands, with >their diverse customs and practices. Personally I think >we ought to recognize that attitudes and expectations >differ widely between the Poles and the Zones AG : I understand that Poles play much bridge and have quite specific regulations ; but I never encounteed any bridge player who claimed being a Zone. >there is no great reason to demand absolute uniformity so long >as they have the principles in common. > One word of caution: the subject here is not a >Laws subject - the decisions in this area are for Rules & >Regulations Committees and Appeals Committees. Render >unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. > ~ 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 Aug 9 01:50:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78FnxT01473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 01:49:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from poczta.interia.pl (naos.interia.pl [217.74.65.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g78FnoK01469 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 01:49:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (naos.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by system.wewnetrzny9 (Mailserver) with SMTP id 227997C6F for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 17:49:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id B3352800A; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 17:49:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 363977FD7 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 17:49:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <006901c23ef3$230db0b0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 17:44:58 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 8b2be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > If he has a light opener he will be very square, Excuse me? If he is light then in my book he has a good heart suit he wants lead or some interesting distribution. He has a *reason* to open. What is the point in opening 1H with Q82 AJ10 J954 753 You want hearts lead? You want to compete? You want to catch a raise? If you want to psyche that's OK, you pays your money, you takes your choice but I would not longer play again with someone who opens 1H with these cards and then tells me that I didn't have the double with 10 HCP and a QJ10xx suit to lead. >and won't have a bid > available. This is his problem - if you open with 6PC and a balanced hand I would say "serves you right". >Even if he has full opening values we are probably not > favourites to beat the contract. I ran a DealMasterPro simulation. If partner has a regular 1H opener then on 100 deals 1NTx makes on 11 deals, the average number of tricks avaiable to them in NT is 5,08. So the double stands by a mile - IMPs, pairs, Patton, BAM, rubber, whatever. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Gratis. Non-stop informacje. >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1635 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 9 03:30:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78HTht01570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 03:29:44 +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 g78HTXK01557 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 03:29:33 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g78HTRr03231 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 18:29:27 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 8 Aug 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: DWS wrote: > I do not understand the rationale behind this and several other > similar posts. > > If the bidding goes P P 1H 1NT and you hold ten HCP what is the > advantage in not doubling [apart from fielding psyches]? If partner has > a light opening and you double, he will pull Yes, probably. Although since he knows that I know he plays light openings he may well stand on eg xx,AKxxxx,Qxxx,x on the grounds that my 3 card heart suit will allow one or two ducks so that he can get in to cash. > and you will be in the correct spot. How? If he is Qx,AKJx,xxxx,Jxx how will he know to pull to 2C (a 5-3 fit) rather than 2H/2D (4-2 fits)? How will he judge to compete when my LHO bids 2S? If he chooses to pull to 2C on this how will I know what to do with Kx,xxx,AKxx,Txxx? > If he has not got a light opening you will murder the opposition. Assuming the opposition is flat. Often they have an eight card fit and can get out for -100 (or worse +470) in their suit. Even then partner will have 13+ *far* less often than he has 12 or fewer. One generally has to be a damn good defender to take a bite out of 1Nx even with a 22-18 points advantage over a good declarer. If playing in 1NT against those odds I reckon to get a good score (-100/+180) a fair chunk of the time. I guess there is more going for a double if opps are rabbits but I still prefer a sensible semi-constructive bid if I have one available. > Is this really bridge? Giving up the chances of triumph/disaster for a series of small pluses. I consider that a reasonable trade-off. I am not saying that everybody should adopt this approach, merely asking that choosing to bid 2 clubs should not be dismissed as being without bridge merit. > If so, I must start increasing the frequency > of my psychic fourth in hand 1NT overcalls. Please do, every time I have a 3+ card fit in with my 10 points you will get hit, every time I am weakish your partner (with 8 points) will give you game and my pard or I will X that. 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 Aug 9 03:30:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78HTiH01571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 03:29:44 +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 g78HTXK01558 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 03:29:34 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g78HTTq03246 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 18:29:29 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 18:29 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play 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: <$q4uWWADqnU9EwYW@asimere.com> Probst wrote: > I agree. ... and it's nothing to do with the cult of director. When a > player decides to play in an event of any sort he implicitly agrees to > be bound by the laws of bridge. By implication he also agrees to be > governed by the tournament Director. Up to a point my lord copper. We have heard in the past of TDs issuing instructions like "you must not psyche again this session". We would not expect players to obey that particular instruction. 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 Aug 9 03:30:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78HTjI01572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 03:29:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g78HTaK01562 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 03:29:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g78HTU403275 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 18:29:30 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 8 Aug 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: <006901c23ef3$230db0b0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > > > If he has a light opener he will be very square, > > Excuse me? If he is light then in my book he has > a good heart suit he wants lead or some interesting > distribution. He has a *reason* to open. > What is the point in opening 1H with > > Q82 > AJ10 > J954 > 753 > > You want hearts lead? You want to compete? > You want to catch a raise? > > If you want to psyche that's OK, you pays your > money, you takes your choice but I would not > longer play again with someone who opens > 1H with these cards and then tells me that I didn't > have the double with 10 HCP and a QJ10xx > suit to lead. Nobody who understands psyches would do this! The first rule of psyching is that if your side gets a bad score then you apologise profusely and take all the blame (this applies no matter how moronic your partner has been subsequently > >and won't have a bid > > available. > > This is his problem - if you open with 6PC and a balanced > hand I would say "serves you right". > > >Even if he has full opening values we are probably not > > favourites to beat the contract. > > I ran a DealMasterPro simulation. If partner has a regular > 1H opener then on 100 deals 1NTx On 100 deals where partner has 8-15 points and 4+ hearts? We are talking about how to bid opposite a partner who opens light in third seat not "regular". > makes on 11 deals, the average number > of tricks avaiable to them in NT is 5,08. I assume you excluded hands where they would probably run to 2D/S? > So the double stands by a mile - IMPs, pairs, > Patton, BAM, rubber, whatever. Double would be my stand-out choice if partnering my wife. She doesn't bid light in any seat. Double will lose you money (or MPs/IMPs/Boards) if partner opens (non-psychic) 3rd in hand rubbish like Mr Probst (or 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 Fri Aug 9 03:53:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78HrPA01608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 03:53:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g78HrJK01603 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 03:53:20 +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 g78HrFl24843 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 10:53:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003501c23f04$5910fda0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200208081335.JAA08960@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalties Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 10:52:19 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" > > Specifying standard penalties would be a good item for Vitold's TD > Code. By the way, I think the code is a terrific idea and desperately > needed here in ACBL-land. I've been meaning to write some more > extensive comments but have not found time. > -- Look in the margin of your notebook :-)) Comments from an intelligent person such as you are, with no "vested interest" in the game, would be most valuable. I hope you can find the time soon, and that others will too. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 9 04:03:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78I3Px01627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 04:03:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g78I3KK01623 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 04:03:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g78I3Hl29178 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 11:03:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004801c23f05$c0016b20$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" References: <060802218.23953@webbox.com> <009701c23d6d$69999e40$4d053dd4@b0e7g1> <3tHjLPFzOHU9EwYK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00b001c23edf$b6cccf20$ef053dd4@b0e7g1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 11:01:02 -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: "Ben Schelen" > David, > > The original question was: > "Is it acceptable that the board is played later despite being two bids into > the auction." > So the pairs neither at fault were instructed during play! > And my first reaction was: Is it not better (or best) to postpone the next > round? Perhaps in a small game, but there would have been several hundreds of tables delayed by a postponement. This was a huge event in a huge room. > (Instead of playing later, the players have seen the hands, or a Law12C1 > decision) > With the TD error of telling us to play the board when the round was just about over, with neither pair even partially at fault, then if we have even looked at our hands I can see no other course but to give avg+ to both pairs. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California . -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 9 04:18:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78II9M01644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 04:18:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g78II4K01640 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 04:18:04 +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 g78II1l04995 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 11:18:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004901c23f07$cec2f780$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200208081335.JAA08960@cfa183.harvard.edu> <005401c23eed$79122a00$102a2850@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalties Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 11:17:04 -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 > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > -- > +=+ Somehow I do not think the writ of Vitold's Code > will run in ACBL-land, nor in various other lands, with > their diverse customs and practices. Personally I think > we ought to recognize that attitudes and expectations > differ widely between the Poles and the Zones; there > is no great reason to demand absolute uniformity so long > as they have the principles in common. > One word of caution: the subject here is not a > Laws subject - the decisions in this area are for Rules & > Regulations Committees and Appeals Committees. As was the Code of Practice for Appeals Committees, intended to serve as a universal code. Surely Vitold's TD code will avoid areas in which local customs may significantly and reasonably vary. His goal seems to be a code for TDs with which everyone can be comfortable, just as is the goal (?) for the next version of the Laws. Where there is room for variation, as there is in the current Laws, the code could say (in effect), "This is what we think you should do, but there is room for a reasonable deviation by an SO." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 9 04:22:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78ILv701656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 04:21:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from actinium.btinternet.com (actinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.66]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g78ILpK01652 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 04:21:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from mendelevium ([194.75.226.23]) by actinium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17crus-00055u-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 19:21:46 +0100 Received: from 213.166.16.2 by mendelevium ([194.75.226.23]); Thu, 08 Aug 02 19:21:46 BST Message-ID: <6736400.1028830906727.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 19:21:46 +0100 (BST) From: dalburn@btopenworld.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MAILER: talk21.com WAS v2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John wrote: >I agree. ... and it's nothing to do with the cult of director. When a player decides to play in an event of any sort he implicitly agrees to be bound by the laws of bridge. By implication he also agrees to be governed by the tournament Director. Oh, nonsense. Suppose the Director told him he wasn't allowed to open three hearts, because the last time he did it someone was upset. If directors tell you to do sensible things, you do them. If directors tell you to do ridiculous things, you don't do them. Now, before the members of the Cult of the Director tell me: (a) that directors are wonderful people who only tell you to do sensible things; (b) that even if a director tells you to do a ridiculous thing, you are still supposed to do it I would say that by and large, most directors are fairly sensible people who do not often tell you to do ridiculous things, and that by and large, it is a better idea to follow a director's instruction than to disobey it. But some directors have a particularly warped view of reality when it comes to slow play in pairs events. It is actually possible to start a board after the round has been called, to take the necessary time to play that board (thus holding up two tables for one half or one third of the round as the case may be), and for the movement to be back to normal within one or at the most two rounds. It happens every evening at the Young Chelsea, for example. You see, fifteen minutes is too long to play two boards in the normal run of events. So it is not very difficult for tables that have been delayed to catch up in a very small number of rounds. The course of action followed by proper directors when they see a table finish one board in the time that others have taken over two is to allow the second board to be played, to ask the offenders and others to make every effort to catch up, to praise the patience of those who have been held up and to apologise for the inconvenience, and to keep an eye on the position for the next couple of rounds, when everything will be back to normal. That is reality, and in about thirty years of playing duplicate bridge in a wide variety of environments, I have *never* known it actually be necessary to remove a board. That does not stop it from happening, of course, for cult directors are not concerned with reality. What they like doing is giving rulings and instructions. That is what they think they are there for, and that is why to disobey a director's ruling is, in their eyes, on a par with the sin against the Holy Ghost. It is not. I accept that in the case of a barometer movement, a slow board may hold up the entire field, not just one or two pairs. But if people want the advantages of barometer scoring, then there is an extent to which they should accept the disadvantage of some occasional extra hanging about. But even then, it is hard to imagine that a director's first reaction would be to remove a board and administer a penalty, rather thn to say the Norwegian for "Listen, guys, you're holding up the field and spoiling things for everyone - please just try to play a little faster." Even Aa and Groetheim would comply with that. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 9 05:22:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78JMKd01699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 05:22:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g78JMEK01695 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 05:22:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.148.127]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020808192208.BOGH23840.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:22:08 +0100 Message-ID: <002f01c23f10$eb4a58e0$7f9468d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] How are you damaged? Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:22:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >>Nigel Guthrie writes > >>>TD guideline question based on a recent league ruling: > >>>South plays in a hopeless contract and is defeated by > several tricks. > >>>At the end of play, South asks for a ruling because of > opponents' MI > >>>during the auction. South explains that he lost extra undertricks > >>>because of wrong assumptions based on the MI. > >>>The director rules that South played so badly that any > >>>injury was self-inflicted. > >> > >> Fair enough, that is the normal interpretation of the Laws. > >> > >>>Too late, South realises that, without the misinformation, the > >>>auction could have been quite different. For example he had an > >>>opportunity to double and defeat a contract by opponents. > >> > >> In this case his opponents should have had their score > adjusted, but > >>he should keep his score. > > > >As a result of mis-information a player didn't double a > contract. You > >are aware of this? You don't adjust in his favour? Don't > believe you. > > Nigel has predicated a case where a player's action was bad > enough to be called wild or gambling. Are you suggesting I > do not follow EBU Directives? Ed Colley I understood "wild or gambling" referred to double-shot actions, i.e. actions which will usually turn out poorly but have some small probability of beating the appropriate adjusted score. If the actions chosen are merely poor, and have no chance of outscoring the likely adjusted score, I see no reason not to adjust. Nigel The TD said declarer's play was very bad (not wild or gambling) the result was due to his bad play not to misinformation. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 -- ======================================================================== (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 Aug 9 05:43:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78Jgsb01718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 05:42:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail50.fg.online.no (mail50-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g78JgmK01714 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 05:42:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-3154.bb.online.no [80.212.220.82]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA13722 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 21:42:38 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001d01c23f13$bc89ef40$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 21:42:29 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Tim West-meads" ..... > > I agree. ... and it's nothing to do with the cult of director. When a > > player decides to play in an event of any sort he implicitly agrees to > > be bound by the laws of bridge. By implication he also agrees to be > > governed by the tournament Director. > > Up to a point my lord copper. We have heard in the past of TDs issuing > instructions like "you must not psyche again this session". We would not > expect players to obey that particular instruction. I do not think much of an instruction like that, but if the Director issues it I assume it is for a reason, and the player(s) addressed are most certainly supposed to obey. However they are free to complain afterwards if they feel that way. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 9 06:17:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78KH5301743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 06:17:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (mta07-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g78KH0K01739 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 06:17:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.156.54]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020808201655.TYOF13709.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 21:16:55 +0100 Message-ID: <009f01c23f18$91bd6a30$7f9468d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 21:16:21 +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 Robert E Harris: I find in Goren's New Contract Bridge Complete the following hand, given as a third seat opening bid: S: Qxx; H: AKJxx; D: xx; C: xxx. Nigel Guthrie: Another example might be S:xxx H:AKQJ D:xxx C:xxx Can David Stevenson and other lions in the EBU legal jungle tell us whether it is breaking the law to open sub rule of 19 hands, regularly, as a matter of course, in "Level 3" events, with a long-standing partner, in third position, without barring subsequent conventional bids? My interpretation is that is illegal; but at a congress, when I quoted the orange book on this, the panel of experts laughed; one said he had never read the orange book; all said that nobody should take such rules seriously; and the entire audience applauded their approval. For past several years, in eschewing such bids, have I been playing under a spurious self-imposed handicap? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 -- ======================================================================== (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 Aug 9 08:06:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g78M5vG01795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 08:05:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g78M5qK01791 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 08:05:52 +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 g78M5ml08748 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:05:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00eb01c23f27$a1419760$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020808160711.00a78910@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity vs L12C2, and another timing problem Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:04:51 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > We all know what "the most favorable likely result" means, or at least we > all have our ideas about this, as numerous posts have proven in the recent > past. Here we go again. As with most references to "likely" in L12C2, this one is not accurate. If you put quotes around something in the Laws, go to the Laws and get the exact wording, which is "the most favorable result that was likely." The same meaning? No! In idiomatic English, this does not mean that a result has to be a "likely result" to be considered. The ACBLLC, asked for a guideline, provided one: A result that has a 1/3 chance is likely enough to qualify. While some think this too large a probability, and some think it's too small, I agree with a high-level Brit TD (who hates to be quoted) who opined a few years back that it was a reasonable intepretation of L12C2's intent. I'm not too crazy about it, but it's reasonable.. But what happened? Rich Colker and many others who don't understand idiomatic English thought that a result had to be more likely than a 1/3 chance, because "likely" means something over 50%. His view has softened slightly, but given a choice between a favorable result that is 40% probable and a 60% one, he told me the 60% one should be selected because it is so much more likely. No it shouldn't. It is not "the most favorable result that was likely," even though it is the most likely favorable result. I have not been able to find a change to the LC guideline in their later minutes, so it must still stand. And remember, it's just a guideline, not to be taken literally. Time and again I read in TD and AC casebook rulings/decisions references to finding a "likely" result for the assignment of an adjusted score to the NOS. Wrong criterion! Some writers refer to "the L12C2 definition of likely." L12C2 does not define the word "likely," nor is it included in the definitions up front. There are many words that carry a different meaning in isolation than they do in an idiomatic expression, and you can't find the meaning of such words by looking in a dictionary. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 9 11:47:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g791kFM01877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 11:46:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g791kAK01873 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 11:46:11 +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 MAA01357 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 12:01:45 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 11:41:13 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity vs L12C2, and another timing problem To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 11:36:37 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 09/08/2002 11:40:48 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain asked: [snip] >Thus, there are three questions : >1) must the "likely continuations" be taken one by one (giving >a net result of -100) or globally (giving a net result of +110, >a result which would have happened more than 90% of the time)? L12C2 talks about likely results, *not* likely individual calls leading to a result. IMHO L12C2 therefore requires a global test. >2) What should one do when one doesn't know if a result is likely? An AC is *required* to decide whether a result is likely if that determination is central to an appeal. >3) since no response to question 1) could be found anywhere, and >since the results at other tables aren't conclusive (EW are one of >the few pairs in the field to play weak NT), the AC decided to >award a weighted score of 0. >Yes, we know that we should be hung for this, but, you see, >admitting we didn't know what to do and having to live with it >would be a more dreadful punishment still. Does anyone sympathize? I not only sympathise, I support the AC decision. It has used its powers validly under L12C3 to modify a L12C2 result. For a separate case, Alain also asked: [snip] >The question is : since this gadget is quite uncommon, and since >by their own admission N/S don't play it for a very long time, >could it be argued that the long tempo (which in itself was >plausible, South's hand being offensive-oriented, but not hugely >so) helped North remember his strange convention? My answer to the question is Yes. Take a more common situation. A pro is playing with a sponsor. The sponsor has only recently learned transfer responses to 1NT. This sequence occurs: Sponsor Pro 1NT 2H - after break in tempo with no bridge reason 2S As TD and AC I would not only adjust the score to the result in 2H, I would also apply a severe PP against the pro. 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 Aug 9 14:23:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g794N4P01965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 14:23:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g794MxK01961 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 14:22:59 +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 g794Msl22842 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 21:22:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <014f01c23f5c$4f3e0180$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020808160711.00a78910@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00eb01c23f27$a1419760$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity vs L12C2, and another timing problem Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 21:21:15 -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 Having tweaked Rich's nose on this matter, I want to say that his Las Vegas casebook editorial comments were the best I've seen yet, and the casebook itself is of very high quality. The book, not necessarily the rulings/decisions in it. The casebook is not on the ACBL website yet, but I urge all ACBL paid-up members to read it when it becomes available. Others will have to buy it for $11 (?) from the ACBL, but casebook commentators David Stevenson and Grattan Endicott get a free copy, I presume. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, CA > > But what happened? Rich Colker and many others who don't understand > idiomatic English thought that a result had to be more likely than a 1/3 > chance, because "likely" means something over 50%. His view has softened > slightly, but given a choice between a favorable result that is 40% probable > and a 60% one, he told me the 60% one should be selected because it is so > much more likely. No it shouldn't. It is not "the most favorable result that > was likely," even though it is the most likely favorable result. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 9 16:44:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g796f7H02035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:41:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g796f3K02031 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:41:03 +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 QAA21611 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:56:39 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 16:36:04 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Rule of 19,18,15 etc To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:40:42 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 09/08/2002 04:35:39 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 "EBU Appeals 2001", Nigel Guthrie wrote: >Another example might be S:xxx H:AKQJ D:xxx C:xxx > >Can David Stevenson and other lions in the EBU legal jungle tell us >whether it is breaking the law to open sub rule of 19 hands, >regularly, as a matter of course, in "Level 3" events, with a >long-standing partner, in third position, without barring subsequent >conventional bids? > >My interpretation is that is illegal; but at a congress, when I quoted >the orange book on this, the panel of experts laughed; one said he had >never read the orange book; all said that nobody should take such >rules seriously; and the entire audience applauded their approval. > >For past several years, in eschewing such bids, have I been playing >under a spurious self-imposed handicap? Australian regulations classify systems according to the rule of 18 (for one-level opening bids) and the rule of 15 (for two- level opening bids). Systems which do not abide by the twin rule of 18 and 15 are theoretically classified as Yellow Systems (the ABF equivalent of Highly Unusual Methods). Use of Yellow Systems is restricted to very few ABF events. However, like Nigel, I have noticed that many expert Australian players are unaware of the ABF regulation. In his bridge column, the respected authority Ron Klinger advocated ultra- light ferdinand one-level openings. And many Oz players illegally perpetrate manic two-level preempts. This raises an important philosophical point. Should an NBO create a regulation which: a) The NBO does not publicise b) Members of the NBO do not wish to abide by, and c) The NBO does not enforce? 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 Aug 9 17:29:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g797TDH02061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 17:29:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g797T8K02057 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 17:29:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.2.164] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17d4CQ-000JpC-00; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 08:28:43 +0100 Message-ID: <002301c23f76$e958d8c0$ea16e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "bridge-laws" References: <6736400.1028830906727.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 08:30:07 +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, August 08, 2002 7:21 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > > When a player decides to play in an event of any sort he > implicitly agrees to be bound by the laws of bridge. > +=+ Normally part of the Conditions of Contest+=+ > > By implication he also agrees to be governed by the > tournament Director. > +=+ Like the Director the player is subject to the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge +=+ > > Oh, nonsense. Suppose the Director told him he wasn't > allowed to open three hearts, because the last time he > did it someone was upset. If directors tell you to do > sensible things, you do them. If directors tell you to do > ridiculous things, you don't do them. > > Cult of the Director > +=+ That's COD, I take it? +=+: > > I would say that by and large, most directors are > fairly sensible people who do not often tell you to > do ridiculous things, and that by and large, it is a > better idea to follow a director's instruction than > to disobey it. > +=+ I am reminded of the Tredinnick (?) who passed because he was bound to get a favourable ruling, RHO having 'obviously' psyched as the regulations did not allow (a near game forcing conventional opening bid), only to find his RHO had not wittingly violated any regulation but had merely forgotten system and misbid +=+ > > But some directors have a particularly warped > view of reality > +=+ Oh, come on dalb, what's so unusual, about this? It is common to players, administrators, lawmakers, appeals committees, contributors to blml ....... we rely for balance on the others who are endowed with massive common sense - if we can pick out who is which.... +=+ > It happens every evening at the Young Chelsea, for > example. > +=+ They tell me the YC is the perpetual test bed for TD practice. A sort of wind tunnel. +=+ ~ 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 Aug 9 17:54:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g797s3O02084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 17:54:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g797rwK02080 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 17:53:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd08.sul.t-online.de by mailout04.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17d4an-00022s-00; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 09:53:53 +0200 Received: from jurgenr (520085598528-0001@[80.128.59.215]) by fwd08.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17d4aV-1pKLgGC; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 09:53:35 +0200 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?us-ascii?Q?Jurgen_Rennenkampff?=) To: "Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Equity vs L12C2, and another timing problem Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 09:53:30 +0200 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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: X-Sender: 520085598528-0001@t-dialin.net 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sent: Freitag, 9. August 2002 03:37 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity vs L12C2, and another timing problem Take a more common situation. A pro is playing with a sponsor. The sponsor has only recently learned transfer responses to 1NT. This sequence occurs: Sponsor Pro 1NT 2H - after break in tempo with no bridge reason 2S As TD and AC I would not only adjust the score to the result in 2H, I would also apply a severe PP against the pro. Best wishes Richard As a naive reader of the laws I think this is an astonishing decision. If Sponsor had bid in tempo the Pro would have bid 2S (possibly 3S) with no other alternatives. The hesitation introduces 'Pass' as a logical alternative, which the Pro is obliged not to choose. Your decision is punishing the novice for hesitating. I wonder what you think you are accomplishing. Jurgen -- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 9 18:26:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g798Ph802111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 18:25:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g798PcK02107 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 18:25:38 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g798PWr17888 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 09:25:32 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 09:25 +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: <009f01c23f18$91bd6a30$7f9468d5@SCRAP> > Robert E Harris: > I find in Goren's New Contract Bridge Complete the following hand, > given > as > a third seat opening bid: > S: Qxx; H: AKJxx; D: xx; C: xxx. > > Nigel Guthrie: > Another example might be S:xxx H:AKQJ D:xxx C:xxx > Can David Stevenson and other lions in the EBU legal jungle tell us > whether it is breaking the law to open sub rule of 19 hands, > regularly, as a matter of course, in "Level 3" events, with a > long-standing partner, in third position, without barring subsequent > conventional bids? > My interpretation is that is illegal Play in level 1 events. Old-fashioned Acol bids are explicitly permitted (you can also open these hands at levels 4/5). It is only a 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 Aug 9 18:45:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g798iPn02131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 18:44:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g798iKK02127 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 18:44:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A0DF20F7025A; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 01:44:15 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: RE: [BLML] Equity vs L12C2, and another timing problem Message-Id: <090802221.6256@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 01:44:18 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jurgen wrote: [RH] >Take a more common situation. A pro is playing with a sponsor. The sponsor has only recently learned transfer responses to 1NT. This sequence occurs: >Sponsor Pro >1NT 2H - after break in tempo with no bridge reason >2S >As TD and AC I would not only adjust the score to the result in 2H, I would also apply a severe PP against the pro. [JR] >As a naive reader of the laws I think this is an astonishing decision. As a slightly less naive reader of the laws, I agree with you. But we should first of all clear up the question of reading Richard's message... [JR] >If Sponsor had bid in tempo the Pro would have bid 2S (possibly 3S) with no other alternatives. Yes, but the pro has bid 2H out of tempo, the suggestion being that he has done this to make sure the sponsor remembers that it is a transfer. This is, or might be, a form of illegal communication between partners (and is bound to resurrect the "Kaplan question" question for about the fifth time). >The hesitation introduces 'Pass' as a logical alternative, which the Pro is obliged not to choose. The notion here is that the hesitation, by ensuring that the sponsor will remember that 2H is a transfer, removes pass from the sphere of logical alternatives, where it would otherwise be one (for the sponsor would forget). [JR] >Your decision is punishing the novice for hesitating. It was the pro who hesitated. [JR] >I wonder what you think you are accomplishing. So did I. But I have worked it out. Richard has come up with a bridge implementation of a tense that, in Ogden Nash's words, has hitherto been known only to women (and not to grammarians): the future pluperfect. This, as husbands will know, occurs when you are blamed for going not to have done something, as in "If I hadn't reminded you, you'd have sat in that chair all evening and not taken the trash out." Now, the assumption Richard is making is that the sponsor was going to have forgotten his system if the pro hadn't hesitated. So the score is adjusted on the basis that this would in fact have happened, there being no reason at all to suppose that it would, or any evidence to reinforce the view. Pity the poor professional who, about to bid 2S, remembers just in time his new agreement with his client, and uses a transfer instead after a slight but understandable delay. Or is there, perhaps, some notion that professional bridge players ought to be able to remember their systems, and when they don't, they should be penalised? What an extraordinary idea! What gives rather more grounds for dismay is Richard's tone of voice. "...not only adjust the score... severe PP..." I have heard these words in that tone before. The Cult is everywhere! David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 9 18:47:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g798lMe02143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 18:47:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout07.sul.t-online.com (mailout07.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g798lHK02139 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 18:47:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd08.sul.t-online.de by mailout07.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17d5QM-0001Mv-0A; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 10:47:10 +0200 Received: from jurgenr (520085598528-0001@[80.128.59.215]) by fwd08.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17d5QD-0x52UiC; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 10:47:01 +0200 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?us-ascii?Q?Jurgen_Rennenkampff?=) To: "Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Equity vs L12C2, and another timing problem Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 10:46:57 +0200 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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: X-Sender: 520085598528-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry - ignore previous. Guess I should learn to read. Since the pro, not the client, hesitated the decision is right. Jurgen -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sent: Freitag, 9. August 2002 03:37 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity vs L12C2, and another timing problem Take a more common situation. A pro is playing with a sponsor. The sponsor has only recently learned transfer responses to 1NT. This sequence occurs: Sponsor Pro 1NT 2H - after break in tempo with no bridge reason 2S As TD and AC I would not only adjust the score to the result in 2H, I would also apply a severe PP against the pro. Best wishes Richard As a naive reader of the laws I think this is an astonishing decision. If Sponsor had bid in tempo the Pro would have bid 2S (possibly 3S) with no other alternatives. The hesitation introduces 'Pass' as a logical alternative, which the Pro is obliged not to choose. Your decision is punishing the novice for hesitating. I wonder what you think you are accomplishing. Jurgen -- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 9 19:15:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g799FFi02168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 19:15:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g799F9K02164 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 19:15:09 +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 LAA13784; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 11:12:43 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id LAA15770; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 11:15:00 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020809111818.00a7b790@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 11:24:14 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalties In-Reply-To: <003501c23f04$5910fda0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <200208081335.JAA08960@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:52 8/08/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >From: "Steve Willner" > > > > Specifying standard penalties would be a good item for Vitold's TD > > Code. By the way, I think the code is a terrific idea and desperately > > needed here in ACBL-land. I've been meaning to write some more > > extensive comments but have not found time. > > -- >Marv : Look in the margin of your notebook :-)) AG : since the original occurrence of this remark (to the standard philistine : Fermat's Last Theorem) needed about 300 pages of hard technical work, I'm not sure I wish to read the integrality of Steve's thoughts, nor to explain to the average bridge player the notion of elliptic modular revokes (BEG) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 9 20:25:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g79AOTN02216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 20:24:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout08.sul.t-online.com (mailout08.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g79AOOK02212 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 20:24:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd08.sul.t-online.de by mailout08.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17d6wL-0002Lr-0B; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:24:17 +0200 Received: from jurgenr (520085598528-0001@[80.128.59.215]) by fwd08.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17d6wF-1C3NbcC; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 12:24:11 +0200 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) To: "Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Equity vs L12C2, and another timing problem Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 12:24:06 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <090802221.6256@webbox.com> X-Sender: 520085598528-0001@t-dialin.net 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 David Burn > Sent: Freitag, 9. August 2002 10:44 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: RE: [BLML] Equity vs L12C2, and another timing problem > > > > [RH] > >Take a more common situation. A pro is playing with a sponsor. > The sponsor has only recently learned transfer responses to 1NT. > This sequence occurs: > > >Sponsor Pro > >1NT 2H - after break in tempo with no bridge reason > >2S > > >As TD and AC I would not only adjust the score to the result > in 2H, I would also apply a severe PP against the pro. > > > [JR] > >I wonder what you think you are accomplishing. > > So did I. But I have worked it out. Richard has come up with > a bridge implementation of a tense that, in Ogden Nash's words, > has hitherto been known only to women (and not to grammarians): > the future pluperfect. This, as husbands will know, occurs when > you are blamed for going not to have done something, as in "If > I hadn't reminded you, you'd have sat in that chair all evening > and not taken the trash out." > > Now, the assumption Richard is making is that the sponsor was > going to have forgotten his system if the pro hadn't hesitated. > So the score is adjusted on the basis that this would in fact > have happened, there being no reason at all to suppose that it > would, or any evidence to reinforce the view. > > Pity the poor professional who, about to bid 2S, remembers just > in time his new agreement with his client, and uses a transfer > instead after a slight but understandable delay. Or is there, > perhaps, some notion that professional bridge players ought to > be able to remember their systems, and when they don't, they > should be penalised? What an extraordinary idea! > > What gives rather more grounds for dismay is Richard's tone of > voice. "...not only adjust the score... severe PP..." I have > heard these words in that tone before. The Cult is everywhere! > > David Burn > London, England The general impression of the naive reader is that in these discussions the nature of the competition is not taken into account sufficiently. In the present case: If teacher & student are playing in a meaningful tournament (where they should not be) they are subject to the laws with all their failings and to the rulings of the directors in all their glory. If the event is a club game the opponents should be made aware that the client is a novice. Rational behavior, if the client does pass 2H, is for the *opponents* to ask if 2H was a transfer and allow the bid to be changed. If this might offend the director, then take care that he doesn't hear. Jürgen > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 9 21:53:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g79Br8o02263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 21:53:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g79Br2K02259 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 21:53:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.40.30.106] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17d8Jt-000NMp-00; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:52:41 +0100 Message-ID: <006601c23f9a$f94ece00$6a1e2850@pacific> From: To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <200208081335.JAA08960@cfa183.harvard.edu> <005401c23eed$79122a00$102a2850@pacific> <004901c23f07$cec2f780$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalties Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 12:24:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 7:17 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalties > > > > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > One word of caution: the subject here is not a > > Laws subject - the decisions in this area are for Rules & > > Regulations Committees and Appeals Committees. > > As was the Code of Practice for Appeals Committees, > intended to serve as a universal code. > +=+ Exactly - which is why it was not issued from the Laws Committee. Well, nearly exactly: you should to say 'recommended as a universal source of guidance' ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 10 00:46:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g79EjLW02438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Aug 2002 00:45:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g79EjFK02434 for ; Sat, 10 Aug 2002 00:45:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id KAA17477 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 10:45:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA15256 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 10:45:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 10:45:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208091445.KAA15256@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Equity vs L12C2, and another timing problem X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > Yes, but the pro has bid 2H out of tempo, the suggestion being > that he has done this to make sure the sponsor remembers that > it is a transfer. This is, or might be, a form of illegal communication > between partners Yes, L73B1. If the TD judges that there has been a violation, the score should be adjusted under L12A1 and then L12C2 or C3. Of course it is a judgment matter whether it is "likely/at all probable" that the client was about to forget the transfer, but the hesitation is evidence that the pro thought there was some chance. The pro may know his client better than the TD does. I don't see that there is any issue here involving L16. Contrary to the usual UI case, here it's the hesitation that's the (possible) infraction, not later "use" of the information. LA's and "suggested over another" are irrelevant. > (and is bound to resurrect the "Kaplan question" > question for about the fifth time). Sorry, but I don't see why. The "Kaplan question" deals with MI, not with illegal communication and UI. Alain's original cases seem wholly different from this one. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 10 12:07:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7A25Kd02713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Aug 2002 12:05:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mplspop3.mpls.uswest.net (mail.mpls.uswest.net [204.147.80.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g7A25FK02709 for ; Sat, 10 Aug 2002 12:05:15 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 51897 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2002 02:05:06 -0000 Received: from msp-24-163-195-209.mn.rr.com (HELO computer) (24.163.195.209) by mplspop3.mpls.uswest.net with SMTP; 10 Aug 2002 02:05:06 -0000 Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 21:05:07 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Jack Kryst" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Off topic 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 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <006601c23f9a$f94ece00$6a1e2850@pacific> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Forgive the off-topic intrusion but would someone reply off-list with the appropriate email address to request a change of my email address? Thank you. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 11 06:18:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7AKEHp03255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 06:14:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta203-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta203-rme.xtra.co.nz [210.86.15.146]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7AKECK03251 for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 06:14:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz ([210.86.15.140]) by mta203-rme.xtra.co.nz with ESMTP id <20020810201401.LCSB2461.mta203-rme.xtra.co.nz@mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz> for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 08:14:01 +1200 Received: from laptop ([210.55.45.181]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20020810201359.SSX9788.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 08:13:59 +1200 Message-ID: <000e01c240aa$4355a720$b52d37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: [BLML] Law 75C Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 08:12:29 +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 1nt (2h*) 2h is alerted and a question is asked about its meaning. The explaination is: five hearts and four of any other. Is that fact that this pair also have another way of showing both majors "special information conveyed ... through partnership agreement or partnership experience" and would you therefore expect that to be disclosed? For what its worth I would. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 11 06:30:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7AKRa703268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 06:27:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail47.fg.online.no (mail47-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7AKRUK03264 for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 06:27:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-2280.bb.online.no [80.212.216.232]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA02959 for ; Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:27:16 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001f01c240ac$4be9eed0$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <000e01c240aa$4355a720$b52d37d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75C Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:26:53 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Wayne Burrows" ........ > 1nt (2h*) > > 2h is alerted and a question is asked about its meaning. > > The explaination is: five hearts and four of any other. > > Is that fact that this pair also have another way of showing both majors > "special information conveyed ... through partnership agreement or > partnership experience" and would you therefore expect that to be disclosed? If the fact that they also have another way of showing ..... means that some particular hands are excluded from the meaning of the bid 2H then, yes, that is a required part of the explanation of the 2H bid. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 11 12:20:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7B2G9x03401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 12:16:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7B2G4K03397 for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 12:16:05 +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 g7B2JE511773 for ; Sat, 10 Aug 2002 18:19:14 -0800 Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 18:13:00 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75C In-Reply-To: <000e01c240aa$4355a720$b52d37d2@laptop> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Wayne Burrows wrote: > 1nt (2h*) > > The explaination is: five hearts and four of any other. > > Is that fact that this pair also have another way of showing both majors > "special information conveyed ... through partnership agreement or > partnership experience" and would you therefore expect that to be disclosed? I don't think we can answer that, really, without knowing what the "other way" is. If there's an agreement about how the partnership shows 4 spades and 5 hearts, it should be disclosed. That *might* mean that the explanation of 2H requires a "....but only if it's strong hearts and weak spades" or something. Or it might mean that the 2H explanation as stated was correct, and that when they show the majors "the other way" they will explain "both majors, but spades equal to or longer than hearts." 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 Aug 11 16:41:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7B6cBR03507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:38:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7B6c5K03503 for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:38:06 +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 g7B6bsC19981; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 02:37:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 02:30:12 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play To: Sven Pran , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <008c01c23ebf$abb66c10$6400a8c0@WINXP> 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 8/8/02, Sven Pran wrote: >If a board is not played for any reason (although it was intended to >be played) there shall always be an artificial adjusted score on that >board at the affected table (Law 12C1). Wait just a gol-darn minute here! I thought in the case in question there was at least some possibility of a late play (note the subject of the thread). If there's gonna (or even maybe gonna) be a late play, the TD damn sure better not be assigning a score before it happens. 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 Aug 11 16:51:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7B6lrJ03524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:47:53 +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 g7B6lmK03520 for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:47:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.42.172] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17dmVj-0004WZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 07:47:36 +0100 Message-ID: <002b01c24103$7775a060$ac2ae150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75C Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 07:50:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 3:13 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75C > > > On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > 1nt (2h*) > > > > The explanation is: five hearts and four of any other. > > > > Is that fact that this pair also have another way of > > showing both majors "special information conveyed ... > > ....through partnership agreement or partnership > > experience" and would you therefore expect that to > > be disclosed? > > I don't think we can answer that, really, without > knowing what the "other way" is. > +=+ Well, perhaps we may not be able to answer the specific case on occasion but there are a number of useful things that can be said in general: 1. Law 75A requires that the meaning of 2H must be fully and freely available to opponents. Both the 2H bid and any alternative action on a hand of similar shape must be set out on the convention card if a CC is required. 2. Explanations given in response to enquiry must comply with Law 75C and with the regulations for the tournament. If a hand with specified qualities but otherwise fitting the description given is excluded from the meaning of 2H, this is special information conveyed through partnership agreement and the explanation must include a statement disclosing the agreement. 3. Most disclosure regulations include the word 'full' or 'fully'. Disclosure is not full if it omits to put a limit on a meaning where one exists. Some tournament regulations include specific reference to requirements when the meaning of a call is affected by other agreements that an opponent is unlikely to anticipate. This is a reinforcement of the meaning of 'full' disclosure, but its absence does not justify a player's omission to say fully what he knows from his partner's call. 4. Returning to GB's example: if 2H excludes a hand with both majors and Spades longer than Hearts, this information must be given in the response to the enquiry. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 11 17:02:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7B6xZQ03540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:59:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7B6xTK03536 for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:59:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-3878.bb.online.no [80.212.223.38]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA19646 for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 08:59:15 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001301c24104$94b68760$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 08:59:04 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > On 8/8/02, Sven Pran wrote: > > >If a board is not played for any reason (although it was intended to > >be played) there shall always be an artificial adjusted score on that > >board at the affected table (Law 12C1). > > Wait just a gol-darn minute here! > > I thought in the case in question there was at least some possibility of > a late play (note the subject of the thread). If there's gonna (or even > maybe gonna) be a late play, the TD damn sure better not be assigning a > score before it happens. Too right, but then we don't have a case of the "board not played", we have case of "board not played on schedule" which is a different matter. Unless I'm completely mistaken the original post was from a Director who had instructed a table to not play a board (at all?) and who was upset because they disobeyed his instruction. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 12 03:33:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7BHTf303783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:29:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7BHTaK03779 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:29:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-28.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.28] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #6) id 17dwWr-0004BI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 13:29:25 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020811132352.00aec1a0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 13:32:18 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75C In-Reply-To: <000e01c240aa$4355a720$b52d37d2@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:12 PM 8/10/02, Wayne wrote: >1nt (2h*) > >2h is alerted and a question is asked about its meaning. > >The explaination is: five hearts and four of any other. > >Is that fact that this pair also have another way of showing both majors >"special information conveyed ... through partnership agreement or >partnership experience" and would you therefore expect that to be >disclosed? > >For what its worth I would. If the "[]other way of showing both majors" could be used with five hearts and four spades, then it must surely be disclosed, along with whatever inferences may follow (e.g. "five hearts and four of any other suit, but with five hearts and four spades he would have a bad hand, as he could have bid [whatever] with five hearts, four spades and a good hand"). OTOH, if the "other way" would not be systemically permitted with 4-5 in the majors (e.g would promise 5-5), so that 2H is the only option available to show that particular shape, then it's not "close enough" to 2H to require disclosure in reply to an inquiry as to the meaning of 2H -- although I would have sympathy with the argument that you might as well mention it anyhow; it can't hurt to do so. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 12 04:29:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7BIT9M03811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 04:29:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from orngca-mls01.socal.rr.com (orngca-mls01.socal.rr.com [66.75.160.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7BIT4K03807 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 04:29:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from irv (cpe-66-74-18-75.dc.rr.com [66.74.18.75]) by orngca-mls01.socal.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.3) with SMTP id g7BISmA07891 for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 11:28:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003901c24165$5d0e0f20$6501a8c0@irv> From: "Irv Kostal" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Dummy's obligations Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 11:31:46 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The following incident happened, in an ACBL club, with my wife as the dummy, and I wondered what her responsibilities were. She and her partner, a lady in her 70's who can sometimes get rattled when confronted, were involved in a Roman Keycard auction when an opponent asked what the bidding meant. She provided a non-answer, something like "It shows controls." The opponent, not an experienced or knowledgeable player, persisted and my wife's partner pretty much refused (out of confusion? She seems to have taken the attitude that he SHOULD know what she meant) to tell him precisely how many keycards my wife's bid showed. I can't produce the precise language, but I think we can stipulate that the answer was inadequate. The opponent ultimately let it go and the auction was finally completed. My wife felt that it was not her place (as dummy) to say anything, and the fellow seemed satisfied anyway, but I felt that after the auction was over, if she felt the answer was inadequate it was correct to give the opponent a better one. I know this is vague, but it happens to be real life. I wasn't there and only heard about it the next morning, when the opponent called my wife to discuss it with her! Quite apparently he was NOT satisfied, and possibly a little pissed off. I wonder what the group's take on the situation is, especially with reference to my wife's responsibilities; her partner (sadly) will probably never change. Irv Kostal -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 12 05:31:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7BJUmd03848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 05:30:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7BJUhK03844 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 05:30:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7BJUY305935 for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 12:30:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001901c2416d$6fadd860$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <003901c24165$5d0e0f20$6501a8c0@irv> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy's obligations Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 12:12:48 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Irv Kostal" > The following incident happened, in an ACBL club, with my wife as the dummy, > and I wondered what her responsibilities were. > > She and her partner, a lady in her 70's who can sometimes get rattled when > confronted, were involved in a Roman Keycard auction when an opponent asked > what the bidding meant. She provided a non-answer, something like "It shows > controls." The opponent, not an experienced or knowledgeable player, > persisted and my wife's partner pretty much refused (out of confusion? She > seems to have taken the attitude that he SHOULD know what she meant) to tell > him precisely how many keycards my wife's bid showed. I can't produce the > precise language, but I think we can stipulate that the answer was > inadequate. The opponent ultimately let it go and the auction was finally > completed. > > My wife felt that it was not her place (as dummy) to say anything, and the > fellow seemed satisfied anyway, but I felt that after the auction was over, > if she felt the answer was inadequate it was correct to give the opponent a > better one. > In fact, she was required to do so, according to the ACBL's Principle of Full Disclosure (and probably some law relating to misinformation that I can't find at the moment). 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 Aug 12 05:59:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7BJwsN03867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 05:58:54 +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 g7BJwmK03862 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 05:58:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-0080.bb.online.no [80.212.208.80]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA29364 for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:58:33 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000f01c24171$749273a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <003901c24165$5d0e0f20$6501a8c0@irv> <001901c2416d$6fadd860$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy's obligations Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:58:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Marvin L. French" > From: "Irv Kostal" > > > The following incident happened, in an ACBL club, with my wife as the dummy, > > and I wondered what her responsibilities were. > > > > She and her partner, a lady in her 70's who can sometimes get rattled when > > confronted, were involved in a Roman Keycard auction when an opponent asked > > what the bidding meant. She provided a non-answer, something like "It shows > > controls." The opponent, not an experienced or knowledgeable player, > > persisted and my wife's partner pretty much refused (out of confusion? She > > seems to have taken the attitude that he SHOULD know what she meant) to tell > > him precisely how many keycards my wife's bid showed. I can't produce the > > precise language, but I think we can stipulate that the answer was > > inadequate. The opponent ultimately let it go and the auction was finally > > completed. > > > > My wife felt that it was not her place (as dummy) to say anything, and the > > fellow seemed satisfied anyway, but I felt that after the auction was over, > > if she felt the answer was inadequate it was correct to give the opponent a > > better one. > > > In fact, she was required to do so, according to the ACBL's Principle > of Full Disclosure (and probably some law relating to misinformation > that I can't find at the moment). It is very true that you cannot find any such law, and if ACBL really has a regulation that Dummy shall correct or complete an explanation by declarer (immediately) during the auction that regulation is in direct conflict with Law 75D2. Dummy's obligation is to keep mum until there has been three passes in a row. Then, and not before shall (s)he give any information (s)he feels has been insufficiently disclosed to opponents by declarer. The relevant law is again 75D2. Note that the auction is still in progress. If the Director judges that there is misinformation he may permit the last player who passed for the side that was misinformed to change this last pass and continue the auction if he wants to (Law 21). Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 12 07:28:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7BLRKQ03917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:27:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7BLRFK03913 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:27:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7BLR5P21547 for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 14:27:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001301c2417d$b757d7a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <003901c24165$5d0e0f20$6501a8c0@irv> <001901c2416d$6fadd860$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <000f01c24171$749273a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy's obligations Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 14:26:02 -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 Sorry about the formatting. I reloaded Outlook Express and didn't change the default. Sven wrote: > From: "Marvin L. French" > > From: "Irv Kostal" > > > > > The following incident happened, in an ACBL club, with my wife as the > > > dummy, and I wondered what her responsibilities were. > > > > > > My wife felt that it was not her place (as dummy) to say anything, and > the > > > fellow seemed satisfied anyway, but I felt that after the auction was > over, > > > if she felt the answer was inadequate it was correct to give the > opponent a better one. > > > > > In fact, she was required to do so, according to the ACBL's Principle > > of Full Disclosure (and probably some law relating to misinformation > > that I can't find at the moment). > > It is very true that you cannot find any such law, and if ACBL really has a > regulation that Dummy shall correct or complete an explanation by declarer > (immediately) during the auction that regulation is in direct conflict with > Law 75D2. > > Dummy's obligation is to keep mum until there has been three passes in a > row. > Then, and not before shall (s)he give any information (s)he feels has been > insufficiently disclosed to opponents by declarer. The relevant law is again > 75D2. > > Note that the auction is still in progress. If the Director judges that > there is > misinformation he may permit the last player who passed for the side that > was > misinformed to change this last pass and continue the auction if he wants to > (Law 21). > Either Sven or I have misread what Irv wrote. Irv wants the correct procedure for correcing MI, *after the auction is over*, as I read it. Now, what Law governs this? 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 Aug 12 07:52:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7BLqdi03936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:52:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7BLqXK03932 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:52:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-0080.bb.online.no [80.212.208.80]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA13832 for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 23:52:18 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002001c24181$588e42a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <003901c24165$5d0e0f20$6501a8c0@irv> <001901c2416d$6fadd860$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <000f01c24171$749273a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <001301c2417d$b757d7a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy's obligations Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 23:52:10 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Marvin L. French" ......... > Either Sven or I have misread what Irv wrote. Irv wants the correct > procedure for correcing MI, *after the auction is over*, as I read it. > Now, what Law governs this? Law 75D2, but see also Laws 41 and 17E Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 12 08:33:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7BMWri03965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:32:53 +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 g7BMWmK03961 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:32:48 +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 SAA12782 for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 18:32:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA15882 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 18:32:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 18:32:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208112232.SAA15882@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy's obligations Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Either Sven or I have misread what Irv wrote. Irv wants the correct > procedure for correcing MI, *after the auction is over*, as I read it. > Now, what Law governs this? L75D2. We all agree that (expected to be) dummy is obliged to correct the MI after the third pass. L75D2 also says "after calling the Director." Although that stipulation is often ignored, the circumstances Irv describes might be a prime example of where it should be followed. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 12 08:58:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7BMw4203989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:58:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe12.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.116]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7BMvxK03985 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:58:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 15:57:45 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [172.150.213.207] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Subject: [BLML] directing problem Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 17:57:41 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Aug 2002 22:57:45.0191 (UTC) FILETIME=[81641F70:01C2418A] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Yesterday a friend told me an interesting story. She had just played a tournament, not that it matters but it was an ACBL sectional. The event was a two session play through by four sections. After the first session it was discovered that three sections played hands different from the fourth section. Apparently the fourth section was given hands to duplicate that were slated for the second session. Anyone have experience in such things. Nah, I'm not going to tell just yet what did happen. Anyway, how would you deal with this mess. I would think that your reasons might be interesting. Regards -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 12 09:28:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7BNSFa04014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:28:15 +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 g7BNSAK04010 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:28:10 +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 JAA20674 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:43:42 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:23:03 +0000 (EST) Subject: RE: [BLML] Equity vs L12C2, and another timing problem To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:23:52 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 12/08/2002 09:22:37 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 g7BNSBK04011 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jürgen wrote: [snip] >If teacher & student are playing in a meaningful >tournament (where they should not be) they are >subject to the laws with all their failings and >to the rulings of the directors in all their glory. Why should a novice not play in a "meaningful" tournament? Unless the CoC of an event requires a minimum number of masterpoints to qualify for entry, a novice is legally and morally entitled to pay the entry fee. >If the event is a club game the opponents should be >made aware that the client is a novice. Rational >behavior, if the client does pass 2H, is for the >*opponents* to ask if 2H was a transfer and allow >the bid to be changed. A novice can only learn by making mistakes. Letting a novice change misbids, or ignoring a novice's revokes, is patronising the novice. >If this might offend the director, then take care >that he doesn't hear. If I was the club game TD, I would be *very* offended. Club games are "meaningful" events in their own way, and use the identical Laws of Bridge as more prestigious events do. 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 Aug 12 10:01:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7C00gl04039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:00:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7C00cK04035 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:00:38 +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 KAA27758 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:16:12 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:55:30 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:55:29 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 12/08/2002 09:55:04 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim wrote: >>Up to a point my lord copper. We have heard in the past of >>TDs issuing instructions like "you must not psyche again >>this session". We would not expect players to obey that >>particular instruction. Sven replied: >I do not think much of an instruction like that, but if the >Director issues it I assume it is for a reason, and the >player(s) addressed are most certainly supposed to obey. >However they are free to complain afterwards if they feel >that way. I agree with Tim and disagree with Sven. One has an *obligation* to disobey an illegal order from a TD. ("I was only following orders" was ruled an invalid excuse at the Nuremburg Trials.) On the other hand, the recondite words of the Laws of Bridge can be interpreted so as to justify *any* order from a TD. Therefore, in practice, a TD could justify any order the TD made as legal. Even "you must not psyche again this session" could be justified under a strained interpretation of L40B. 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 Aug 12 10:35:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7C0Yb404070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:34:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from front1.netvisao.pt ([213.228.128.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g7C0YWK04066 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:34:32 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 27898 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2002 00:32:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rui) (217.129.63.158) by front1.netvisao.pt with SMTP; 12 Aug 2002 00:32:43 -0000 From: "Rui Marques" To: "'blml'" Subject: RE: [BLML] directing problem Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 01:34:05 +0100 Message-ID: <000001c24197$f6e587e0$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: 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 Roger Pewick Sent: domingo, 11 de Agosto de 2002 23:58 To: blml Subject: [BLML] directing problem Yesterday a friend told me an interesting story. She had just played a tournament, not that it matters but it was an ACBL sectional. The event was a two session play through by four sections. After the first session it was discovered that three sections played hands different from the fourth section. Apparently the fourth section was given hands to duplicate that were slated for the second session. Anyone have experience in such things. ----------------------------------------------- Score boards on section four as they should (depends on the scoring program). Boards from section four are just "fouled" in relation to sections 1-3. Use Neuberg for all sections. Dont forget to deal new boards for session two... ----------------------------------------------- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 12 13:40:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7C3d1Q04202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:39:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7C3cuK04198 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:38:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA07797 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:54:30 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:33:48 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:53:23 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 12/08/2002 01:33:22 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: >Yesterday a friend told me an interesting story. She had >just played a tournament, not that it matters but it was >an ACBL sectional. The event was a two session play >through by four sections. After the first session it was >discovered that three sections played hands different from >the fourth section. Apparently the fourth section was >given hands to duplicate that were slated for the second >session. > >Anyone have experience in such things? Nah, I'm not going >to tell just yet what did happen. Anyway, how would you >deal with this mess? > >I would think that your reasons might be interesting. To prevent a recurrence of this and similar fouled-board situations, I suggest a culture change in the ACBL. Instead of players duplicating boards for the rest of their section from hand records, the ACBL could invest in dealing machines. In the actual case, there should be an emergency clause in the CoC allowing the TD to vary the format. If I was TD, I would now abandon across-the-field scoring for the first session, and score each of the four sections separately in the first session. For the second session I would provide a third set of hand records, and resume across-the-field scoring. If the CoC lacked an emergency clause, then technically all players in the fourth section should be given Ave+ for every board in the first session, as technically every board was fouled. 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 Aug 12 14:17:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7C4HNA04231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:17:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from out008.verizon.net (out008pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.108]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7C4HHK04227 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:17:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from jayapfelbaum ([151.201.237.8]) by out008.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.09 201-253-122-126-109-20020611) with SMTP id <20020812041702.IVOI8715.out008.verizon.net@jayapfelbaum> for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 23:17:02 -0500 Message-ID: <002d01c241b6$e7bef520$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> From: "Jay Apfelbaum" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 00:15:33 -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 Roger Pewick wrote: > Yesterday a friend told me an interesting story. She had just played > a tournament, not that it matters but it was an ACBL sectional. The > event was a two session play through by four sections. After the > first session it was discovered that three sections played hands > different from the fourth section. Apparently the fourth section was > given hands to duplicate that were slated for the second session. > Anyone have experience in such things. Nah, I'm not going to tell > just yet what did happen. Anyway, how would you deal with this mess. > I would think that your reasons might be interesting. > > Regards As a former tournament director, I would go with the practical. The afternoon session counts, and we find a new set of hand records for the evening. If we cannot find a new set of hand records, we shuffle and play. And we apologize to the players for the foul up. 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 Mon Aug 12 14:19:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7C4JNV04243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:19:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from out005.verizon.net (out005pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7C4JHK04239 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:19:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from jayapfelbaum ([151.201.237.8]) by out005.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.09 201-253-122-126-109-20020611) with SMTP id <20020812041902.IWPI16779.out005.verizon.net@jayapfelbaum> for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 23:19:02 -0500 Message-ID: <003701c241b7$30eaa5a0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> From: "Jay Apfelbaum" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 00:17:35 -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 Roger Pewick wrote: > Yesterday a friend told me an interesting story. She had just played > a tournament, not that it matters but it was an ACBL sectional. The > event was a two session play through by four sections. After the > first session it was discovered that three sections played hands > different from the fourth section. Apparently the fourth section was > given hands to duplicate that were slated for the second session. > Anyone have experience in such things. Nah, I'm not going to tell > just yet what did happen. Anyway, how would you deal with this mess. > I would think that your reasons might be interesting. > > Regards Addendum: If the event is being scored across the field, I change the conditions of contest to score each section separately. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 12 14:27:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7C4RZR04256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:27:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from orngca-mls02.socal.rr.com (orngca-mls02.socal.rr.com [66.75.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7C4RUK04252 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:27:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from irv (cpe-66-74-18-75.dc.rr.com [66.74.18.75]) by orngca-mls02.socal.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.3) with SMTP id g7C4RJK04913 for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:27:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002601c241b8$f6dd95a0$6501a8c0@irv> From: "Irv Kostal" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:30:18 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I recently, and for one of the very few times in my entire life, opened 1NT with 4441, including the stiff ace of clubs. About two rounds later I was approached by the director, who inquired if it was true, and then informed me that they just didn't allow that at his club. When I complained, he suggested I take it up with the ACBL. I, of course, did not bother. Unfortunately, it's the only game in town, and so far as I know, the ACBL will support this guy. I'm quite certain that if I psyched I'd hear about it as well. Fortunately or not, I'm not so inclined. Irv ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 4:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > > Tim wrote: > > >>Up to a point my lord copper. We have heard in the past of > >>TDs issuing instructions like "you must not psyche again > >>this session". We would not expect players to obey that > >>particular instruction. > > Sven replied: > > >I do not think much of an instruction like that, but if the > >Director issues it I assume it is for a reason, and the > >player(s) addressed are most certainly supposed to obey. > >However they are free to complain afterwards if they feel > >that way. > > I agree with Tim and disagree with Sven. One has an > *obligation* to disobey an illegal order from a TD. ("I was > only following orders" was ruled an invalid excuse at the > Nuremburg Trials.) > > On the other hand, the recondite words of the Laws of Bridge > can be interpreted so as to justify *any* order from a TD. > > Therefore, in practice, a TD could justify any order the TD > made as legal. > > Even "you must not psyche again this session" could be > justified under a strained interpretation of L40B. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 12 15:14:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7C5Dg404301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:13:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail46.fg.online.no (mail46-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7C5DaK04297 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:13:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-0016.bb.online.no [80.212.208.16]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA22672 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:13:19 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002301c241be$f4d5f710$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:13:12 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: ..... > Sven replied: > > >I do not think much of an instruction like that, but if the > >Director issues it I assume it is for a reason, and the > >player(s) addressed are most certainly supposed to obey. > >However they are free to complain afterwards if they feel > >that way. > > I agree with Tim and disagree with Sven. One has an > *obligation* to disobey an illegal order from a TD. ("I was > only following orders" was ruled an invalid excuse at the > Nuremburg Trials.) So your opinion is that any player who THINKS that the TD has given an illegal order is obliged to disobey that order if he so prefers. And if it afterwards would appear that the order given was indeed justified and correct ????? (And believe me, I have yet as TD to issue an order that might be in conflict with human rights etc. ) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 12 15:20:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7C5K2p04313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:20:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.southeast.rr.com (smtp2.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7C5JuK04309 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:19:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail4.nc.rr.com (fe4 [24.93.67.51]) by smtp2.southeast.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g7C5Kdts006977 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 01:20:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hare ([66.26.18.82]) by mail4.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Mon, 12 Aug 2002 01:19:45 -0400 Message-ID: <000b01c241bf$dc07e8a0$6401a8c0@hare> From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: "BLML" References: <002601c241b8$f6dd95a0$6501a8c0@irv> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 01:19:40 -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 If you have that director check out the Tech files in the tournament mode of ACBL score, he will find a write up by Bobby Wolf about opening 1NT with a singleton which says that some hands require such a bid. As far as I know, there is no law stating that this is illegal. If partner continually does it, it must be alerted, as I understand it. Of course, the sponsoring organization can set whatever rules they wish. I think is was rather cowardly of the complainer not to call the director while you were still at the table.... Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Irv Kostal" To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 12:30 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > I recently, and for one of the very few times in my entire life, opened 1NT > with 4441, including the stiff ace of clubs. About two rounds later I was > approached by the director, who inquired if it was true, and then informed > me that they just didn't allow that at his club. When I complained, he > suggested I take it up with the ACBL. I, of course, did not bother. > Unfortunately, it's the only game in town, and so far as I know, the ACBL > will support this guy. I'm quite certain that if I psyched I'd hear about it > as well. Fortunately or not, I'm not so inclined. > > Irv > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 4:55 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > > > > > > Tim wrote: > > > > >>Up to a point my lord copper. We have heard in the past of > > >>TDs issuing instructions like "you must not psyche again > > >>this session". We would not expect players to obey that > > >>particular instruction. > > > > Sven replied: > > > > >I do not think much of an instruction like that, but if the > > >Director issues it I assume it is for a reason, and the > > >player(s) addressed are most certainly supposed to obey. > > >However they are free to complain afterwards if they feel > > >that way. > > > > I agree with Tim and disagree with Sven. One has an > > *obligation* to disobey an illegal order from a TD. ("I was > > only following orders" was ruled an invalid excuse at the > > Nuremburg Trials.) > > > > On the other hand, the recondite words of the Laws of Bridge > > can be interpreted so as to justify *any* order from a TD. > > > > Therefore, in practice, a TD could justify any order the TD > > made as legal. > > > > Even "you must not psyche again this session" could be > > justified under a strained interpretation of L40B. > > > > Best wishes > > > > Richard > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 12 16:44:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7C6CQe04358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:12:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7C6C7K04354 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:12:18 +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 g7C6BY7F012182; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:11:34 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by cow.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7C6BTV26366; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:11:30 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: cow.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:11:29 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Roger Pewick cc: blml Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem In-Reply-To: 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 Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Roger Pewick wrote: > Yesterday a friend told me an interesting story. She had just played > a tournament, not that it matters but it was an ACBL sectional. The > event was a two session play through by four sections. After the > first session it was discovered that three sections played hands > different from the fourth section. Apparently the fourth section was > given hands to duplicate that were slated for the second session. > Anyone have experience in such things. Nah, I'm not going to tell > just yet what did happen. Anyway, how would you deal with this mess. > I would think that your reasons might be interesting. Score this session with the fouled-board formula a.k.a. Neuberg. Deal a new set of hands for session #2. Tell the players we're really sorry about this. 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 Mon Aug 12 16:48:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7C6Si904374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:28:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7C6SYK04370 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:28:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7C6S8P04089 for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 23:28:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <009b01c241c9$4ccc8920$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <002601c241b8$f6dd95a0$6501a8c0@irv> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 23:17:21 -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: "Irv Kostal" > I recently, and for one of the very few times in my entire life, opened 1NT > with 4441, including the stiff ace of clubs. About two rounds later I was > approached by the director, who inquired if it was true, and then informed > me that they just didn't allow that at his club. When I complained, he > suggested I take it up with the ACBL. I, of course, did not bother. > Unfortunately, it's the only game in town, and so far as I know, the ACBL > will support this guy. I'm quite certain that if I psyched I'd hear about it > as well. Fortunately or not, I'm not so inclined. > You should have taken it up with the ACBL, who would not have backed his opinion. When a TD says something incorrect in that fashion, oozing authority, I say "For how much?" and pull out a $20 bill. That usually shuts them up.. An occasional 1NT opening with a singleton high honor, provided there is no partnership method for showing the 4-4-4-1 distribution, is perfectly acceptable in ACBL-land (other than at a few clubs run by the ignorant). 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 Aug 12 17:18:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7C6wfg04457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:58:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7C6wVK04453 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:58:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7C6wLP10583 for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 23:58:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00aa01c241cd$84fefe00$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 23:33:49 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: > > Roger Pewick wrote: > > >Yesterday a friend told me an interesting story. She had > >just played a tournament, not that it matters but it was > >an ACBL sectional. The event was a two session play > >through by four sections. After the first session it was > >discovered that three sections played hands different from > >the fourth section. Apparently the fourth section was > >given hands to duplicate that were slated for the second > >session. >In the actual case, there should be an emergency clause in the CoC allowing the TD to vary the format. If I was TD, I would now abandon across-the-field scoring for the first session, and score each of the four sections separately in the first session. > > If the CoC lacked an emergency clause, then technically all > players in the fourth section should be given Ave+ for > every board in the first session, as technically every board > was fouled. > Fouled boards are Neuberged in ACBL-land, with no artificial score adjustment. There are some who would resort to factoring, but that unfair practice isn't justified when there is a computer to do the Neuberging. 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 Aug 12 17:37:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7C7J7i04478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 17:19:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7C7IiK04468 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 17:18:49 +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 RAA14782 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 17:34:02 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 17:13:22 +0000 (EST) Subject: RE: [BLML] Equity vs L12C2, and another timing problem To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 17:09:37 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 12/08/2002 05:12:56 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] >>Sponsor Pro >>1NT 2H - after break in tempo with no bridge reason >>2S >> >>As TD and AC I would not only adjust the score to the result >>in 2H, I would also apply a severe PP against the pro. David Burn replied: [snip] >Pity the poor professional who, about to bid 2S, remembers >just in time his new agreement with his client, and uses a >transfer instead after a slight but understandable delay. Or >is there, perhaps, some notion that professional bridge >players ought to be able to remember their systems, and when >they don't, they should be penalised? What an extraordinary >idea! > >What gives rather more grounds for dismay is Richard's tone >of voice. "...not only adjust the score... severe PP..." I >have heard these words in that tone before. The Cult is >everywhere! I agree with David Burn. A player trying to remember their system has a "bridge reason" for a break in tempo. And some professional bridge players have memories which are less than elephantine. But if my determination of the facts was that this particular pro had no bridge reason for their break in tempo, then I stand by my Cultist ruling. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 12 18:32:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7C8BGJ04515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 18:11:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com ([207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7C8B6K04511 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 18:11:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id AD86C5D80046; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 01:10:46 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) Message-Id: <120802224.4246@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 01:11:03 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: >An occasional 1NT opening with a singleton high honor, provided there is no partnership method for showing the 4-4-4-1 distribution, is perfectly acceptable in ACBL-land (other than at a few clubs run by the ignorant). Whereas I am sure it is legal for an SO to impose the following regulation for the use of a convention: "You may not use a method to show a 4441 shape having opened 1NT", I am not sure that it is legal for an SO to regulate in any way an opening bid of 1NT if it is natural. By what right (other than divine) does the ACBL do this? David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 12 19:31:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7C9Ah904567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:10:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7C9ASK04563 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:10:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta5-rme.xtra.co.nz ([210.86.15.143]) by mta201-rme.xtra.co.nz with ESMTP id <20020812090958.MDMW13183.mta201-rme.xtra.co.nz@mta5-rme.xtra.co.nz> for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:09:58 +1200 Received: from laptop ([210.86.46.229]) by mta5-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20020812090957.EQXF24208.mta5-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:09:57 +1200 Message-ID: <000501c241df$d401dec0$e52e56d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <120802224.4246@webbox.com> Subject: Re: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:08:19 +1200 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 8:11 PM Subject: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) > > Marv wrote: > > >An occasional 1NT opening with a singleton high honor, provided > there is no partnership method for showing the 4-4-4-1 distribution, > is perfectly acceptable in ACBL-land (other than at a few clubs > run by the ignorant). > > Whereas I am sure it is legal for an SO to impose the following > regulation for the use of a convention: > > "You may not use a method to show a 4441 shape having opened > 1NT", What about subsequently bidding your three suits. Surely they can't force you to make one of them conventional ;-) > > I am not sure that it is legal for an SO to regulate in any way > an opening bid of 1NT if it is natural. By what right (other > than divine) does the ACBL do this? If your 1nt shows a willingness to play there then it is non-conventional and therefore provided it is above a certain threshold then regulations are illegal. My experience is that few if any SO bother to worry if their regulations are legal or not. 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 Aug 12 19:49:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7C9TI304581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:29:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail50.fg.online.no (mail50-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7C9T7K04577 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:29:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-0097.bb.online.no [80.212.208.97]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA22153 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:28:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00d401c241e2$9d7c2b50$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" Subject: [BLML] New specifications for card faces???? Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:28:11 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D1_01C241F3.56DDCCB0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00D1_01C241F3.56DDCCB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Today I heard rumours that a regulation has been issued (by WBF???) specifying that the playing cards must be redesigned to be absolutely symmetrical. Not only must the assymetric spot on the 7-spots be moved, but also the spade, heart and club symbols as used on the Aces and all odd-numbered spot cards be redesigned so that there is no up- or down-side on those. As I wrote: Rumours, but apparently with some confidence. However, a brief scan on WBF and EBL pages revealed nothing. Anybody being able to sched some light please? (My first reaction was that we are too far away from April 1st.) regards Sven ------=_NextPart_000_00D1_01C241F3.56DDCCB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Today I heard rumours that a regulation = has been=20 issued (by WBF???)
specifying that the playing cards must = be=20 redesigned to be absolutely
symmetrical. Not only must the = assymetric spot on=20 the 7-spots be
moved, but also the spade, heart and = club symbols=20 as used on the
Aces and all odd-numbered spot cards be = redesigned=20 so that there
is no up- or down-side on = those.
 
As I wrote: Rumours, but apparently = with some=20 confidence.
 
However, a brief scan on WBF and EBL = pages revealed=20 nothing.
 
Anybody being able to sched some light=20 please?
(My first reaction was that we are = too far=20 away from April 1st.)
 
regards Sven
------=_NextPart_000_00D1_01C241F3.56DDCCB0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 12 20:03:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7C9gCW04610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:42:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7C9fsK04596 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:42:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7C9fYS14284 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:41:34 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:41 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play 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: <001d01c23f13$bc89ef40$6400a8c0@WINXP> > > Up to a point my lord copper. We have heard in the past of TDs > > issuing instructions like "you must not psyche again this session". > > We would not expect players to obey that particular instruction. > > I do not think much of an instruction like that, but if the Director > issues it I assume it is for a reason, What reason? I can't imagine a TD being able to justify this one (if what they meant to say was "If you psyche yet again I am almost certainly going to deem it frivolous" that's very different). > and the player(s) addressed are most certainly supposed to obey. However > they are free to complain afterwards if they feel that way. I would have thought the players should continue to apply their judgement within the laws - knowing they will have to face an appeals committee should a perfect psyche opportunity arise. 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 Aug 12 20:03:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7C9gBa04608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:42:11 +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 g7C9fsK04598 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:42:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7C9fav14323 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:41:37 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:41 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play 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: <002301c241be$f4d5f710$6400a8c0@WINXP> Sven wrote: > So your opinion is that any player who THINKS that the TD > has given an illegal order is obliged to disobey that order if he > so prefers. Pretty much. How else will that TD learn not to give illegal orders in future? Perhaps I didn't make it clear that one should first seek the basis on which the TD made such a ruling (TDs who do make illegal rulings will no doubt have to spend the next 2 hours trying to find a law-book). > And if it afterwards would appear that the order > given was indeed justified and correct ????? Then one apologises profusely to the TD and AC for being stupid and pig-headed and accepts graciously whatever punishment they bestow. However this is irrelevant to the case where we were talking about an illegal instruction. 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 Aug 12 20:03:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7C9gCu04609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:42:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7C9fsK04597 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:42:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7C9fcF14375 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:41:38 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:41 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: [BLML] Ruling free Brighton (nearly) 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 I said I'd let people here know how my anticipated appeals went at Brighton. For some reason I managed to play 161 competitive boards without getting a suitable hand for psyching. I also played throughout with the following convention card: 1N, 11.5-14. Tim opens 1N if that is where he wants to play opposite a weakish, flattish partner. This includes some hands with singletons or 7 card suits and almost all 5332. Tim's weak 2s are much more random than Emily's. She will almost always have a 6 card suit and be higher in the range. Tim will often have 5 (but only rarely when vul vs not, or 2nd in hand vul-vul). In 14 matches the opponents reactions were: 7 Positive but amused/appreciative including such choice replies as "I see, a lifestyle guide not a CC", and "OK, so we can trust her but not you!". 5 queries one "Does she field?" answer "no" - carry on. Four "I'm not sure if that is legal". My response being that at least one director would rule it as proper disclosure of known partnership habits while others would likely rule it an illegal agreement. It came up twice, once for a poor result, once for a somewhat above average. No TD calls. My only ruling - an opponent ruffed at trick four with a card that I could see in dummy (ruffing low when the only outstanding trump was the ace)! He still had the cards from the previous board and I can't quibble with the 60/40 we were awarded. 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 Aug 12 20:13:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7C9sjM04623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:54:45 +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 g7C9sYK04619 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:54:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7C9sM923725 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:54:22 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:54 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) 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: <120802224.4246@webbox.com> David Burn wrote: > Whereas I am sure it is legal for an SO to impose the following > regulation for the use of a convention: > > "You may not use a method to show a 4441 shape having opened > 1NT", > > I am not sure that it is legal for an SO to regulate in any way > an opening bid of 1NT if it is natural. By what right (other > than divine) does the ACBL do this? Um, perhaps the same way as the EBU does - by trying to say that 1N with a singleton is not natural. Or perhaps by having regulations that forbid *any* conventions (not just those designed to find the singleton) over 1NTs that, while natural, fail to meet certain "approved criteria". If necessary they can refer to the Lille minute and say that their power to regulate is unrestricted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 12 21:14:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CAp8M04698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 20:51:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7CAowK04694 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 20:51:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-2021.bb.online.no [80.212.215.229]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA24316 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:50:26 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00ea01c241ee$0c3c1040$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:50:14 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Tim West-meads" > > > Up to a point my lord copper. We have heard in the past of TDs > > > issuing instructions like "you must not psyche again this session". > > > We would not expect players to obey that particular instruction. > > > > I do not think much of an instruction like that, but if the Director > > issues it I assume it is for a reason, > > What reason? I can't imagine a TD being able to justify this one (if what > they meant to say was "If you psyche yet again I am almost certainly going > to deem it frivolous" that's very different). I don't care to discuss in advance what reasons he might have, that is the Director's own business. However, one particular point should be observed: If the frequency of psyches in a particular partnership exceeds a (very low) limit so that their psyches become more or less predictable then these calls no longer qualify as psyches, they become part of partnership experience and hence part of their (implicit) agreements. Any Director is free to warn the affected player(s) when he feels that such a limit is about to be exceeded that the next "psyche" will be treated as an agreed upon convention, and if that makes the system HUM then that partnership will find themselves in trouble. > > > and the player(s) addressed are most certainly supposed to obey. However > > they are free to complain afterwards if they feel that way. > > I would have thought the players should continue to apply their judgement > within the laws - knowing they will have to face an appeals committee > should a perfect psyche opportunity arise. If a player disagrees with the Director he shall obey, and then appeal for adjustment under law 82C if he considers himself damaged. Disobedience with Director's instructions is no option in any kind of competition, not in Bridge, not in Soccer, not in ........ Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 12 21:14:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CApiN04707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 20:51:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com ([207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7CApYK04700 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 20:51:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A3255401005A; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:51:17 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: From: "David Burn" Subject: RE: [BLML] New specifications for card faces???? Message-Id: <120802224.13876@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:51:30 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven wrote: >Today I heard rumours that a regulation has been issued (by WBF???) specifying that the playing cards must be redesigned to be absolutely symmetrical. Yesterday, the day before that, and the day before that, I played 112 boards with just such cards at Brighton. I also played with them in the European Mixed Pairs in Ostend, and the Transnational tournament at the Paris World Championships last year. They were in use at the Europeans in Salsomaggiore, and I would be surprised not to see them in Montreal. Their use is, as far as I know, now mandatory in all WBF tournaments, and may also be compulsory in EBL events. This is a little more than a rumour, young Sven. You should get out more :) David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 12 21:28:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CB8d404719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:08:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@[139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7CB8PK04714 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:08:30 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7CB7xp30394; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:07:59 +0100 Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:07:59 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7CB7xK06939; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:07:59 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:07:59 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA00896; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:07:58 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id MAA00578; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:07:57 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:07:57 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200208121107.MAA00578@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, svenpran@online.no Subject: Re: [BLML] New specifications for card faces???? Content-Type: X-sun-attachment Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ---------- X-Sun-Data-Type: text X-Sun-Data-Description: text X-Sun-Data-Name: text X-Sun-Charset: us-ascii X-Sun-Content-Lines: 41 > From owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Mon Aug 12 11:13:17 2002 > X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" > Subject: [BLML] New specifications for card faces???? > Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:28:11 +0200 > Today I heard rumours that a regulation has been issued (by WBF???) > specifying that the playing cards must be redesigned to be absolutely > symmetrical. Not only must the assymetric spot on the 7-spots be > moved, but also the spade, heart and club symbols as used on the > Aces and all odd-numbered spot cards be redesigned so that there > is no up- or down-side on those. > > As I wrote: Rumours, but apparently with some confidence. > > However, a brief scan on WBF and EBL pages revealed nothing. > > Anybody being able to sched some light please? > (My first reaction was that we are too far away from April 1st.) > > regards Sven All true! Such cards were in use in WBF/EBL events last year. Redesigned cards (with better distinction between CA and SA) were in use in EBL events this year, including the Juniors in Torquay (England). They were also in use at the Commonwealth Games bridge in Manchester and are in use throughout the current EBU Summer Event in Brighton (reusing cards from Torquay and Manchester). They don't look at all strange, except the SA which has an enormous split spade symbol, which you still might think was a club, but mainly looks like nothing at all. The odd ranked cards have central pips, and these central suit symbols are a four-leafed club symbol, a diamond (no change) and for the majors consist of the usual symbol cut in half diagonally and then the that half symbol rotated through a half turn. The cards we had, diamonds were pink and clubs were grey, which also looked OK. Robin ---------- X-Sun-Data-Type: html X-Sun-Encoding-Info: quoted-printable X-Sun-Content-Lines: 41
Today I heard rumours that a regulation = has been=20 issued (by WBF???)
specifying that the playing cards must = be=20 redesigned to be absolutely
symmetrical. Not only must the = assymetric spot on=20 the 7-spots be
moved, but also the spade, heart and = club symbols=20 as used on the
Aces and all odd-numbered spot cards be = redesigned=20 so that there
is no up- or down-side on = those.
 
As I wrote: Rumours, but apparently = with some=20 confidence.
 
However, a brief scan on WBF and EBL = pages revealed=20 nothing.
 
Anybody being able to sched some light=20 please?
(My first reaction was that we are = too far=20 away from April 1st.)
 
regards Sven
-- 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 Aug 12 21:46:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CBSIs04744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:28:18 +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 g7CBS5K04740 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:28:10 +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 NAA17603; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:25:19 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA28591; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:27:36 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020812133239.00a84c30@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:36:56 +0200 To: "Wayne Burrows" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75C In-Reply-To: <000e01c240aa$4355a720$b52d37d2@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:12 11/08/2002 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: >1nt (2h*) > >2h is alerted and a question is asked about its meaning. > >The explaination is: five hearts and four of any other. > >Is that fact that this pair also have another way of showing both majors >"special information conveyed ... through partnership agreement or >partnership experience" and would you therefore expect that to be disclosed? AG : this is an interesting case. I know of some players, not the worst in the world, who play this *and* don't realize that 2H is in fact limited to H/m. They explain it as above, in all good faith. However, the opponents are entitled to full disclosure of your system, not of the wrong interpretation you have of it. Thus I would rule MI. Once I orrected partner's explanations before the lead, and the opponent answered "don't worry, I had understood it". He had an advantage : he had made the same mistake the week before :-( Best regards, Alain. >For what its worth I would. > >Wayne > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 12 21:56:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CBbO904756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:37:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7CBbAK04752 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:37:16 +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 NAA19278; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:34:41 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA06117; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:36:58 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020812134038.00a8ac10@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:46:18 +0200 To: "David Burn" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) In-Reply-To: <120802224.4246@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 01:11 12/08/2002 -0700, David Burn wrote: >Marv wrote: > > >An occasional 1NT opening with a singleton high honor, provided >there is no partnership method for showing the 4-4-4-1 distribution, >is perfectly acceptable in ACBL-land (other than at a few clubs >run by the ignorant). > >Whereas I am sure it is legal for an SO to impose the following >regulation for the use of a convention: > >"You may not use a method to show a 4441 shape having opened >1NT", AG : My first choice of opening with K-AQx-AJxx-Qxxxx would be 1NT, no second choice. If you're playing full relays after 2C, even id the 1st answer desn't bypass 2NT, you've 47 bidding sequences at your disposal without bypassing 3NT. Since there are only 28 'classical' patterns in a 1NT opening, you may add some others. If it is disallowed to show 4441, and if (as you seem to imply) it is not disallowed to show 5431, the whole thing is ridiculous. If it is disallowed to open 1NT on said hand, then it is about the 143th reason for which I wouldn't play bridge under ACBL jurisdiction. Best regards, Alain. >I am not sure that it is legal for an SO to regulate in any way >an opening bid of 1NT if it is natural. By what right (other >than divine) does the ACBL do this? > >David Burn >London, England > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 12 22:05:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CBllw04788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:47:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (iupware.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7CBlXK04784 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:47:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id NAA24108; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:44:49 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA14874; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:46:58 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020812134755.00a8a130@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:56:16 +0200 To: "Sven Pran" , "Bridge Laws Submissions" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] New specifications for card faces???? In-Reply-To: <00d401c241e2$9d7c2b50$6400a8c0@WINXP> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_16702074==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --=====================_16702074==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 11:28 12/08/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >Today I heard rumours that a regulation has been issued (by WBF???) >specifying that the playing cards must be redesigned to be absolutely >symmetrical. Not only must the assymetric spot on the 7-spots be >moved, but also the spade, heart and club symbols as used on the >Aces and all odd-numbered spot cards be redesigned so that there >is no up- or down-side on those. > >As I wrote: Rumours, but apparently with some confidence. AG :this is a *very good* idea. The French have tried it at the Deauville=20 Festival, and most of the players found it very sensible. The 6 and 10 are made symmetrical by making the middle-left symbol pointing= =20 upwards, the middle-right downwards. It remains the same when you rotate=20 the card. The 3, 5, 7 and 9 have their center pip modified in such a way that it is=20 rotation-symmetrical (no problem for diamonds ; clubs are made 4-leafed ;=20 spades and hearts are split as honor cards are, in their globality, in some= =20 designs : =BD upwards, =BD downwards). The aim is to avoid cheating by placing the played card in different=20 positions so that a different number of pips appear upwards to partner.=20 Apparently this had occurred in recent times. Another innovation happened : each suit had its own color (diamonds were=20 dull orange, clubs green). This I have found a marvellous idea. In 120=20 deals, I didn't even missort my cards once, which is statistically= significant. 1st of April or not, I'm immensely in favor of these changings. If somebody can find an argument against them, I will listen carefully, but= =20 I bet there isn't any. Best regards, Alain. --=====================_16702074==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 11:28 12/08/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote:
Toda= y I heard rumours that a regulation has been issued (by WBF???)
specifying that the playing cards must be redesigned to be absolutely
symmetrical. Not only must the assymetric spot on the 7-spots be
moved, but also the spade, heart and club symbols as used on the
Aces and all odd-numbered spot cards be redesigned so that there
is no up- or down-side on those.
 
As I wrote: Rumours, but apparently with some confidence.

AG :this is a *very good* idea. The French have tried it at the Deauville Festival, and most of the players found it very sensible.
The 6 and 10 are made symmetrical by making the middle-left symbol pointing upwards, the middle-right downwards. It remains the same when you rotate the card.
The 3, 5, 7 and 9 have their center pip modified in such a way that it is rotation-symmetrical (no problem for diamonds ; clubs are made 4-leafed ; spades and hearts are split as honor cards are, in their globality, in some designs : =BD upwards, =BD downwards).
The aim is to avoid cheating by placing the played card in different positions so that a different number of pips appear upwards to partner. Apparently this had occurred in recent times.

Another innovation happened : each suit had its own color (diamonds were dull orange, clubs green). This I have found a marvellous idea. In 120 deals, I didn't even missort my cards once, which is statistically significant.

1st of April or not, I'm immensely in favor of these changings.
If somebody can find an argument against them, I will listen carefully, but I bet there isn't any.

Best regards,

        Alain. --=====================_16702074==_.ALT-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 12 23:10:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CD9WO04981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:09:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.210]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7CD9RK04977 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:09:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-101.clown-sweetlips.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.248.101] helo=pc) by cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17eEwc-0000XP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:09:14 +0100 Message-ID: <001901c24201$54ee5060$65f8883e@pc> From: "LarryBennett" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020812134755.00a8a130@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] New specifications for card faces???? Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:07:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016_01C24209.8FBD9360" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C24209.8FBD9360 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The only downside of these cards, I gather, is the price. As with most innovations, the practice will filter down to club level. I = guess that by that time, the cost will be reduced due to increased = demand. Larry If somebody can find an argument against them, I will listen carefully, = but I bet there isn't any. Best regards, Alain.=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C24209.8FBD9360 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The only downside of these = cards, I=20 gather, is the price.
As with most innovations, the = practice=20 will filter down to club level. I guess that by that time, the cost will = be=20 reduced due to increased demand.
 
Larry
 
If somebody can find an argument against them, I will listen = carefully, but=20 I bet there isn't any.

Best=20 regards,

        Alain.=20
------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C24209.8FBD9360-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 12 23:33:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CDXCf05001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:33:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7CDX6K04997 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:33:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from pp-xp [10.90.16.33] by mail.eduhi.at (SMTPD32-7.10) id A8346B5C00EE; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:29:24 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster OSB To: BLML Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:32:53 +0200 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-Id: Subject: [BLML] Director's error (thank God) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" X-Mailer: Opera 6.04 build 1135 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk We had to decide the following in an AC: East / both vul x E S W N AJxxxxx 1S P 2C 2H xx x ?P 3D P xxx 4D P 5C AP. x KTxxx Q K KQxx AJxx AQxxxxx KJx AQJxxx T9xx xxx --- ?P.... before passing, S asked the meaning of E's double and was told "shows hearts". Before the opening lead, E said that in his opinion it does not show hearts. EW have not played together for some years and have not discussed the sequence before the tournament. The good thing: The TD was convinced that this double shows hearts because "everyone plays it that way" and did not offer S the L21-option of withdrawing the final pass. The AC could therefore invoke 82C and give NS +650, EW keeping their score. But: What should we have decided without that back-door? There was an opinion in the AC that S's 2nd-round pass was a double-shot. What do you think? Regards, Petrus -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 12 23:33:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CDXdV05011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:33:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7CDXTK05003 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:33:30 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7CDXId24285 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:33:18 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:33 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play 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: <00ea01c241ee$0c3c1040$6400a8c0@WINXP> > From: "Tim West-meads" > > > > Up to a point my lord copper. We have heard in the past of TDs > > > > issuing instructions like "you must not psyche again this > > > > session". > > > > We would not expect players to obey that particular instruction. > > > > > > I do not think much of an instruction like that, but if the Director > > > issues it I assume it is for a reason, > > > > What reason? I can't imagine a TD being able to justify this one (if > > what they meant to say was "If you psyche yet again I am almost > > certainly going to deem it frivolous" that's very different). > > I don't care to discuss in advance what reasons he might have, that is > the Director's own business. The point Sven, is that I cannot conceive of a legitimate reason for such an order. I used this example because some time ago a TD was reported (on RGB or here) as having issued it when it was clearly illegal. > However, one particular point should be observed: If the frequency of > psyches in a particular partnership exceeds a (very low) limit so that > their psyches become more or less predictable then these calls no longer > qualify as psyches, they become part of partnership experience and hence > part of their (implicit) agreements. It becomes part of their disclosable understanding/experience long before it becomes an implicit part of their agreements (indeed it may never become part of their agreements). Not only that but with good players an understanding develops whether or not a psyche actually occurs. If my partner fails to psyche a spade after 1H-X- on more than one occasion when he has heart support I will have an understanding that he has a low psyching frequency. > Any Director is free to warn the affected player(s) when he feels that > such a limit is about to be exceeded that the next "psyche" will be > treated as an agreed upon convention, and if that makes the system HUM > then that partnership will find themselves in trouble. Of course, that is perfectly legal and any subsequent psyche is made at a player's own risk. > > > and the player(s) addressed are most certainly supposed to obey. > > > However > > > they are free to complain afterwards if they feel that way. > > > > I would have thought the players should continue to apply their > > judgement within the laws - knowing they will have to face an appeals > > committee should a perfect psyche opportunity arise. > > If a player disagrees with the Director he shall obey, and then appeal > for adjustment under law 82C if he considers himself damaged. In this case of a "do not psyche" instruction this would be on pretty much every one of the subsequent hands (the hands on which the right psyche would have no possibility of improving the final result are few and far between). But it's like being told "do not open 1S", it may or may not cause damage me but whatever game you are playing it isn't bridge any more. > Disobedience with Director's instructions is no option in any kind of > competition, not in Bridge, not in Soccer, not in ........ Don't be ridiculous. If the director (or referee) tells you to give your partner a good slapping you do not have to obey (though you may choose to and offer the TD's instruction as a defence before the L&EC). 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 Aug 12 23:51:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CDolf05042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:50:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7CDofK05038 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:50:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id PAA17766; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:48:12 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id PAA07663; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:50:28 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020812155747.00a8f840@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:59:45 +0200 To: "LarryBennett" , "Bridge Laws Submissions" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] New specifications for card faces???? In-Reply-To: <001901c24201$54ee5060$65f8883e@pc> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020812134755.00a8a130@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_24111936==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --=====================_24111936==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 14:07 12/08/2002 +0100, LarryBennett wrote: >The only downside of these cards, I gather, is the price. >As with most innovations, the practice will filter down to club level. I >guess that by that time, the cost will be reduced due to increased demand. > >Larry > The biggest French playing cards manufacturer has begun producing them at an industrial scale, and their prices don't seem to be much higher than for 'classical' cards. I think that, if their use becomes widespread, it won't be any higher at all. A. --=====================_24111936==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 14:07 12/08/2002 +0100, LarryBennett wrote:
The only downside of these cards, I gather, is the price.
As with most innovations, the practice will filter down to club level. I guess that by that time, the cost will be reduced due to increased demand.
 
Larry
 

The biggest French playing cards manufacturer has begun producing them at an industrial scale, and their prices don't seem to be much higher than for 'classical' cards. I think that, if their use becomes widespread, it won't be any higher at all.

        A. --=====================_24111936==_.ALT-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 12 23:57:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CDvHb05055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:57:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7CDvBK05051 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:57:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id PAA19364; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:54:30 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id PAA12588; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:56:38 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020812160111.00a75770@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:05:58 +0200 To: Petrus Schuster OSB , BLML From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error (thank God) 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 15:32 12/08/2002 +0200, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >We had to decide the following in an AC: >East / both vul > > x E S W N > AJxxxxx 1S P 2C 2H > xx x ?P 3D P > xxx 4D P 5C AP. > >x KTxxx >Q K >KQxx AJxx >AQxxxxx KJx > > AQJxxx > T9xx > xxx > --- > >?P.... before passing, S asked the meaning of E's double and >was told "shows hearts". >Before the opening lead, E said that in his opinion it does >not show hearts. >EW have not played together for some years and have not >discussed the sequence before the tournament. >The good thing: The TD was convinced that this double shows >hearts because "everyone plays it that way" and did not >offer S the L21-option of withdrawing the final pass. The AC >could therefore invoke 82C and give NS +650, EW keeping >their score. >But: What should we have decided without that back-door? >There was an opinion in the AC that S's 2nd-round pass was a >double-shot. What do you think? AG : if I'm told that the 4 outstanding hearts are behind my partner's suit, I don'tsee why I should bid more hearts, just for the dubious fun of being doubled once again (the last time somebody tried this against me, the cost was 1400). Even if I held 6 hearts, I could think partner was psyching (well, perhaps not in this sequence, but in general this is a possibility, and the double may allow me to field the psyche). One good question to ask West would be, why did he take-out, holding a honor in the doubled suit and a misfit for partner's suit, while partner obviously doesn't hold that many clubs ? I think West wans't sure of his own interpretation. To put it more strongly, West's decision is to some extent evidence that he misexplained. Rule MI in absence of other pieces of evidence. 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 Aug 13 00:01:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CE1WV05071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 00:01:32 +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 g7CE1QK05067 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 00:01:27 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7CE1E814537 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:01:14 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:01 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] New specifications for card faces???? 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: <5.1.0.14.0.20020812134755.00a8a130@pop.ulb.ac.be> Alain wrote: > If somebody can find an argument against them, I will listen carefully, > but I bet there isn't any. The major "middle" spots are aesthetically displeasing as are the grey and orange/pink colours for the minors - at least in my view and a number of players who talked to me about them at Brighton. I accept that his is far from compelling as a reason not to introduce them. 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 Aug 13 00:12:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CEBsN05091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 00:11:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7CEBiK05087 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 00:11:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (5.84-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.84.5]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7CEBTo18942 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:11:29 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D57C213.6060909@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:11:31 +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] New specifications for card faces???? References: <00d401c241e2$9d7c2b50$6400a8c0@WINXP> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk We are playing with those cards here. (of course that is not the first time - they were introduced in Paris last october) Sven Pran wrote: > Today I heard rumours that a regulation has been issued (by WBF???) > > specifying that the playing cards must be redesigned to be absolutely > > symmetrical. Not only must the assymetric spot on the 7-spots be > > moved, but also the spade, heart and club symbols as used on the > > Aces and all odd-numbered spot cards be redesigned so that there > > is no up- or down-side on those. > > > > As I wrote: Rumours, but apparently with some confidence. > > > > However, a brief scan on WBF and EBL pages revealed nothing. > > > > Anybody being able to sched some light please? > > (My first reaction was that we are too far away from April 1st.) > > > > regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium currently at the World University Bridge Championships in Brugge http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html Brugge homepage : http://www.ruca.ua.ac.be/dua/brugge02/Brugge2002.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 13 00:21:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CELTZ05109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 00:21:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail50.fg.online.no (mail50-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7CELNK05105 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 00:21:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-2883.bb.online.no [80.212.219.67]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA14913 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:21:06 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002a01c2420b$7b02f4e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020812134755.00a8a130@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020812155747.00a8f840@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] New specifications for card faces???? Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:20:59 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0027_01C2421C.3E4D3540" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C2421C.3E4D3540 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As I hoped I had quite a few affirmative answers, but two questions = remain: 1: Has there been any kind of official decision that the new design is = required in competitions at certain levels, in case by which authority and how = has that decision been announced? 2: Is there any kind of copyright on the new design or will any card = manufacturer be allowed to include that design in their product line? Sven ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Alain Gottcheiner=20 To: LarryBennett ; Bridge Laws Submissions=20 Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 3:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] New specifications for card faces???? At 14:07 12/08/2002 +0100, LarryBennett wrote: The only downside of these cards, I gather, is the price. As with most innovations, the practice will filter down to club = level. I guess that by that time, the cost will be reduced due to = increased demand. =20 Larry =20 The biggest French playing cards manufacturer has begun producing them = at an industrial scale, and their prices don't seem to be much higher = than for 'classical' cards. I think that, if their use becomes = widespread, it won't be any higher at all. A.=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C2421C.3E4D3540 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As I hoped I had quite a few = affirmative answers,=20 but two questions remain:
 
1: Has there been any kind of official = decision=20 that the new design is required
in competitions at certain levels, in = case by which=20 authority and how has that
decision been announced?
 
2: Is there any kind of copyright on = the new design=20 or will any card manufacturer
be allowed to include that design in = their product=20 line?
 
Sven
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Alain = Gottcheiner=20
To: LarryBennett ; Bridge Laws Submissions =
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 = 3:59=20 PM
Subject: Re: [BLML] New = specifications=20 for card faces????

At 14:07 12/08/2002 +0100, LarryBennett wrote:
The only downside of these cards, I gather, is the=20 price.
As with most = innovations,=20 the practice will filter down to club level. I guess that by that = time, the=20 cost will be reduced due to increased = demand.
 
Larry
 

The biggest=20 French playing cards manufacturer has begun producing them at an = industrial=20 scale, and their prices don't seem to be much higher than for = 'classical'=20 cards. I think that, if their use becomes widespread, it won't be any = higher=20 at=20 = all.

        A.=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C2421C.3E4D3540-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 13 00:40:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CEdss05126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 00:39:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7CEdnK05122 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 00:39:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id KAA07586 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:39:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA00023 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:39:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:39:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208121439.KAA00023@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > Score this session with the fouled-board formula a.k.a. Neuberg. It took me a while (and reading some other replies) to catch on here. In case anyone else is as slow as I am... You have two options for the first session, where one section played different boards from the other three: score each section separately, or score the first three sections "across the field" and the fourth section by itself. If you do the latter, you have to use some formula to "factor up" from, say, 14 tables to, say, 42. Neuberg is the approved formula in the ACBL (and most other jurisdictions). > Deal a new set of hands for session #2. Tell the players we're really > sorry about this. I think these two actions were unanimous. > From: "Marvin L. French" > If I was TD, I > would now abandon across-the-field scoring for the first > session, and score each of the four sections separately in > the first session. I expect this would be the practical solution in most ACBL events. > Fouled boards are Neuberged in ACBL-land, with no artificial score > adjustment. There are some who would resort to factoring, but that unfair > practice isn't justified when there is a computer to do the Neuberging. Factoring isn't "unfair." In fact, there is clear mathematical justification for it _if you require certain characteristics_ in the result.* One cannot say the same of Neuberg! Nevertheless, Neuberg has its advantages, and it is the approved formula in most of the world. Neuberg and factoring are about equally easy, so I wouldn't think use of a computer would affect the decision. Of course if your program will do one and not the other, .... ----- *In particular, factoring makes the matchpoint expectation for a given table result independent of the size of the field. This sounds fair, but it doesn't take into account the expected variance, which is important in determining winners. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 13 00:42:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CEgaf05145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 00:42:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7CEgVK05141 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 00:42:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id KAA07709 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:42:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA00075 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:42:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:42:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208121442.KAA00075@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Nancy T Dressing" > If you have that director check out the Tech files in the tournament mode of > ACBL score, he will find a write up by Bobby Wolf about opening 1NT with a > singleton which says that some hands require such a bid. There was also an article in the ACBL Bulletin saying much the same thing. I think it was six months or so ago, but estimates of time are notoriously unreliable. The aggrieved party might try emailing 'rulings@acbl.org'. I bet they have "canned" reply to this question. Of course what would be even better is a copy of _all_ the regulations and a set of FAQ's on the web site, but there seems little chance of that. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 13 01:24:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CFOBC05174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 01:24:11 +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.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 g7CFO6K05170 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 01:24:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from pp-xp [10.90.16.33] by mail.eduhi.at (SMTPD32-7.10) id A239270020E; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 17:20:25 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster OSB To: BLML Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 17:23:53 +0200 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-Id: Subject: [BLML] 12C3 headache MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" X-Mailer: Opera 6.04 build 1135 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Two experienced pairs, one German and one Hungarian, played this board: teams; W / none A63 AT762 W N E S T84 1NT P 3S AP 43 K72 QJ9854 94 J AK962 J5 JT2 A875 T KQ853 Q73 KQ92 Result: -140 1NT and 3S were both alerted. (Under Austrian regulations, 1NT has to be alerted when the range is not 15-17). EW had their CC on the table. On the inside - which was visible -, 1NT was explained as 14-16; on the outside as 14- 16 vul, 11-13 n/vul. S did not ask about the NT range (he looked at the CC). 3S was explained as N/FCG. After the hand S called me when he found out about the real range and said he would have doubled 3S, and N would then have bid 4H. 4H goes down on a D lead or CA, D continuation. 4S goes down on a high C lead or unlucky declarer play. What percentages would you assume for the various contracts in computing a 12C3 score? Regards, Petrus -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 13 01:40:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CFeNd05187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 01:40:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7CFeIK05183 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 01:40:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from pp-xp [10.90.16.33] by mail.eduhi.at (SMTPD32-7.10) id A60571D200EE; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 17:36:37 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster OSB To: BLML Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 17:40:05 +0200 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-Id: Subject: [BLML] one board too many MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" X-Mailer: Opera 6.04 build 1135 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Because of late play at their proper table, an EW pair got lost and played one board at the wrong table. Neither pair had played the board before so the result stands as per 15A1. EW then played their two boards at the right table. There was no problem as this pair was scheduled to play the board they had played at the wrong table in a later round. But: What if they would never have met that board (16 rounds in a 18 table Mitchell)? They would have had 33 results instead of 32, and this is beyond the ability of the available scoring programs. Should the TD stop them from playing one board in a later round with 60% for NS and no result for EW (seems like a stretch of 82B)? ("Get another computer team" is not a helpful answer :)). Regards, Petrus -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 13 02:35:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CGXIn05227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 02:33:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from exch01.minfod.com (al21.minfod.com [207.227.70.21] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7CGX8K05223 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 02:33:13 +1000 (EST) Received: by al21.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:41:15 -0500 Message-ID: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD2235@al21.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: "'BLML '" Subject: RE: [BLML] Late Play Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:41:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk There is also an item in the Rulings section of the ACBL website that says the same thing--"It is __NOT__ illegal in the ACBL to open 1NT or 2NT on a hand with a singleton". -----Original Message----- From: Nancy T Dressing To: BLML Sent: 8/12/02 12:19 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play If you have that director check out the Tech files in the tournament mode of ACBL score, he will find a write up by Bobby Wolf about opening 1NT with a singleton which says that some hands require such a bid. As far as I know, there is no law stating that this is illegal. If partner continually does it, it must be alerted, as I understand it. Of course, the sponsoring organization can set whatever rules they wish. I think is was rather cowardly of the complainer not to call the director while you were still at the table.... Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Irv Kostal" To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 12:30 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > I recently, and for one of the very few times in my entire life, opened 1NT > with 4441, including the stiff ace of clubs. About two rounds later I was > approached by the director, who inquired if it was true, and then informed > me that they just didn't allow that at his club. When I complained, he > suggested I take it up with the ACBL. I, of course, did not bother. > Unfortunately, it's the only game in town, and so far as I know, the ACBL > will support this guy. I'm quite certain that if I psyched I'd hear about it > as well. Fortunately or not, I'm not so inclined. > > Irv > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 4:55 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > > > > > > Tim wrote: > > > > >>Up to a point my lord copper. We have heard in the past of > > >>TDs issuing instructions like "you must not psyche again > > >>this session". We would not expect players to obey that > > >>particular instruction. > > > > Sven replied: > > > > >I do not think much of an instruction like that, but if the > > >Director issues it I assume it is for a reason, and the > > >player(s) addressed are most certainly supposed to obey. > > >However they are free to complain afterwards if they feel > > >that way. > > > > I agree with Tim and disagree with Sven. One has an > > *obligation* to disobey an illegal order from a TD. ("I was > > only following orders" was ruled an invalid excuse at the > > Nuremburg Trials.) > > > > On the other hand, the recondite words of the Laws of Bridge > > can be interpreted so as to justify *any* order from a TD. > > > > Therefore, in practice, a TD could justify any order the TD > > made as legal. > > > > Even "you must not psyche again this session" could be > > justified under a strained interpretation of L40B. > > > > Best wishes > > > > Richard > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 13 03:22:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CHMYu05289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 03:22:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7CHMSK05285 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 03:22:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7CHMHv09994 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:22:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004501c24224$ae0ae280$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <120802224.4246@webbox.com> Subject: Re: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:07:08 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Burn" > > Marv wrote: > > >An occasional 1NT opening with a singleton high honor, provided > there is no partnership method for showing the 4-4-4-1 distribution, > is perfectly acceptable in ACBL-land (other than at a few clubs > run by the ignorant). > > Whereas I am sure it is legal for an SO to impose the following > regulation for the use of a convention: > > "You may not use a method to show a 4441 shape having opened > 1NT", > > I am not sure that it is legal for an SO to regulate in any way > an opening bid of 1NT if it is natural. By what right (other > than divine) does the ACBL do this? > Going by what the General Convention Chart says, the ACBL regards a 4-4-4-1 notrump bid as not natural, just as a non-forcing opening 1C/1D bid that "may be short" is not natural. There is an implication that a strong singleton counts as a weak doubleton, making 1NT "natural," which is not illogical. Perhaps those who open 4-4-4-1 hands often enough that partner allows for it (e.g., no transfer with a weak hand) should be required to Announce "May be 4-4-4-1" just as they must Announce "May be short" for 1C/1D openings. 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 Aug 13 04:07:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CI6lB05315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 04:06:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7CI6gK05311 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 04:06:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7CI6Vv28457 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:06:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006501c2422a$dc565420$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200208121439.KAA00023@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:01:33 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" <> > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > > Fouled boards are Neuberged in ACBL-land, with no artificial score > > adjustment. There are some who would resort to factoring, but that unfair > > practice isn't justified when there is a computer to do the Neuberging. > > Factoring isn't "unfair." In fact, there is clear mathematical > justification for it _if you require certain characteristics_ in the > result.* > *In particular, factoring makes the matchpoint expectation for a given > table result independent of the size of the field. This sounds fair, > but it doesn't take into account the expected variance, which is > important in determining winners. The footnote shows the unfairness of it. It does not "sound fair" to my ears. We have multi-site sectionals that equate a 70% score in a 5-table game with a 70% score in a 26-table game, no Neuberging. Now that's really unfair. > One cannot say the same of Neuberg! Nevertheless, Neuberg > has its advantages, and it is the approved formula in most of the > world. No mathematical justification for Neuberg? A better formula would be nice to have, but, surprisingly, no one has come up with one. Until then, what fairer assumption can one make other than that an increased number of plays would see an equal reflection of scores? > > Neuberg and factoring are about equally easy, so I wouldn't think use > of a computer would affect the decision. Of course if your program > will do one and not the other, .... They are not equally easy without a computer. No TD that I know hereabouts would be capable of Neuberging scores without computer help, but they can factor by hand okay. > 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 Aug 13 04:20:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CIKVO05332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 04:20:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7CIKQK05328 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 04:20:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id OAA25874 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:20:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA00463 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:20:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:20:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208121820.OAA00463@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Factoring and Neuberg] > From: "Marvin L. French" > are not equally easy without a computer. I withdraw my comment. Factoring is done once per pair, but applying Neuberg has to be done by rescoring every board. Easy in principle but tedious in practice. (I'd probably make a lookup table: with 14 tables, there are only 27 possible scores, and each has a direct translation from "normal" to "Neuberg.") -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 13 04:42:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CIgUr05353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 04:42:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7CIgOK05349 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 04:42:25 +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 g7CIfZ7F000486; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 20:41:35 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by cow.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7CIfZP05155; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 20:41:35 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: cow.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 20:41:35 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Steve Willner cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem In-Reply-To: <200208121820.OAA00463@cfa183.harvard.edu> 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, 12 Aug 2002, Steve Willner wrote: > [Factoring and Neuberg] > > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > are not equally easy without a computer. > > I withdraw my comment. Factoring is done once per pair, but applying > Neuberg has to be done by rescoring every board. Easy in principle but > tedious in practice. No, one can score the game with the regular top, then apply Neuberg on the session: Suppose a pair scores Mp_i matchpoints on each of the 26 boards. These scores are now Neuberg'ed, or: On board 1: Mp'_1 = N/n (Mp_1 + 1) - 1 On board 2: Mp'_2 = N/n (Mp_2 + 1) - 1 ... On board 26: Mp'_26 = N/n (Mp_26 + 1) - 1 And the total score for the session is sum(Mp_i'). However, the total score is also: Mp'_1 + Mp'_2 + ... Mp'_26 = N/n (Mp_1 + 1) - 1 + N/n (Mp_2+1) - 1 ... N/n (Mp_26+1) - 1 = N/n ( sum(Mp_i) + 26) - 26 This isn't that much harder to calculate than N/m sum(Mp_i) for factoring. 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 Aug 13 05:14:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CJDsi05381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 05:13:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7CJDmK05377 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 05:13:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (5.84-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.84.5]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7CJDYo22912 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:13:34 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D5808DF.8000908@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:13:35 +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] one board too many 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 Peter, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > Because of late play at their proper table, an EW pair got > lost and played one board at the wrong table. Neither pair > had played the board before so the result stands as per > 15A1. EW then played their two boards at the right table. > There was no problem as this pair was scheduled to play the > board they had played at the wrong table in a later round. > > But: What if they would never have met that board (16 rounds > in a 18 table Mitchell)? They would have had 33 results > instead of 32, and this is beyond the ability of the > available scoring programs. > Should the TD stop them from playing one board in a later > round with 60% for NS and no result for EW (seems like a > stretch of 82B)? > ("Get another computer team" is not a helpful answer :)). No, but it is the correct one. After all, your computer should be able to change the pair numbers on the board - and it should be able to deal with different numbers of played boards. Then why should it not be able to handle one pair that has 33 results when most others only have 32? There must be some pair with only 31 results too - not ? So I really don't see the problem as any other than a computer problem. > > 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/ > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium currently at the World University Bridge Championships in Brugge http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html Brugge homepage : http://www.ruca.ua.ac.be/dua/brugge02/Brugge2002.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 13 05:33:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CJXFS05397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 05:33:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from col-msxproto2.col.missouri.edu (col-msxproto2.col.missouri.edu [128.206.3.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7CJXAK05393 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 05:33:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.223] ([128.206.98.223]) by col-msxproto2.col.missouri.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:32:58 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002301c23f76$e958d8c0$ea16e150@dodona> References: <6736400.1028830906727.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:54:37 -0500 To: "Grattan Endicott" , BLML From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Aug 2002 19:32:58.0272 (UTC) FILETIME=[103AD200:01C24237] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >> >+=+ Oh, come on dalb, what's so unusual, about this? >It is common to players, administrators, lawmakers, >appeals committees, contributors to blml ....... we >rely for balance on the others who are endowed >with massive common sense - if we can pick out who >is which.... +=+ > Obviously, Kojak and a few others who almost never enter the fray. They have enough sense to stay out (most of the time.) REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 13 07:08:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CL7ka05447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 07:07:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7CL7dK05439 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 07:07:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.0.188] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17eMPJ-0009kC-00; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 22:07:22 +0100 Message-ID: <002101c24244$c00ecd00$bc00e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jay Apfelbaum" , "blml" References: <003701c241b7$30eaa5a0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 22:06:17 +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: Monday, August 12, 2002 5:17 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem > Roger Pewick wrote: > > > > Yesterday a friend told me an interesting story. She had just > > played a tournament, not that it matters but it was an ACBL > > sectional. The event was a two session play through by four > > sections. After the first session it was discovered that > > three sections played hands different from the fourth section. > > Apparently the fourth section was given hands to duplicate > > that were slated for the second session. > > Anyone have experience in such things. Nah, I'm not going > > to tell just yet what did happen. Anyway, how would you >> deal with this mess. > > I would think that your reasons might be interesting. > > > > Regards > > Addendum: If the event is being scored across the field, I > change the conditions of contest to score each section > separately. > +=+ I have seen only three replies to Roger's question. All different, with perhaps four 'solutions'. No doubt there are ACBL regulations for ACBL directors to follow? It is a directing problem ..... I merely note that Rui Marques is considered to be one of the world's most competent directors, and is a member of Kojak's team for Montreal. ~ 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 Aug 13 07:08:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CL7kA05446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 07:07:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7CL7cK05438 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 07:07:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.0.188] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17eMPH-0009kC-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 22:07:19 +0100 Message-ID: <002001c24244$beae52a0$bc00e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <002301c241be$f4d5f710$6400a8c0@WINXP> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 22:02:47 +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 Submissions" Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:13 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > From: > ..... > > Sven replied: > > > > >I do not think much of an instruction like that, but if the > > >Director issues it I assume it is for a reason, and the > > >player(s) addressed are most certainly supposed to obey. > > >However they are free to complain afterwards if they feel > > >that way. > > > > I agree with Tim and disagree with Sven. One has an > > *obligation* to disobey an illegal order from a TD. ("I was > > only following orders" was ruled an invalid excuse at the > > Nuremburg Trials.) > > So your opinion is that any player who THINKS that the TD > has given an illegal order is obliged to disobey that order if he > so prefers. And if it afterwards would appear that the order > given was indeed justified and correct ????? > > (And believe me, I have yet as TD to issue an order that > might be in conflict with human rights etc. ) > +=+ It's Australian Rules - the players make up their own as they go along, and then disobey them at will. It is far more exciting than playing according to laws that give the players no powers to determine the laws for themselves and make the Director the sole interpreter of the laws in the tournament. I'll make a note to suggest this change for the next code, which will be introduced. when we stop laughing. ( It will mean dispensing with that word 'any' in 90B8.) ~ 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 Aug 13 07:14:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CLDt705470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 07:13:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta204-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta204-rme.xtra.co.nz [210.86.15.147]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7CLDoK05466 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 07:13:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz ([210.86.15.142]) by mta204-rme.xtra.co.nz with ESMTP id <20020812211334.YYQY24231.mta204-rme.xtra.co.nz@mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz>; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:13:34 +1200 Received: from laptop ([210.55.179.245]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20020812211332.SGNM2382.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop>; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:13:32 +1200 Message-ID: <00cc01c24244$e7b67920$d30858db@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Sven Pran" , "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <00ea01c241ee$0c3c1040$6400a8c0@WINXP> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:12:00 +1200 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > However, one particular point should be observed: If the frequency of > psyches in a particular partnership exceeds a (very low) limit so that their > psyches become more or less predictable then these calls no longer qualify > as psyches, they become part of partnership experience and hence part of > their (implicit) agreements. This is merely opinion it is not written in the laws. There is nothing in the laws that suggest that partnership experience is distinct from a psyche. Nor is there anything in the laws that suggest that 'partnership experience' is synonomous with 'implicit agreements'. > > Any Director is free to warn the affected player(s) when he feels that such > a limit is about to be exceeded that the next "psyche" will be treated as an > agreed upon convention, and if that makes the system HUM then that > partnership will find themselves in trouble. I believe that any director so doing would be doing a poor job. When a player picks up a new hand that player and that player alone has the right to judge what call to make, including any misleading call. > > > > > > and the player(s) addressed are most certainly supposed to obey. However > > > they are free to complain afterwards if they feel that way. > > > > I would have thought the players should continue to apply their judgement > > within the laws - knowing they will have to face an appeals committee > > should a perfect psyche opportunity arise. > > If a player disagrees with the Director he shall obey, and then appeal for > adjustment under law 82C if he considers himself damaged. > The mind boggles, I can imagine a sympathetic hearing from a committee when i say that after being told at board 3 that i was not allowed to pysche that i was damaged on board 23 because i refrained from psyching - NOT. Of course i would fail to mention brds 15 and 19 where had i psched i would have gone for 1100 or 1400. > Disobedience with Director's instructions is no option in any kind of > competition, not in Bridge, not in Soccer, not in ........ > Director's making stupid instructions is no option. Saying you may not psyche is equivalent to 20minutes into the world cup telling David Beckham that he may not shoot for goal; or that Tiger Woods may not use his putter. I don't think those players would continue to play under those rulings and neither would i have any respect for a ruling that disallowed me using a legitimate tatic. > Sven Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 13 07:34:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CLYPw05483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 07:34:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7CLYJK05479 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 07:34:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-0624.bb.online.no [80.212.210.112]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA02300 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:33:56 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001901c24247$f213cb90$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <00ea01c241ee$0c3c1040$6400a8c0@WINXP> <003b01c24242$1981b1c0$d30858db@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:33:48 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Wayne Burrows" ....... > > However, one particular point should be observed: If the frequency of > > psyches in a particular partnership exceeds a (very low) limit so that > their > > psyches become more or less predictable then these calls no longer qualify > > as psyches, they become part of partnership experience and hence part of > > their (implicit) agreements. > > This is merely opinion it is not written in the laws. > > There is nothing in the laws that suggest that partnership experience is > distinct from a psyche. Nor is there anything in the laws that suggest that > 'partnership experience' is synonomous with 'implicit agreements'. A psyche is defined in the laws as "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length". Law 75B says: "A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). ......." The understanding of law 75B is that once such habitual violations are established they no longer qualify as psyches, simply because partner can no longer claim that he is unaware of the possibility that there is such a violation. And the threshold for this to happen is rather low, once partner becomes alert that such violations are not unlikely the partnership has had it. And a final remark: These comments are not my inventions, they are reproduced from official commentaries on the Bridge Laws. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 13 07:50:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CLnp605506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 07:49:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7CLnkK05502 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 07:49:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7CLnYv24714 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:49:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <008201c2424a$04b9e520$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:41:45 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > > No, one can score the game with the regular top, then apply Neuberg on the > session: Suppose a pair scores Mp_i matchpoints on each of the 26 boards. > These scores are now Neuberg'ed, or: > > On board 1: Mp'_1 = N/n (Mp_1 + 1) - 1 > On board 2: Mp'_2 = N/n (Mp_2 + 1) - 1 > ... > On board 26: Mp'_26 = N/n (Mp_26 + 1) - 1 > > And the total score for the session is sum(Mp_i'). However, the total > score is also: > > Mp'_1 + Mp'_2 + ... Mp'_26 > > = N/n (Mp_1 + 1) - 1 + N/n (Mp_2+1) - 1 ... N/n (Mp_26+1) - 1 > > = N/n ( sum(Mp_i) + 26) - 26 > > This isn't that much harder to calculate than N/m sum(Mp_i) for factoring. If you know how. Neuberg is a mystery to most TDs in this part of the world. Ascherman, anyone? 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 Aug 13 08:26:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CMQ2o05538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 08:26:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from orngca-mls02.socal.rr.com (orngca-mls02.socal.rr.com [66.75.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7CMPvK05534 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 08:25:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from irv (cpe-66-74-18-75.dc.rr.com [66.74.18.75]) by orngca-mls02.socal.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.3) with SMTP id g7CMPiK09964 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:25:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <012e01c2424f$9ea8afe0$6501a8c0@irv> From: "Irv Kostal" To: "BLML" References: <200208121442.KAA00075@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:28:44 -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 I have emailed a question to the ACBL, and am awaiting their reply, but wanted to point out that Rulings@ACBL.org doesn't work, the message being bounced back to me by the Mail Delivery Subsystem, reason 550: host unknown Irv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 7:42 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > > From: "Nancy T Dressing" > > If you have that director check out the Tech files in the tournament mode of > > ACBL score, he will find a write up by Bobby Wolf about opening 1NT with a > > singleton which says that some hands require such a bid. > > There was also an article in the ACBL Bulletin saying much the same > thing. I think it was six months or so ago, but estimates of time are > notoriously unreliable. > > The aggrieved party might try emailing 'rulings@acbl.org'. I bet they > have "canned" reply to this question. Of course what would be even > better is a copy of _all_ the regulations and a set of FAQ's on the web > site, but there seems little chance of that. > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 13 08:26:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CMQqu05550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 08:26:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7CMQlK05546 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 08:26:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz ([210.86.15.141]) by mta201-rme.xtra.co.nz with ESMTP id <20020812222631.BRVF13183.mta201-rme.xtra.co.nz@mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz> for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:26:31 +1200 Received: from laptop ([210.55.47.107]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20020812222628.PGMG9788.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:26:28 +1200 Message-ID: <000401c2424f$1998f760$6b2f37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <00ea01c241ee$0c3c1040$6400a8c0@WINXP> <003b01c24242$1981b1c0$d30858db@laptop> <001901c24247$f213cb90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:17:27 +1200 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 9:33 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > From: "Wayne Burrows" > ....... > > > However, one particular point should be observed: If the frequency of > > > psyches in a particular partnership exceeds a (very low) limit so that > > their > > > psyches become more or less predictable then these calls no longer > qualify > > > as psyches, they become part of partnership experience and hence part of > > > their (implicit) agreements. > > > > This is merely opinion it is not written in the laws. > > > > There is nothing in the laws that suggest that partnership experience is > > distinct from a psyche. Nor is there anything in the laws that suggest > that > > 'partnership experience' is synonomous with 'implicit agreements'. > > A psyche is defined in the laws as "A deliberate and gross misstatement of > honour strength or suit length". > > Law 75B says: "A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so > long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations > within a > partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). > ......." > > The understanding of law 75B is that once such habitual violations are > established they no longer qualify as psyches, simply because partner can > no longer claim that he is unaware of the possibility that there is such a > violation. That interpretation takes no cognizance of the words 'may' and 'the' in L75B. It maybe someones interpretation but it is not what is written. The word 'may' necessarily means that there is the alternative that maybe it won't. The word 'the' means that partner needs to be aware of this specific violation not merely of the possibility of a violation. > And the threshold for this to happen is rather low, once partner becomes > alert > that such violations are not unlikely the partnership has had it. Has had what? I can easily imagine and have written in the past of common situations where 'implicit agreements' will never develop inspite of habitual violations. > > And a final remark: These comments are not my inventions, they are > reproduced > from official commentaries on the Bridge Laws. And are those interpretations are immune from error? Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 13 09:23:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CNNAq05592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:23:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7CNN6K05588 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:23:06 +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 JAA25924 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:38:39 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:17:56 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:22:38 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 13/08/2002 09:17:30 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >+=+ It's Australian Rules - the players make up their own >as they go along, and then disobey them at will. >It is far more exciting than playing according to laws that >give the players no powers to determine the laws for >themselves and make the Director the sole interpreter >of the laws in the tournament. I'll make a note to suggest >this change for the next code, which will be introduced. >when we stop laughing. > ( It will mean dispensing with that word 'any' in 90B8.) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ A paradox, a paradox, a most ingenious paradox! A TD issues an illegal instruction to a player which violates the player's rights under L40A. If the player obeys the instruction, the player is complicit in the violation of L40A. If the player disobeys the instruction, the player is now violating L90B8. Since either action by the player is illegal, the only solution for the player is to immediately leave for an urgent appointment in Omsk. 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 Aug 13 09:57:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7CNunQ05614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:56:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailm3.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailm3.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7CNuhK05610 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:56:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem4294967277.events.dialup.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.19] helo=dajilljnhr2v0j) by cmailm3.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17eP2y-0004DE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 00:56:30 +0100 Message-ID: <001f01c24267$0db69750$13025cc3@dajilljnhr2v0j> From: "Dave A" To: References: <200208121107.MAA00578@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] New specifications for card faces???? Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 02:15:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I must disagree with Robin om two counts. 1) The colours. What was wrong with red and black? How many players at Brighton said, "The EBU should send these back, the clubs have printed very well." 2)The symbols. Clubs are fine. we want a reverseabe symbol, we invent a four leaved club (leafed?) Diamonds are fine. But hey, who can get them wrong. if we are convinced that we need new cards to stop people cheating then invent a new central symbol in each suit not these ugly and confusing splits. Oh, by the wat Robin - midweek at Brighton - back to the old cards! but do not worry. i played in the "Play with the Experts" tonight. Every time there was a void the hand record showed the 6. Perhaps its a new symbol. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: ; Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 12:07 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] New specifications for card faces???? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 13 13:28:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7D3R3Y05756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:27:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.southeast.rr.com (smtp2.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7D3QvK05752 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:26:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail6.nc.rr.com (fe6 [24.93.67.53]) by smtp2.southeast.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g7D3RXts028197; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:27:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hare ([66.26.18.82]) by mail6.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:26:39 -0400 Message-ID: <000a01c24279$39565370$6401a8c0@hare> From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: "Willy Teigen" , References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@pop.starpower.net> <005c01c21cdc$67d91ce0$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> <004a01c21cf0$414cdbc0$763f23d5@cornelis> <3QMz09FVCaG9Ewb$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006401c21d29$89c30800$643f23d5@cornelis> <002101c21db2$6338db90$6f3f23d5@cornelis> <+xwu9rCGrvG9Ewp7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000e01c21dd8$93ffee00$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:26:33 -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 Try law 74C1, Law 40, and ACBL requires that each partnerships has matching convention cards on the table and that both players must play the same conventions hence your 1NT bid that is different depending on which partner bids is illegal! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Willy Teigen" To: Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 8:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical > > >From: "David Stevenson" > > According to you any number of things might happen. :) > > > > But if a player plays 1NT by South is 12-14, and by North is 15-17, > > find me a Law forbidding it. > > > Exactly! And then you can also play that after 1NT one player transfers > at the 2-level while the other signs off in 2D 2H and 2S, so the stronger > player will always be declarer... > > > Mvh, > Willy Teigen > PRESENS AS > Tlf: +47 769 67315 > Mob: +47 915 58578 > E-mail: willy@presens.nl.no > www: www.presens.nl.no > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 13 13:48:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7D3lL305776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:47:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7D3lGK05772 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:47:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-39-75-133.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.39.75.133] helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 17eQAV-0004iF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 02:08:20 +0100 Message-ID: <002a01c24265$a53a80c0$854b27d9@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <120802224.4246@webbox.com> <004501c24224$ae0ae280$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 02:06:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > Going by what the General Convention Chart says, the ACBL regards a > 4-4-4-1 notrump bid as not natural, just as a non-forcing opening 1C/1D > bid that "may be short" is not natural. They may well do. The question remains: by what right do they regulate it? It is not a convention, because the man who opens 1NT on such a hand is willing to play there. There is nothing in the Laws which enables the ACBL (or anyone else) to regulate bids which they regard as non-, or un- natural. Just because a bid is not "the natural thing to do" does not make it a convention. It's understandable, I suppose, for there is bound to be a lot of muddled thinking in this area. At some level, we regard "natural" and "conventional" as opposites; we say that a call must be one or the other, so that a 2H response to 1NT shows hearts (natural) or spades (conventional). For this reason, we think that anything not natural must be conventional. It has been drummed into us since we were very small girls or boys (or, in these enlightened times, both) that an opening bid of 1NT shows a balanced hand. To open 1NT on an unbalanced hand is therefore "unnatural", and since in the sense above "unnatural" is synonymous with "conventional", we think that Law 40D gives us the power to stop people doing it. The problem arises because the word "natural" is doing double duty. In its wider, English, sense, it means "the normal thing to do"; narrowing this down to a bridge context, it means "the most descriptive thing to do in the absence of some possibly more descriptive, but codified, possibilities". In a much narrower sense, it has come to mean "that which is not conventional", where "conventional" has a specific definition. The resulting shambles is actually unplayable, because the ACBL (and the EBU) have decided that they can specify the types of hand on which 1NT may be opened by recourse to the wider definition (opening no trumps on unbalanced hands is "abnormal", which equates to "unnatural", which "equates to" - though it does not - "conventional", which implies "subject to regulation"). This is seriously wrong thinking, though as I have said, one can see where the fallacy occurs, just as one learns to spot division by zero in all those proofs that 2 = 1. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 13 16:14:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7D6DlD05864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:13:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7D6DfK05860 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:13:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-1983.bb.online.no [80.212.215.191]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA27970 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 08:13:22 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000b01c24290$82330220$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <008201c2424a$04b9e520$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 08:13:14 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Marvin L. French" ...... > > These scores are now Neuberg'ed, or: > > > > On board 1: Mp'_1 = N/n (Mp_1 + 1) - 1 > > On board 2: Mp'_2 = N/n (Mp_2 + 1) - 1 > > ... > > On board 26: Mp'_26 = N/n (Mp_26 + 1) - 1 > > > > And the total score for the session is sum(Mp_i'). However, the total > > score is also: > > > > Mp'_1 + Mp'_2 + ... Mp'_26 > > > > = N/n (Mp_1 + 1) - 1 + N/n (Mp_2+1) - 1 ... N/n (Mp_26+1) - 1 > > > > = N/n ( sum(Mp_i) + 26) - 26 > > > > This isn't that much harder to calculate than N/m sum(Mp_i) for > factoring. > > If you know how. Neuberg is a mystery to most TDs in this part of the > world. > > Ascherman, anyone? Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I "discovered" that when you calculate all scores as plus and minus relative to average rather than as absolute scores from zero to top then Neuberg and Ascherman becomes identical! Just to simplify life for the TD (and for computer programmers) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 13 16:24:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7D6OSd05877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:24:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7D6ONK05873 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:24:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA13948 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:39:57 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:19:12 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] New specifications for card faces???? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:23:54 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 13/08/2002 04:18:46 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dave wrote: [snip] >if we are convinced that we need new cards to stop people cheating then >invent a new central symbol in each suit not these ugly and confusing >splits. [snip] As I stated in an earlier thread, my objection to the new card faces is the increased revokes their confusing splits cause. And, as an anti-cheating mechanism, the split-symbol cards are purely a stopgap. Those who wish to cheat can always invent a more subtle code. Are increased revokes a worthwhile investment, merely to make life slightly more difficult for people determined to cheat one way or another? Surely a more appropriate action to take, is to identify and expel 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/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 13 19:23:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7D9MtM05967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:22:55 +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 g7D9MnK05963 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:22:49 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7D9MZx16973 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:22:35 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:22 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play 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: <002001c24244$beae52a0$bc00e150@dodona> Grattan wrote: > +=+ It's Australian Rules - the players make up their own > as they go along, and then disobey them at will. > It is far more exciting than playing according to laws that > give the players no powers to determine the laws for > themselves and make the Director the sole interpreter > of the laws in the tournament. That should solve all the UI/LA problems for players. We can call the director and ask what the LAs are before choosing a call. Bridge is unusual amongst games in that the players *are* expected to be interpreters of law. > I'll make a note to suggest this change for the next code, which will be > introduced. when we stop laughing. > ( It will mean dispensing with that word 'any' in 90B8.) I wish people would stop assuming that TDs are infallible. Sometimes they do make mistakes. If a TD issues me with an instruction that conflicts with the tournament regulations I know that *whatever I do* I am open to a PP under Law90B8 - I can't obey both! I just hope that by obeying the one I know to be right I will be treated leniently when the AC reflects. Last September I played in a multiple teams event and the TD called the first round move "Players up one, boards down one". I, and couple of others failed to comply promptly and had the temerity to ask if that was the right movement. Don't worry we were told (it can still be sorted so OK). Next round "Players up one, boards down one" - again I objected and the TD told me to shut up. The movement didn't work (wow - really!), the afternoon was marred for the competitors. I believe the director, the players, and the game would all have been better served had I said more when it might have helped. I am damn sure that had DWS/Probst/DALB or any others a little more confident in movements (ie able to suggest the fix rather than just state the problem) been playing they would have done so. The TD later apologised to me for being abrupt and did not impose any PPs either for my lack of prompt compliance or for my knowingly playing the wrong boards in round 2 - how very lax of him. 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 Aug 13 23:48:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DDd9C06162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 23:39:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7DDd0K06158 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 23:39:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id PAA18723; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:36:19 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id PAA08687; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:38:35 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020813153138.00a76220@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:47:56 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) Cc: piret@dice.ucl.ac.be In-Reply-To: <004501c24224$ae0ae280$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <120802224.4246@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 10:07 12/08/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >Going by what the General Convention Chart says, the ACBL regards a >4-4-4-1 notrump bid as not natural, just as a non-forcing opening 1C/1D >bid that "may be short" is not natural. There is an implication that a >strong singleton counts as a weak doubleton, making 1NT "natural," which >is not illogical. Perhaps those who open 4-4-4-1 hands often enough that >partner allows for it (e.g., no transfer with a weak hand) should be >required to Announce "May be 4-4-4-1" just as they must Announce "May be >short" for 1C/1D openings. AG : this is right, and creates an interesting distinction : 1) partner will allow for a singleton : this means that the pair's decisions in frequent cases will be affected. The opponents have every right to know this ; 2) obscure areas of the system allow for a singleton : this means that the players know that partner may hold a singleton, but will not allow for it unless partner produces a piece of information that hints at a singleton (eg 1NT-3S(slam try)-3NT(no, sir)-4S-4NT). The question is : does this create a specific understanding ? As an example, I offer the distinction I use with several partners : 2NT : 20-21 HCP, frequent 5-card major, occasional 5422, 6m322, singleton honor. Partner has no means to avoid playing 4M in the 6-1. BTW, it is a good idea to play 4S rather than 3NT with those 2 typical hands, so what the heck ? K Q10xxxx AKx Qx AQxx xxx AJxxx Qx 2C-2D-2NT : 22-23(24) HCP, frequent 5-card major, frequent 5422, 5431, 4441. If partner transfers to a major, the 3NT rebid shows a low singleton, so that one is able play in 3NT with : x Q10xxxx AKx Qx AKQx xxx KQJxx xx This 2NT rebid is alertable, but I feel the 2NT opening isn't. The last time I opened 2NT with a singleton honor, it was only the jack. Partner went all the way to 6S, without looking for the (exsting) 54 fit in the minor. He was right, as the minor lacked KQJx. J AQxxxxx AKQ x Axxxx 10xxx AKxx Q The fact that partner didn't stop one moment to consider the possibility that I held a singleton spade is evidence that we don't allow for it. Thus how could we think of alerting it ? Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 14 00:11:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DE5Rt06183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 00:05:27 +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 g7DE5HK06179 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 00:05:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id QAA23823; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:02:33 +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 QAA00099; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:04:50 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020813161150.00a8de40@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:14:10 +0200 To: "David Burn" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) In-Reply-To: <002a01c24265$a53a80c0$854b27d9@pbncomputer> References: <120802224.4246@webbox.com> <004501c24224$ae0ae280$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:06 13/08/2002 +0100, David Burn wrote: >It's understandable, I suppose, for there is bound to be a lot of >muddled thinking in this area. At some level, we regard "natural" and >"conventional" as opposites; we say that a call must be one or the >other, so that a 2H response to 1NT shows hearts (natural) or spades >(conventional). For this reason, we think that anything not natural must >be conventional. It has been drummed into us since we were very small >girls or boys (or, in these enlightened times, both) AG : both ?? Do snails and earthworms play bridge ? (well, that would explain the rythm at which some sessions are played) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 14 00:45:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DEccu06201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 00:38:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from orngca-mls02.socal.rr.com (orngca-mls02.socal.rr.com [66.75.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7DEbvK06197 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 00:38:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from irv (cpe-66-74-18-75.dc.rr.com [66.74.18.75]) by orngca-mls02.socal.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.3) with SMTP id g7DEbDK29771 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 07:37:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <020c01c242d7$4c5c1460$6501a8c0@irv> From: "Irv Kostal" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] NT Openings Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 07:39:54 -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 Butch Campbell has responded to my post, and I thought I'd share the surprisingly chatty little attached file they sent me, as well as his email. An talk about paradoxes, notice that while the director hasn't the right, they're not going to do anything about it! My respect for the ACBL, it's rules, and for the game of Bridge, for that matter, is diminishing even as I write this letter. Irv Kostal I said, "Gentlemen: I tried sending this email to rulings@ACBL.org, but it was bounced back to me. I recently opened 1NT at my local club, with a 4441 hand including the singleton ace of clubs. About two rounds later the director came to my table, verified the fact that I had committed this act, and instructed me that "they didn't allow that at this club." I complained, and he told me to take it up with the ACBL, so here I am. I am NOT in the habit of doing this, and in fact this is the first time I can remember EVER doing it. I have no mechanism for showing a 4441 pattern in the unlikely event that I should do it again. In addition, I have no mechanism for showing a 5431 pattern, should I happen to ever open 1NT with that kind of pattern. Just what is the ACBL policy on this matter? Are clubs allowed to have a policy like this? Are the rules different for club games and higher rated events? If the directors are NOT allowed to have this kind of regulation, what can I do about it? Can you (and will you) withdraw his right to award masterpoints at his games? If not, why not? Thank You, Irwin Kostal J923774 Butch Campbell responded with, "Hi Irwin, The attached file contains information regarding natural no-trump bids. A club does not have the right to restrict natural bids. This type of offense by the club director/owner/manager does not constitute an offense serious enough to cancel the club's sanction. Regards, Butch Campbell Manager - Tournament Department" Attached to his email was the following document. "The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things: Of shoes --- and ships --- and sealing wax --- of singletons and kings." On many of the occasions that someone opens 1NT (or 2NT) with a singleton, someone else at the table becomes upset with the opener. Half of the time it's an opponent (who has ducked an ace and lost to a singleton king), and the other half it's opener's partner who has transferred into the suit in which opener has the singleton, causing the partnership to play in a 5--1 or 6--1 fit (going down) when the contract should have been some number of notrump. Bridge players have different understandings of what the rules are concerning opening notrump with a singleton. It is described, depending on who you ask, as illegal, immoral, unethical or fattening. The answer is almost always --- none of the above. The ACBL General Convention Chart states, "A notrump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons)." Also from the General Chart is this definition of natural opening suit bids and responses: "An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if for minors it shows three or more cards in that suit and for majors it shows four or more cards in that suit." Players who, by agreement, use opening bids that are not natural may use only the conventional methods permitted by the General Chart. If your notrump opening shows a balanced hand, you may occasionally pick up a hand with a singleton which you may want to treat as balanced. You may use your bridge judgment to open or overcall a notrump with a singleton, provided that: 1. It is a rare occurrence (no more than 1% of the time) and, 2. Partner expects you to have at least two cards in each suit and, 3. You and your partner have no agreements which enable you to discover that partner has a singleton. For example, using strong notrumps, a player may elect to open 1NT with *S*K 8 3 *H*A Q 7 2 *D*A 9 6 5 3 *C*K. He might judge that he did not want to open 1*D* and rebid such a weak suit, or raise spades on only three cards after partner's 1*S* response, or rebid 1NT. You may feel such judgment is incorrect but that was his decision. Similarly, a player playing five-card majors may opt to open *S*A K Q J *H*8 7 6 4 2 *D*K 8 *C*Q 9 with 1*S* rather than 1*H*. In today's bridge world , you should exhibit some tolerance and understanding of an opponent's judgment when he or she has opened or overcalled a notrump with a singleton. Especially, for hands where moving one card from a long suit to the singleton will produce a 4--4--3--2 distribution. The player has probably used what little bridge judgment an opponent of yours usually has (just kidding, folks) in deciding to open his hand 1NT (or 2NT). Chef Emeril Lagasse of the Food Network says, "Hey, we're really cooking here!," when something does not go as it should. A player might decide, "Hey, we're really playing bridge here! This hand is not unbalanced --- even with that singleton!" If, however, your opponent has opened 1NT with an outlandish distribution --- 6--5--1--1, 6--4--3--0 or some such --- or has agreements about one-of-a-suit opening bids or other openings which mean that they have to open all 4--4--4--1 hands with 1NT, you should report such to the director. The director should determine whether the pair's notrump opening is natural or conventional. There is one conventional 1NT opening permitted on the General Chart. It's a forcing 1NT opening which indicates a hand of 16 or more high-card points which may be balanced or unbalanced. An example is the Dynamic 1NT opening which is a cornerstone of the Romex system. Also, there are two types of conventional notrump overcalls permitted. The first is a two-suited takeout, i.e., the unusual notrump. If used by an unpassed hand at the one level or as non-jump overcall, it requires an Alert. The second is a three-suit takeout similar to a takeout double. This always requires an Alert. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 14 01:17:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DFCrK06240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 01:12:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7DFClK06236 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 01:12:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.40.30.34] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17edLS-0006Vl-00; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:12:31 +0100 Message-ID: <002701c242db$8151fbe0$221e2850@pacific> From: To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Departure for Montreal Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:08:54 +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; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 01:13:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.40.30.34] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17edLQ-0006Vl-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:12:28 +0100 Message-ID: <002501c242db$7fe9e060$221e2850@pacific> From: To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:47:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > > > I wish people would stop assuming that > TDs are infallible. Sometimes they do > make mistakes. If a TD issues me with > an instruction that conflicts with the > tournament regulations I know that > *whatever I do* I am open to a PP > under Law90B8 - I can't obey both! > I just hope that by obeying the one I > know to be right I will be treated leniently > when the AC reflects. > +=+ If the Director makes the mistake you are not liable for any penalty. You must be treated as non-offending. But if you fail to do as the Director tells you to do, you are liable to be penalized. If you think the Director is going astray you can raise a question, politely, but you are required to do as he instructs regardless of your personal opinion of what is correct. ~ 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 Aug 14 01:18:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DFD1o06245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 01:13:01 +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 g7DFCkK06234 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 01:12:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.40.30.34] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17edLP-0006Vl-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:12:27 +0100 Message-ID: <002401c242db$7f4207a0$221e2850@pacific> From: To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:39:11 +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: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > > That should solve all the UI/LA problems for > players. We can call the director and ask what > the LAs are before choosing a call. Bridge is > unusual amongst games in that the players *are* > expected to be interpreters of law. > +=+ No. Players are *told* the law; in the light of which they have to make the bridge judgements about LAs and such things. When their perception in this is questioned, and they maintain their view, the matter is not a Laws Committee item but one for the Appeals Committee. ~ 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 Aug 14 01:18:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DFBFO06229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 01:11:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7DFAuK06221 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 01:11:02 +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 LAA09450 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 11:10:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA06291 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 11:10:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 11:10:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208131510.LAA06291@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] NT Openings X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Irv Kostal" > I thought I'd share the > surprisingly chatty little attached file they sent me, If memory serves, the "chatty little attached file" was in fact the article from the ACBL Bulletin. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 14 01:23:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DFIs606289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 01:18:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7DFIYK06285 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 01:18:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id LAA09925 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 11:18:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA06316 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 11:18:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 11:18:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208131518.LAA06316@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > when > you calculate all scores as plus and minus relative to average rather than > as absolute scores from zero to top then Neuberg and Ascherman > becomes identical! I think factoring Ascherman is always the same as using Neuberg. (Actually, I'm pretty sure this is true, but after being corrected by Henk yesterday, I'm no longer certain of anything.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 14 02:25:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DGH3b06324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 02:17:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7DGGkK06320 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 02:16:55 +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 SAA08736; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:13:51 +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 SAA21899; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:16:08 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020813180923.00a8a8f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:25:29 +0200 To: "Irv Kostal" , "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] NT Openings In-Reply-To: <020c01c242d7$4c5c1460$6501a8c0@irv> 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 13/08/2002 -0700, Irv Kostal wrote: >On many of the occasions that someone opens 1NT (or 2NT) with a singleton, >someone else at the table becomes upset with the opener. Half of the time >it's an >opponent (who has ducked an ace and lost to a singleton king), and the other >half >it's opener's partner who has transferred into the suit in which opener has >the >singleton, causing the partnership to play in a 5--1 or 6--1 fit (going >down) when >the contract should have been some number of notrump. AG : I'm not sure there is a cause and effect relationship here. Whaddya want to play with those 2 hands ? Q J9xxx AKx xx KJxx xxxx Axxxx xx My statistics show that transferring into the unsure fit will not be bad if the singleton is a honor. For this reason, I like opening 1NT (or 2NT) with a singleton *honor*. My partners know it, but they will transfer to spades with the above hand. L75 tells us we have to disclose this possibility ; but it doesn't make in itself the 1NT opening anything else than a natural bid. >Bridge players have different understandings of what the rules are >concerning >opening notrump with a singleton. It is described, depending on who you ask, >as >illegal, immoral, unethical or fattening. AG : I wonder - could overindulgence in skewed 1NT openings be the reason why I've a number of stones to lose ? [just for the fun : try giving to an translation software the sentence : "he cleaned and jerked 15 stones". W>hatever the end language, the results are, er, interesting %-P ] >The answer is almost always --- >none of >the above. >The ACBL General Convention Chart states, "A notrump opening or overcall is >natural if not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one or >two >doubletons)." AG : what is the meaning of the word "generally" there ? Is it similar to "usually", which would solve the problem : you are allowed to skew your 1NT opening bid provided it is only occasionally ? On does it mean "in a sketchy manner", which would indded be too sketchy, because it doesn't take into account the position of honors. I would classify a 1NT opening on AKxx - xx - xx - AKQxx as not natural (since it is hardly where you intend to play). 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 Aug 14 03:17:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DHEHD06405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 03:14:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7DHE7K06401 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 03:14:12 +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 g7DHDcs21247 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:13:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007601c242ed$213810c0$6501a8c0@irv> From: "Irv Kostal" To: "BLML" References: <002601c241b8$f6dd95a0$6501a8c0@irv> <009b01c241c9$4ccc8920$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:16:11 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv: I of course agree with everything you say, except for the part about the ACBL not backing the club director - through inaction they do that very thing. I now have taken it up with the ACBL, have received a non-answer from Butch Campbell, and a non-answer from Carol Robertson, who is simply affirming Butch's non-answer. I'm trying to find out just how far a club director can go - ban weak NTs? Ban opening bids with less than 12 HIGH CARD points? Can they be totally illogical and ban forcing club openings, but allow Mrs. Guggenheim to play her short club? I'm not optimistic about getting substantive answers, but maybe I can piss someone off. We can hope, anyway :) Irv Kostal P.S. the email address mlfrench@writeme.com bounced back to me, which is why I'm sending this to BLML. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play > > From: "Irv Kostal" > > > > I recently, and for one of the very few times in my entire life, opened > 1NT > > with 4441, including the stiff ace of clubs. About two rounds later I > was > > approached by the director, who inquired if it was true, and then > informed > > me that they just didn't allow that at his club. When I complained, he > > suggested I take it up with the ACBL. I, of course, did not bother. > > Unfortunately, it's the only game in town, and so far as I know, the > ACBL > > will support this guy. I'm quite certain that if I psyched I'd hear > about it > > as well. Fortunately or not, I'm not so inclined. > > > You should have taken it up with the ACBL, who would not have backed his > opinion. When a TD says something incorrect in that fashion, oozing > authority, I say "For how much?" and pull out a $20 bill. That usually > shuts them up.. > > An occasional 1NT opening with a singleton high honor, provided there is > no partnership method for showing the 4-4-4-1 distribution, is perfectly > acceptable in ACBL-land (other than at a few clubs run by the ignorant). > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 14 03:20:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DHIDR06420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 03:18:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f200.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7DHHqK06416 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 03:17:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:17:20 -0700 Received: from 204.52.135.62 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:17:20 GMT X-Originating-IP: [204.52.135.62] From: "Roger Pewick" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:17:20 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Aug 2002 17:17:20.0909 (UTC) FILETIME=[486583D0:01C242ED] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Roger Pewick" >To: "blml" >Subject: [BLML] directing problem >Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 17:57:41 -0500 > >Yesterday a friend told me an interesting story. She had just played >a tournament, not that it matters but it was an ACBL sectional. The >event was a two session play through by four sections. After the >first session it was discovered that three sections played hands >different from the fourth section. Apparently the fourth section was >given hands to duplicate that were slated for the second session. >Anyone have experience in such things. Nah, I'm not going to tell >just yet what did happen. Anyway, how would you deal with this mess. >I would think that your reasons might be interesting. > >Regards I would like to thank everyone for their thoughts. Quite interesting. As for what happened- The first session was matchpointed without adjustments within each section [no across the field matchpointing or fouled board scoring]. There was full carry-over to the overall rankings. I have had a few days where I have contemplated the situation and have a little something I can add. First, those entering the event had the expectation and desire for the event to contain all the tables entered in it and the hands to be duplicated. The second is an observation. When identifiable groups have played common boards it is possible to compare scores for ranking. And when identifiable groups have played boards none of which are in common there can be no comparison of scores of one group to the other. In the second case the groups were really playing different events. But to treat both groups as a single event poses some difficulty. Had I been a participant, I for one would have believed that if I played the other group's boards my score would have been better, and thus my ranking. And if I had won there would have been others in the other group that would have felt they had been deprived of competing with the same hands I did and thus deprived of their chance for winning. So, after more consideration than by others, it does not seem right to me to combine the different groups. Undoubtedly not combining will displease and anger many. As would scoring as two events would displease and anger many. Yet it seems more right to treat the situation as two events because that is what they are. regards roger pewick _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 14 04:21:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DIHOa06465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 04:17:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7DIHJK06461 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 04:17:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7DHejv17689 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:40:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001201c242f0$6d464060$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <008201c2424a$04b9e520$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <000b01c24290$82330220$6400a8c0@WINXP> Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:39:38 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Sven Pran" > > Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I "discovered" that when > you calculate all scores as plus and minus relative to average rather than > as absolute scores from zero to top then Neuberg and Ascherman > becomes identical! > > Just to simplify life for the TD (and for computer programmers) > Ascherman matchpointing merely adds 1/2 ACBL matchpoint to everyone's matchpoint result on a board, very easy to program. Ascherman scores can be factored, giving the same result as Neuberg. Example: A fouled board is played five times in a 10-table game. Bottom gets 1/2, top 4-1/2. Normally boards get played 10 times, 1/2 for a bottom, 9-1/2 for a top. Factoring the fouled board matchpoint scores up by doubling them results in a 1 for the bottom, and 9 for the top, same as Neuberg. Our ACBL STAC (Sectional tournaments at clubs) games would be much fairer using Ascherman, with each club's results factored to some high norm. As it is now, there is no adjustment to percentage scores to account for different tops, giving pairs in the smaller games an unfair advantage. While Neuberging the percentage scores would provide the same rankings as Ascherman, players would not like to see a smaller percentage in the overall rankings than the one they saw at the club. With Ascherman all they would see is a higher score, explained to them as the result of factoring UP. They would buy that, I'm sure. Ascherman would benefit many other competitions. For instance, clubs have series in which many weeks of a weekly game are lumped together and averaged for ranking, ignoring the different tops on different nights. With Ascherman, scores from games smaller than the largest can be factored UP and the results totalled for final ranking. ACBL policy is to factor UP the scores for the first session of an event that allows more entrants for the second session. Above-average scores should be Neuberged DOWN, but players would not accept that. It is likely that they would accept the factoring UP of Ascherman scores. But let's face it: Getting SOs to adopt Ascherman matchpointing would be impossible, even though it would be easy to add that option to the ACBLScore program. It is interesting that the ACBL uses Neuberg when it is not very noticeable to players, which is for boards that are not played the standard number of times in a game for some reason (e.g., a fouled board). It should be used for *all* competitions involving different tops, because fairness is not a popularity contest. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California 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 Aug 14 04:30:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DITKo06481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 04:29:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7DITFK06477 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 04:29:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7DIT2v07968 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 11:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002c01c242f7$2c795660$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <120802224.4246@webbox.com> <004501c24224$ae0ae280$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <002a01c24265$a53a80c0$854b27d9@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 11:28:05 -0700 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:06 PM Subject: Re: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) > Marv wrote: > > > Going by what the General Convention Chart says, the ACBL regards a > > 4-4-4-1 notrump bid as not natural, just as a non-forcing opening > 1C/1D > > bid that "may be short" is not natural. > > They may well do. The question remains: by what right do they regulate > it? It is not a convention, because the man who opens 1NT on such a hand > is willing to play there. There is nothing in the Laws which enables the > ACBL (or anyone else) to regulate bids which they regard as non-, or un- > natural. Just because a bid is not "the natural thing to do" does not > make it a convention. > Very true. Note that the ACBL General Convention Chart provides a few definitions, not including the definition of "covnention"! Instead they define what is "natural," with the unstated implication that anything that is not natural is a convention. They couldn't *say* that, because it isn't true. Using this artful dodge, they have outlawed a canapé opening of a three-card heart suit, because it isn't "natural" by their definition of the word. Yet the Laws say such a bid does not constitute a convention, and therefore cannot be controlled. And, by the way, bidding the shorter of two suits first is just as logical as bidding the longer first, it's a treatment, not a convention. Now, the Laws' definition of convention reads as if there were no such thing as a notrump bid. It does say that opening the bidding with a suit that "may be short" by partnership agreement is a convention, even if opener is "willing to play" there (as indicated by its non-forcing nature). As I read it, anyway. If it is argued that such an opening is not a convention because of the willingness to play there, then okay, opening 1NT with 4-4-4-1 with a small singleton is not a convention either. But if the argument is that opening a non-forcing 1D with one or two diamonds is certainly a convention, with partner doing what he can to find another strain, then perhaps the 4-4-4-1 small-singleton notrump opening should be a convention too. As with the short-diamond opening, opener's "willingness to play" there is pretty weak. 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 Aug 14 04:53:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DIqlD06501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 04:52:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.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 g7DIqfK06497 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 04:52:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from pp-xp [10.90.16.33] by mail.eduhi.at (SMTPD32-7.10) id A4974AD0222; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:48:55 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster OSB To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:52:25 +0200 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" X-Mailer: Opera 6.04 build 1135 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk 13.08.2002 19:17:20, "Roger Pewick" wrote: > > >The second is an observation. When identifiable groups have played common >boards it is possible to compare scores for ranking. And when identifiable >groups have played boards none of which are in common there can be no >comparison of scores of one group to the other. In the second case the >groups were really playing different events. > >But to treat both groups as a single event poses some difficulty. Had I >been a participant, I for one would have believed that if I played the other >group's boards my score would have been better, and thus my ranking. And if >I had won there would have been others in the other group that would have >felt they had been deprived of competing with the same hands I did and thus >deprived of their chance for winning. > >So, after more consideration than by others, it does not seem right to me to >combine the different groups. Undoubtedly not combining will displease and >anger many. As would scoring as two events would displease and anger many. >Yet it seems more right to treat the situation as two events because that is >what they are. You are right, of course: The 4th section was playing a different tournament in the first session. But OTOH, that is what you always get when you score a two- session event across the field. Suppose you play NS in both sessions, and some pair who was NS in the first but EW in the second finishes in front of you (however unlikely that may be). Should you not have that same feeling, that holding the EW cards in the second session would have enabled you to win? And it's the same with movements where you don't play all the boards, and boards where you have to accept an ArtAS, and so on. Regards, Petrus -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 14 04:55:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DIt0j06520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 04:55:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7DIsnK06516 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 04:54:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-2964.bb.online.no [80.212.219.148]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA08800 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:54:29 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002c01c242fa$da17b840$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <008201c2424a$04b9e520$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <000b01c24290$82330220$6400a8c0@WINXP> <001201c242f0$6d464060$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:54:24 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thanks for your comments. It may be of interest that for several decades (almost?) all major pair tournaments in Norway have been scored with plus and minus relative to average rather than with absolute points. And beginning with the national championships in 2000 (I believe) Neuberg (or Ascherman - no need to be specific) factoring has been used with all events in preparation for possible adjusted scores etc. It was a bit confusing initially to see scores with decimals, but that no longer causes any comments. regards Sven From: "Marvin L. French" > From: "Sven Pran" > > > > Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I "discovered" that when > > you calculate all scores as plus and minus relative to average rather > than > > as absolute scores from zero to top then Neuberg and Ascherman > > becomes identical! > > > > Just to simplify life for the TD (and for computer programmers) > > > Ascherman matchpointing merely adds 1/2 ACBL matchpoint to everyone's > matchpoint result on a board, very easy to program. Ascherman scores can > be factored, giving the same result as Neuberg. > > Example: > > A fouled board is played five times in a 10-table game. Bottom gets 1/2, > top 4-1/2. Normally boards get played 10 times, 1/2 for a bottom, 9-1/2 > for a top. Factoring the fouled board matchpoint scores up by doubling > them results in a 1 for the bottom, and 9 for the top, same as Neuberg. > > Our ACBL STAC (Sectional tournaments at clubs) games would be much fairer > using Ascherman, with each club's results factored to some high norm. As > it is now, there is no adjustment to percentage scores to account for > different tops, giving pairs in the smaller games an unfair advantage. > While Neuberging the percentage scores would provide the same rankings as > Ascherman, players would not like to see a smaller percentage in the > overall rankings than the one they saw at the club. With Ascherman all > they would see is a higher score, explained to them as the result of > factoring UP. They would buy that, I'm sure. > > Ascherman would benefit many other competitions. For instance, clubs have > series in which many weeks of a weekly game are lumped together and > averaged for ranking, ignoring the different tops on different nights. > With Ascherman, scores from games smaller than the largest can be factored > UP and the results totalled for final ranking. > > ACBL policy is to factor UP the scores for the first session of an event > that allows more entrants for the second session. Above-average scores > should be Neuberged DOWN, but players would not accept that. It is likely > that they would accept the factoring UP of Ascherman scores. > > But let's face it: Getting SOs to adopt Ascherman matchpointing would be > impossible, even though it would be easy to add that option to the > ACBLScore program. > > It is interesting that the ACBL uses Neuberg when it is not very > noticeable to players, which is for boards that are not played the > standard number of times in a game for some reason (e.g., a fouled board). > It should be used for *all* competitions involving different tops, because > fairness is not a popularity contest. > > 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 Aug 14 05:15:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DJEFx06544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 05:14:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f193.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.193]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7DJEBK06540 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 05:14:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:13:52 -0700 Received: from 204.52.135.62 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:13:52 GMT X-Originating-IP: [204.52.135.62] From: "Roger Pewick" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:13:52 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Aug 2002 19:13:52.0896 (UTC) FILETIME=[8FF21000:01C242FD] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Petrus Schuster OSB >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem >Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:52:25 +0200 > >13.08.2002 19:17:20, "Roger Pewick" >wrote: > > > > > > > >The second is an observation. When identifiable groups >have played common > >boards it is possible to compare scores for ranking. And >when identifiable > >groups have played boards none of which are in common there >can be no > >comparison of scores of one group to the other. In the >second case the > >groups were really playing different events. > > > >But to treat both groups as a single event poses some >difficulty. Had I > >been a participant, I for one would have believed that if I >played the other > >group's boards my score would have been better, and thus my >ranking. And if > >I had won there would have been others in the other group >that would have > >felt they had been deprived of competing with the same >hands I did and thus > >deprived of their chance for winning. > > > >So, after more consideration than by others, it does not >seem right to me to > >combine the different groups. Undoubtedly not combining >will displease and > >anger many. As would scoring as two events would displease >and anger many. > >Yet it seems more right to treat the situation as two >events because that is > >what they are. >You are right, of course: The 4th section was playing a >different tournament in the first session. >But OTOH, that is what you always get when you score a two- >session event across the field. >Suppose you play NS in both sessions, and some pair who was >NS in the first but EW in the second finishes in front of >you (however unlikely that may be). >Should you not have that same feeling, that holding the EW >cards in the second session would have enabled you to win? >And it's the same with movements where you don't play all >the boards, and boards where you have to accept an ArtAS, >and so on. An interesting thought. But I think of it as the difference between a 52 card deck and a 104 card deck. I bargained for the 52 card deck when I entered; and in addition I bargained to not have a 104 card deck at the same time. >Regards, >Petrus _________________________________________________________________ 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 Aug 14 05:42:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DJeDx06564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 05:40:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta204-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta204-rme.xtra.co.nz [210.86.15.147]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7DJe8K06560 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 05:40:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz ([210.86.15.142]) by mta204-rme.xtra.co.nz with ESMTP id <20020813193950.ROTS18022.mta204-rme.xtra.co.nz@mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz> for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 07:39:50 +1200 Received: from laptop ([210.55.46.236]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20020813193949.IMIL25014.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 07:39:49 +1200 Message-ID: <006c01c24300$f8dba380$ec2e37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <002501c242db$7fe9e060$221e2850@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 07:38:13 +1200 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Grattan Endicott > > +=+ If the Director makes the mistake you > are not liable for any penalty. You must be > treated as non-offending. But if you fail to > do as the Director tells you to do, you are > liable to be penalized. If you think the > Director is going astray you can raise a > question, politely, but you are required to > do as he instructs regardless of your personal > opinion of what is correct. I will: Move to table 2; Remain seated; Try and play more quickly; Stop play; Start play; Return for session two at 1:35pm and the like on the instruction of the director (well at least I should). I will not Play the Ace of Spades (not a penalty card); Bid 1NT (on a given hand); Not bid 1s (on a given hand) and the like. As soon as the director thinks that he has the power to make those instructions we are no longer playing bridge and therefore the Laws of bridge do not apply. The latter includes an instruction not to psyche which is equivalent to "You may not bid 1s on xxx xxxx xxx xxx" etc. 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 Aug 14 06:17:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DKFse06596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 06:15:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from www.fastmail.fm (fastmail.fm [209.61.183.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7DKFiK06592 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 06:15:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from www.fastmail.fm (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2D5F6DA60 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:15:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: from server3.fastmail.fm (server3.internal [10.202.2.134]) by www.fastmail.fm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 808876DA7B for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:15:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: by server3.fastmail.fm (Postfix, from userid 99) id A15BC2FD3C; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:15:23 -0500 (CDT) Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 1.2 (F2.6; T1.001; A1.47; B2.12; Q2.03) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:15:23 UT From: "David Kent" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" X-Epoch: 1029269724 X-Sasl-enc: PdbcY1gsSNQCLbe51KzMAA Subject: Re: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) Message-Id: <20020813201523.A15BC2FD3C@server3.fastmail.fm> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 11:28:05 -0700, "Marvin L. French" said: > > If it is argued that such an opening is not a convention because of the > willingness to play there, then okay, opening 1NT with 4-4-4-1 with a > small singleton is not a convention either. But if the argument is that > opening a non-forcing 1D with one or two diamonds is certainly a > convention, with partner doing what he can to find another strain, then > perhaps the 4-4-4-1 small-singleton notrump opening should be a convention > too. As with the short-diamond opening, opener's "willingness to play" > there is pretty weak. > So you hold x Ax Qxxx AKQxxx and the bidding goes 3S-P-P to you. It is certainly not unreasonable to bid 3NT, is it? (Marshall Miles, among others, would consider it mandatory.) Is this a convention? If not, why would opening 1NT be so? -- Dave Kent -- http://fastmail.fm - Come on home -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 14 06:48:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DKljI06617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 06:47:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta203-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta203-rme.xtra.co.nz [210.86.15.146]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7DKlfK06613 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 06:47:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz ([210.86.15.142]) by mta203-rme.xtra.co.nz with ESMTP id <20020813204723.TILA749.mta203-rme.xtra.co.nz@mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz> for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:47:23 +1200 Received: from laptop ([210.55.46.236]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20020813204722.KZVD9788.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:47:22 +1200 Message-ID: <00eb01c2430a$688250e0$ec2e37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <20020813201523.A15BC2FD3C@server3.fastmail.fm> Subject: Re: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:45:48 +1200 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kent" > So you hold x Ax Qxxx AKQxxx and the bidding goes 3S-P-P to you. It is > certainly not unreasonable to bid 3NT, is it? (Marshall Miles, among > others, would consider it mandatory.) Is this a convention? If not, > why would opening 1NT be so? Where you are willing to play is dependent on what your partner has shown. 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 Aug 14 07:10:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DLA2N06635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 07:10:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7DL9vK06631 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 07:09:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.54.69] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17eiv9-000Otc-00; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 22:09:44 +0100 Message-ID: <001201c2430e$3cd6abe0$4536e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Cc: "grandeval" Subject: [BLML] Absent. Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 22:12:08 +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; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 07:17:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from simba.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@simba.irvine.com [192.160.8.19]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA28251; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:17:35 -0700 Message-Id: <200208132117.OAA28251@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:15:23 GMT." <20020813201523.A15BC2FD3C@server3.fastmail.fm> Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:20:22 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Kent wrote: > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 11:28:05 -0700, "Marvin L. French" > said: > > > > > > > If it is argued that such an opening is not a convention because of the > > willingness to play there, then okay, opening 1NT with 4-4-4-1 with a > > small singleton is not a convention either. But if the argument is that > > opening a non-forcing 1D with one or two diamonds is certainly a > > convention, with partner doing what he can to find another strain, then > > perhaps the 4-4-4-1 small-singleton notrump opening should be a convention > > too. As with the short-diamond opening, opener's "willingness to play" > > there is pretty weak. > > > > So you hold x Ax Qxxx AKQxxx and the bidding goes 3S-P-P to you. It is > certainly not unreasonable to bid 3NT, is it? (Marshall Miles, among > others, would consider it mandatory.) Is this a convention? If not, > why would opening 1NT be so? To me, there's a big difference between the 3NT and the 1NT in your two examples. 3NT is a bid that basically means "we're playing here"; it doesn't really convey any information except that the bidder thinks 3NT is going to make and is the best practical shot (partner may have a reason to pull, but that will not happen all that often). On the other hand, a 1NT opening is not primarily intended to set or even suggest a final contract (although it is often passed), but rather to give partner a picture of your hand so that he can cooperate with you to find the best contract. If you had an agreement that 1NT said nothing more than "I think I can make 1NT", it probably wouldn't be a convention. But then you wouldn't be able to open 1NT on something like Axx KJxx Ax QJxx, since you couldn't really argue that you think you're going to make 1NT in your hand. Or, if you want to argue that you think you *can* make it opposite the kind of hand partner is likely to hold, then that's true of just about any opening hand, and your 1NT then conveys information by virtue of the failure to make some other opening. If that isn't good enough for you---sorry, that's the best I can do. The fact is, "convention" is extremely difficult to define with any precision (I've tried), unless you want to settle for a simplistic definition that turns bids that everyone thinks are natural into conventions and/or bids that everyone thinks are conventions into natural bids. Barring that, the definition is going to have to remain somewhat subjective, IMHO. Someday, though, my partner is going to open with a 3-level preempt, and Marshall is going to be my LHO, and I'm just going to pass with KJx in support and see if he bids 3NT anyway, off the first seven tricks. -- 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 Aug 14 07:44:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DLiRd06686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 07:44:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7DLiMK06682 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 07:44:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7DLi9v19669 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:44:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006a01c24312$6e3f26e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:42:18 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Roger Pewick" >So, after more consideration than by others, it does not seem right to me to combine the different groups. Undoubtedly not combining will displease and anger many. As would scoring as two events would displease and anger many. Yet it seems more right to treat the situation as two events because that is what they are.> Well, Roger, you are correct. However, remember that it is standard ACBL practice to rank contestants overall in a two-winner event that should have separate rankings. This is true even in the Blue Ribbon and LM Pair finals. How so? Haven't they all played the same boards? Yes, but the two fields, curiously kept intact for both sessions, have played different *hands* against different opponents, and have compared only with pairs within their field. That's two events, not one, and there should be separate rankings, with two winners. Oddly, this is recognized during the qualification sessions for these games. When you look at the standings at the end of the day, you see two separate rankings, as you should, with no overall ranking. Some pairs from one field may qualify for the finals with a lower score than pairs in the other field, and that's as it should be when qualifiers are taken from two different games. Then they drop the ball and allow carryover scores from these two different games to be included in the finals, in which the two qualifying fields are mixed and play another two separate games. As John Probst has suggested to me, carryovers could be based on the qualifying ranking, with pairs getting two matchpoints for every pair qualifying beneath them in their field. With a 26-table final, 25 top, that would mean a reasonable spread of about two boards. These qualifying sessions are as fair as is practicable (competitors do not meet the same set of opponents), and the only perfectly fair matchpoint pair game that I know of is a non-championship club game with a completed single session straight Mitchell, with separate East-West and North-South ranking. Its two winners have played the same hands against the same opponents and have compared with all pairs in their field on every board. No one-winner game can say the same. 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 Aug 14 07:50:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DLniM06698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 07:49:44 +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 g7DLndK06694 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 07:49:40 +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 OAA28440; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:49:22 -0700 Message-Id: <200208132149.OAA28440@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "bridge-laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Absent. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 13 Aug 2002 22:12:08 BST." <001201c2430e$3cd6abe0$4536e150@dodona> Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:52:10 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > +=+ I leave here tonight. Return 4th. > During my absence the cyaxares and grandeval addresses > will continue to accumulate wisdom. I assume this means BLML posts will get bounced? :) :) -- 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 Aug 14 07:52:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DLq3f06710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 07:52:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7DLpxK06706 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 07:51:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz ([210.86.15.143]) by mta201-rme.xtra.co.nz with ESMTP id <20020813215141.VSMG7001.mta201-rme.xtra.co.nz@mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz> for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 09:51:41 +1200 Received: from laptop ([210.55.46.236]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20020813215135.MOVC9788.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 09:51:35 +1200 Message-ID: <014201c24313$61274b80$ec2e37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <200208132117.OAA28251@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 09:50:01 +1200 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 9:20 AM Subject: Re: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) > > David Kent wrote: > > > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 11:28:05 -0700, "Marvin L. French" > > said: > > > > > > > > > > > > If it is argued that such an opening is not a convention because of the > > > willingness to play there, then okay, opening 1NT with 4-4-4-1 with a > > > small singleton is not a convention either. But if the argument is that > > > opening a non-forcing 1D with one or two diamonds is certainly a > > > convention, with partner doing what he can to find another strain, then > > > perhaps the 4-4-4-1 small-singleton notrump opening should be a convention > > > too. As with the short-diamond opening, opener's "willingness to play" > > > there is pretty weak. > > > > > > > So you hold x Ax Qxxx AKQxxx and the bidding goes 3S-P-P to you. It is > > certainly not unreasonable to bid 3NT, is it? (Marshall Miles, among > > others, would consider it mandatory.) Is this a convention? If not, > > why would opening 1NT be so? > > To me, there's a big difference between the 3NT and the 1NT in your > two examples. 3NT is a bid that basically means "we're playing here"; > it doesn't really convey any information except that the bidder thinks > 3NT is going to make and is the best practical shot (partner may have > a reason to pull, but that will not happen all that often). On the > other hand, a 1NT opening is not primarily intended to set or even > suggest a final contract (although it is often passed), but rather to > give partner a picture of your hand so that he can cooperate with you > to find the best contract. > > If you had an agreement that 1NT said nothing more than "I think I can > make 1NT", it probably wouldn't be a convention. But then you > wouldn't be able to open 1NT on something like Axx KJxx Ax QJxx, since > you couldn't really argue that you think you're going to make 1NT in > your hand. Or, if you want to argue that you think you *can* make it > opposite the kind of hand partner is likely to hold, then that's true > of just about any opening hand, and your 1NT then conveys information > by virtue of the failure to make some other opening. > > If that isn't good enough for you---sorry, that's the best I can do. > The fact is, "convention" is extremely difficult to define with any > precision (I've tried), unless you want to settle for a simplistic > definition that turns bids that everyone thinks are natural into > conventions and/or bids that everyone thinks are conventions into > natural bids. Barring that, the definition is going to have to remain > somewhat subjective, IMHO. > > Someday, though, my partner is going to open with a 3-level preempt, > and Marshall is going to be my LHO, and I'm just going to pass with > KJx in support and see if he bids 3NT anyway, off the first seven > tricks. > > -- Adam "...going to make..." and "...willing to play..." are quite different concepts IMO. 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 Aug 14 08:14:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DMEhB06746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:14:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7DMEYK06737 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:14:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7DMELv03147 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:14:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <009201c24316$a62e7840$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <002601c241b8$f6dd95a0$6501a8c0@irv> <009b01c241c9$4ccc8920$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <007601c242ed$213810c0$6501a8c0@irv> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:02:30 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Irv Kostal" > Marv: I of course agree with everything you say, except for the part about > the ACBL not backing the club director - through inaction they do that very > thing. I now have taken it up with the ACBL, have received a non-answer > from Butch Campbell, and a non-answer from Carol Robertson, who is simply > affirming Butch's non-answer. I'm trying to find out just how far a club > director can go - ban weak NTs? Ban opening bids with less than 12 HIGH CARD > points? Can they be totally illogical and ban forcing club openings, but > allow Mrs. Guggenheim to play her short club? I'm not optimistic about > getting substantive answers, but maybe I can piss someone off. We can hope, > anyway :) > More violations of the Laws, of course. Years ago I sent an e-mail to Gary Blaiss in regard to a local club that was banning psychs in its afternoon game. The basic question was broader than that matter, as it was whether a club can give masterpoints if it doesn't follow the Laws, all the Laws. I wish I had Gary's reply so I could quote it, but he wrote unquivocably that clubs had to adhere to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Many ACBL regulations, but by no means all, are optional with clubs, but the Laws are not optional. I haven't seen anything that would change that position, if you ignore some STUPIDBRIDGE rules that are afoot for novices. Forget those other people, who are knowledgeable but do not speak officially for the ACBL. The positions of Brad Holtsberry, now ACBL CTD, and Gary Blaiss, former ACBL TD, are now mixed a bit, with Gary retaining some of his former tasks. One of those is tasks is acting as secretary to the C&C/BoD groups, making him in effect the spokesman for both, and the person responsible for implementation of what comes out of them. (Speaking through Brad I suppose, it's not clear to me.) They are "the" authority for the governance of clubs, and I would accept opinions (that's all they are) from no one else. 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 Aug 14 08:14:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DMEik06747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:14:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7DMEZK06739 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:14:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7DMELv03153 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:14:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <009301c24316$a657ab20$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <20020813201523.A15BC2FD3C@server3.fastmail.fm> Subject: Re: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:11:05 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Kent" > "Marvin L. French" said: > > > > > > > > If it is argued that such an opening is not a convention because of the > > willingness to play there, then okay, opening 1NT with 4-4-4-1 with a > > small singleton is not a convention either. But if the argument is that > > opening a non-forcing 1D with one or two diamonds is certainly a > > convention, with partner doing what he can to find another strain, then > > perhaps the 4-4-4-1 small-singleton notrump opening should be a convention > > too. As with the short-diamond opening, opener's "willingness to play" > > there is pretty weak. > > > > So you hold x Ax Qxxx AKQxxx and the bidding goes 3S-P-P to you. It is > certainly not unreasonable to bid 3NT, is it? (Marshall Miles, among > others, would consider it mandatory.) Is this a convention? If not, > why would opening 1NT be so? > In a matchpoint game, this is a notrump-oriented hand, not true of a small-doubleton 4-4-4-1 hand. The "willingness to play" notrump is several orders of magnitude greater, and it could be argued (I'm neutral on this, not a partisan) that the difference makes this not a convention. I would also open 3NT with the hand you give, but would not even think of opening 1NT with a small-doubleton 4-4-4-1 hand. 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 Aug 14 08:19:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DMIra06765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:18:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7DMImK06761 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:18:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-28.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.28] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #6) id 17ejzl-00044f-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:18:33 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020813180329.00af4850@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:21:32 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play In-Reply-To: <007601c242ed$213810c0$6501a8c0@irv> References: <002601c241b8$f6dd95a0$6501a8c0@irv> <009b01c241c9$4ccc8920$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:16 PM 8/13/02, Irv wrote: >Marv: I of course agree with everything you say, except for the part >about >the ACBL not backing the club director - through inaction they do that >very >thing. I now have taken it up with the ACBL, have received a non-answer >from Butch Campbell, and a non-answer from Carol Robertson, who is simply >affirming Butch's non-answer. I'm trying to find out just how far a club >director can go - ban weak NTs? Ban opening bids with less than 12 >HIGH CARD >points? Can they be totally illogical and ban forcing club openings, but >allow Mrs. Guggenheim to play her short club? I'm not optimistic about >getting substantive answers, but maybe I can piss someone off. We can >hope, >anyway :) It is the longstanding operative policy of the ACBL to let club owners and managers reign supreme in their own clubs; in practice they can do just about anything they want to, regardless of TFLB, the ACBL's own regulations, even the law of the land. This may not be at all a bad thing. In 40 years in and around the ACBL, I have seen numerous instances of clubs being subjected to or threatened with punitive action, but not a single instance in which action was taken for anything other than failure to meet its financial obligations to the ACBL (the most common offense seems to be bouncing checks), certainly not for anything related to the actual game of bridge. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 14 08:25:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DMPF506780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:25:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7DMPAK06776 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:25:11 +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 IAA24376 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:40:43 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:19:59 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] New specifications for card faces???? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:24:42 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 14/08/2002 08:19:32 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>Dave wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>>if we are convinced that we need new cards to stop people cheating then >>>invent a new central symbol in each suit not these ugly and confusing >>>splits. >> >>[snip] >> >>As I stated in an earlier thread, my objection to the new card >>faces is the increased revokes their confusing splits cause. > >AG : would you be so kind as to explain why it is more probable to revoke >when 7s and 9s have a split cetnral symbol than when they have a normal one? In the 2001 Bermuda Bowl, a player led the ace of spades. Because of the split central symbol, the other three players thought it was the ace of clubs, and all three revoked by playing clubs. 25 years ago, Jeff Rubens noted that there was a paradox in the Laws when there were multiple revokes on the same trick. Therefore, because of this incident in the Bermuda Bowl, the WBF LC had to provide a special interpretation of the revoke laws, and it decided to cut the Gordian knot by arbitrarily stating that multiple revokes on the same trick should be resolved by 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 Wed Aug 14 08:28:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DMSQS06792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:28:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7DMSLK06788 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:28:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7DMS7v12404 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:28:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <009d01c24318$9297e760$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <008201c2424a$04b9e520$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <000b01c24290$82330220$6400a8c0@WINXP> <001201c242f0$6d464060$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:24:15 -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 Marv wrote: > Example: > > A fouled board is played five times in a 10-table game. Bottom gets 1/2, > top 4-1/2. Normally boards get played 10 times, 1/2 for a bottom, 9-1/2 > for a top. Factoring the fouled board matchpoint scores up by doubling > them results in a 1 for the bottom, and 9 for the top, same as Neuberg. > I think I should have written "the same effect as Neuberg." In an ACBL game, the tops would have been 4 and 9, with the 4 matchpoints Neuberged to 8-1/2 and the zero to 1/2. Not quite the same as Ascherman, is it? But the effect looks about the same to me. Don't compare percentages, they're apples and oranges. 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 Aug 14 08:32:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DMWGQ06804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:32:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7DMWBK06800 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:32:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7DMVvv14700; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:31:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00a901c24319$1bedae00$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Cc: References: <200208132117.OAA28251@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:30:59 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Adam Beneschan" > >> The fact is, "convention" is extremely difficult to define with any > precision (I've tried), unless you want to settle for a simplistic > definition that turns bids that everyone thinks are natural into > conventions and/or bids that everyone thinks are conventions into > natural bids. Barring that, the definition is going to have to remain > somewhat subjective, IMHO. > I've tried too, with no success. I know a convention when I see one, but I can't define the word. 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 Aug 14 08:50:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DMoRt06853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:50:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5-0.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 g7DMoLK06846 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:50:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g7DMo1W23380 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:50:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:46:00 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <000a01c24279$39565370$6401a8c0@hare> 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 8/12/02, Nancy T Dressing wrote: >Try law 74C1, Law 40, and ACBL requires that each partnerships has >matching convention cards on the table and that both players must play >the same conventions hence your 1NT bid that is different depending >on which partner bids is illegal! I may be mistaken, but I don't remember an ACBL regulation requiring that both players must play the same conventions. Aside from that, the range of a natural NT bid is not a convention. If the cards both say "Joe opens 1NT on 12-14 and Bill opens 1NT on 15-17" then the partnership has matching cards. So I don't think this one flies. :-) 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 Aug 14 08:51:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DMpCU06865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:51:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7DMp7K06861 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:51:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA28410 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 09:06:40 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:45:54 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Carryover (was directing problem) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:50:34 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 14/08/2002 08:45:28 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: [snip] >Then they drop the ball and allow carryover scores from >these two different games to be included in the finals, >in which the two qualifying fields are mixed and play >another two separate games. > >As John Probst has suggested to me, carryovers could be >based on the qualifying ranking, with pairs getting two >matchpoints for every pair qualifying beneath them in >their field. With a 26-table final, 25 top, that would >mean a reasonable spread of about two boards. [snip] The most prestigious Australian championship pairs event is the week-long Butler Pairs. The semi-final is a 14-table Mitchell movement, containing separate North-South and East-West fields, with the top seven pairs in each direction qualifying for the final. In years past, the carryover was unsatisfactory for the reason mentioned by Marv. The top qualifiers in each field gained maximum carryover, *but* the carryover for other qualifiers was based on how close they were to the top qualifier in their field. If the EW field had a runaway leader, the other EW qualifiers started the final at a significant disadvantage, despite the EW qualifiers scoring similar amounts of vps compared to the NS qualifiers during the semi-final. This year, a more sensible carryforward (a la John Probst) was used. Each field had comparable carryforwards: 1st 8vps; 2nd 6vps; 3rd 4vps; 4th 3vps; 5th 2vps; 6th 1vp 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 Aug 14 09:33:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DNWs906894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 09:32:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7DNWoK06890 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 09:32:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA06478 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 09:48:22 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 09:27:35 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 09:18:50 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 14/08/2002 09:27:10 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >>The fact is, "convention" is extremely difficult to define with any >>precision (I've tried), unless you want to settle for a simplistic >>definition that turns bids that everyone thinks are natural into >>conventions and/or bids that everyone thinks are conventions into >>natural bids. Barring that, the definition is going to have to remain >>somewhat subjective, IMHO. Marv continued: >I've tried too, with no success. I know a convention when I see one, >but I can't define the word. Adam's and Marv's suggestion that the definition of "convention" is subjective is moot, since Chapter 1 of the Laws provides a definition. Unless, of course, they are suggesting that the definition of "convention" should be removed from the 2005 edition of the Laws. (There is a significant possibility that this may happen in 2005. The powers-that-be are considering extending the authority of SOs to allow regulation of partnership *agreements*, not merely regulation of partnership conventions.) 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 Aug 14 10:00:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7DNxrw06915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 09:59:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from new-smtp2.ihug.com.au (mail@new-smtp2.ihug.com.au [203.109.250.28]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7DNxnK06911 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 09:59:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from p441-tnt1.mel.ihug.com.au (default) [203.173.161.187] by new-smtp2.ihug.com.au with smtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 17elZX-0002Zc-00; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 09:59:36 +1000 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20020814095600.00d817b0@pop.ihug.com.au> X-Sender: lskelso@pop.ihug.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 09:56:00 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Laurie Kelso Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: References: <000a01c24279$39565370$6401a8c0@hare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 18:46 13/08/02 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 8/12/02, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > >>Try law 74C1, Law 40, and ACBL requires that each partnerships has >>matching convention cards on the table and that both players must play >>the same conventions hence your 1NT bid that is different depending >>on which partner bids is illegal! > >I may be mistaken, but I don't remember an ACBL regulation requiring >that both players must play the same conventions. Aside from that, the >range of a natural NT bid is not a convention. If the cards both say >"Joe opens 1NT on 12-14 and Bill opens 1NT on 15-17" then the >partnership has matching cards. So I don't think this one flies. :-) Law 40E1 gives the sponsoring organisation the right to prescribe that both members of the partnership employ the same system. This is much more wide-ranging than their powers in regard to the regulation of conventions. The actual ACBL board of Directors election says: "Both members of a partnership must employ the same system that appears on the convention card." Laurie (In Australia) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 14 10:07:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7E07f206931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 10:07:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7E07aK06927 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 10:07:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from simba.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@simba.irvine.com [192.160.8.19]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA29411; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:07:17 -0700 Message-Id: <200208140007.RAA29411@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: [BLML] Re: 1NT openings with a singleton In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 14 Aug 2002 09:18:50 +1000." Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:10:06 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >>The fact is, "convention" is extremely difficult to define with any > >>precision (I've tried), unless you want to settle for a simplistic > >>definition that turns bids that everyone thinks are natural into > >>conventions and/or bids that everyone thinks are conventions into > >>natural bids. Barring that, the definition is going to have to remain > >>somewhat subjective, IMHO. > > Marv continued: > > >I've tried too, with no success. I know a convention when I see one, > >but I can't define the word. > > Adam's and Marv's suggestion that the definition of "convention" is > subjective is moot, since Chapter 1 of the Laws provides a definition. I believe that definition is too vague to be objective. For one thing, if taken literally, it would seem to make all our normal 1NT openings conventions, since they convey a meaning ("the hand is balanced") that isn't listed in the definition of "convention". I don't think this is what they intended. > Unless, of course, they are suggesting that the definition of > "convention" should be removed from the 2005 edition of the Laws. No, I wasn't. I don't think Marv was either. > (There is a significant possibility that this may happen in 2005. > The powers-that-be are considering extending the authority of SOs to > allow regulation of partnership *agreements*, not merely regulation of > partnership conventions.) Even if SO's are granted this authority, there needs to be some definition of "convention" in the Laws in order to apply 27B2, 29C, 30B1, 30C, and 31A. -- 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 Aug 14 11:14:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7E1EC106976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 11:14:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.49]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7E1E6K06972 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 11:14:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from pavilion ([12.91.170.115]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020814011346.MSNG8052.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@pavilion> for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 01:13:46 +0000 From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: RE: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 21:13:59 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <009301c24316$a657ab20$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: Marvin L. French > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 6:11 PM > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] > Late Play) > > In a matchpoint game, this is a notrump-oriented hand, not true of a > small-doubleton 4-4-4-1 hand. > ... > also open 3NT with the hand you give, but would not even > think of opening > 1NT with a small-doubleton 4-4-4-1 hand. What is a small-doubleton 4-4-4-1 hand? -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 Wed Aug 14 11:22:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7E1MGr06994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 11:22:16 +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 g7E1MBK06990 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 11:22:11 +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 LAA29097 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 11:37:44 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 11:16:57 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: 1NT openings with a singleton To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 11:10:47 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 14/08/2002 11:16:31 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: >>Adam's and Marv's suggestion that the definition of "convention" is >>subjective is moot, since Chapter 1 of the Laws provides a definition. Adam Beneschan replied: >I believe that definition is too vague to be objective. For one >thing, if taken literally, it would seem to make all our normal 1NT >openings conventions, since they convey a meaning ("the hand is >balanced") that isn't listed in the definition of "convention". I >don't think this is what they intended. The concept of "subjective or vague" is entirely different from the concept of "taken literally results in unintended consequences". *Therefore*, until the definition of "convention" is changed, the ACBL is exceeding its powers in prohibiting a 1H opening bid on a three-card heart suit. 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 Aug 14 12:19:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7E2JCQ07031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:19:12 +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 g7E2J7K07027 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:19:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA12566 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:34:39 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:13:50 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:06:26 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 14/08/2002 12:13:24 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: [snip] >>Aside from that, the range of a natural NT bid is not a >>convention. If the cards both say "Joe opens 1NT on 12-14 >>and Bill opens 1NT on 15-17" then the partnership has >>matching cards. So I don't think this one flies. :-) Laurie Kelso replied: >Law 40E1 gives the sponsoring organisation the right to >prescribe that both members of the partnership employ the >same system. This is much more wide-ranging than their >powers in regard to the regulation of conventions. > >The actual ACBL board of Directors election says: "Both >members of a partnership must employ the same system that >appears on the convention card." L40E1 specifically prohibits SOs from regulating the differing style and judgement of members of a partnership. Bill might judge that a weak NT is doubled for penalties too often, so judge that in his style 15-17 is required. Joe might judge that a weak NT improves results in subsequent auctions, so judge that in his style 12-14 is required. And both partners have agreed to play the same VNTNOWWSOES System. (Variable No Trump, North or West Weak, South or East Strong) :-) 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 Aug 14 13:51:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7E3o5F07116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 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 g7E3o0K07112 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 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 OAA02239 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 14:05:32 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 13:44:45 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 13:36:24 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 14/08/2002 01:44:19 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 "Late Play", Grattan wrote: [snip] >If you think the Director is going astray you can >raise a question, politely, but you are required to >do as he instructs regardless of your personal >opinion of what is correct. > ~ G ~ +=+ Opponent: Director! On the last board, Richard interfered with my enjoyment of the game by making a 3S preempt, thereby violating Law 74A2. Director: Richard, my ruling under Law 74A2 is that you are required to Pass for the rest of the session. Richard: (Politely.) Is your ruling correct? Director: Sorry, Richard, but the field has to have their enjoyment protected from your egregious, wild or gambling bidding. Richard: (Even more politely.) As Grattan Endicott has so cogently reasoned, I must do as you instruct. Can I appeal your decision? Director: Sure you can, but any appeal will be a waste of your valuable time, since an Appeals Committee cannot overrule a Director on a point of law. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 14 15:47:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7E5kV507183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:46:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7E5kLK07170 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:46:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7E5k7v28221 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 22:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00ea01c24355$c26b7aa0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 22:38:53 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: > > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >>The fact is, "convention" is extremely difficult to define with any > >>precision (I've tried), unless you want to settle for a simplistic > >>definition that turns bids that everyone thinks are natural into > >>conventions and/or bids that everyone thinks are conventions into > >>natural bids. Barring that, the definition is going to have to remain > >>somewhat subjective, IMHO. > > Marv continued: > > >I've tried too, with no success. I know a convention when I see one, > >but I can't define the word. > > Adam's and Marv's suggestion that the definition of "convention" is > subjective is moot, since Chapter 1 of the Laws provides a definition. > But one for which interpretations differ, making it "somewhat subjective." Adam and I are just looking for a clearly stated definition that could replace the current one. I had one once, which I wrote it in the margin of a book I was reading. Now I can't find it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 14 15:47:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7E5kXs07185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:46:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7E5kOK07179 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:46:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7E5k6v28218 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 22:46:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00e901c24355$c249e8e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 22:21:25 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Ed Reppert wrote: > > [snip] > > >>Aside from that, the range of a natural NT bid is not a > >>convention. If the cards both say "Joe opens 1NT on 12-14 > >>and Bill opens 1NT on 15-17" then the partnership has > >>matching cards. So I don't think this one flies. :-) > > Laurie Kelso replied: > > >Law 40E1 gives the sponsoring organisation the right to > >prescribe that both members of the partnership employ the > >same system. This is much more wide-ranging than their > >powers in regard to the regulation of conventions. > > > >The actual ACBL board of Directors election says: "Both > >members of a partnership must employ the same system that > >appears on the convention card." > > L40E1 specifically prohibits SOs from regulating the > differing style and judgement of members of a partnership. > > Bill might judge that a weak NT is doubled for penalties > too often, so judge that in his style 15-17 is required. > > Joe might judge that a weak NT improves results in > subsequent auctions, so judge that in his style 12-14 is > required. > > And both partners have agreed to play the same VNTNOWWSOES > System. (Variable No Trump, North or West Weak, South or > East Strong) :-) > Even Eric will agree this is going too far with "style and judgment," I predict. You have to put a single notrump range on the CC, which can vary only with seat position or vulnerability, that's it. Different ranges mean different systems, so partners must adhere to the single range stated. However, a little conservatism or aggressiveness *within the range shown* by either partner is a matter of style and judgment. 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 Aug 14 15:47:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7E5kVx07184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:46:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7E5kMK07172 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:46:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7E5k7v28228 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 22:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00eb01c24355$c27c4380$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 22:44:01 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > > > In a matchpoint game, this is a notrump-oriented hand, not true of a > > small-doubleton 4-4-4-1 hand. > > ... > > also open 3NT with the hand you give, but would not even > > think of opening > > 1NT with a small-doubleton 4-4-4-1 hand. > > What is a small-doubleton 4-4-4-1 hand? > Okay Todd, you got me. And it wasn't an opening bid, but a reopening 3NT overcall that was the subject. Please pardon the carelessness, everyone. 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 Aug 14 15:59:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7E5xPC07219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:59:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7E5xKK07215 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:59:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7E5x6v02759 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 22:59:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00ec01c24357$93453fc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: 1NT openings with a singleton Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 22:58:09 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > I wrote: > > >>Adam's and Marv's suggestion that the definition of "convention" is > >>subjective is moot, since Chapter 1 of the Laws provides a definition. > > Adam Beneschan replied: > > >I believe that definition is too vague to be objective. For one > >thing, if taken literally, it would seem to make all our normal 1NT > >openings conventions, since they convey a meaning ("the hand is > >balanced") that isn't listed in the definition of "convention". I > >don't think this is what they intended. > > The concept of "subjective or vague" is entirely different from the > concept of "taken literally results in unintended consequences". The several interpreters of the definition claim they are taking it literally, with different results. > > *Therefore*, until the definition of "convention" is changed, the > ACBL is exceeding its powers in prohibiting a 1H opening bid on a > three-card heart suit. > Was anyone arguing otherwise? Not me, and I think almost everyone would agree with that. The words "three cards or more" is not subject to interpretation. The ACBLLC should clamp down on such illegalities dreamed up by the BoD. 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 Aug 14 16:17:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7E6H5Y07240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:17:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7E6H0K07236 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:17:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7E6Gkv09425 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 23:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <010001c2435a$090d9d40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 23:15:21 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" < > On 8/12/02, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > > >Try law 74C1, Law 40, and ACBL requires that each partnerships has > >matching convention cards on the table and that both players must play > >the same conventions hence your 1NT bid that is different depending > >on which partner bids is illegal! > > I may be mistaken, but I don't remember an ACBL regulation requiring > that both players must play the same conventions. Aside from that, the > range of a natural NT bid is not a convention. If the cards both say > "Joe opens 1NT on 12-14 and Bill opens 1NT on 15-17" then the > partnership has matching cards. So I don't think this one flies. :-) > It's a matter of law, Ed, not regulation. ACBL Election to L40E: Both members of a partnership must employ the same system that shows on the convention card. And 40E itself says that an SO can restrict methods shown on the CC (but not style and judgment variations within the bounds of those methods). Do you really think that for every non-convention on the CC members of a pair can have different ranges (WJO/SJO, weak/sound preempts, 4/5 card majors, weak/strong two bids, etc.) and yet be playing the same system? If so, I doubt that anyone would agree with you. 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 Aug 14 16:49:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7E6n0B07261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:49:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7E6mtK07257 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:48:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA09627 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 17:04:28 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:43:40 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C3 headache To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:14:55 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 14/08/2002 04:43:15 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Two experienced pairs, one German and one Hungarian, played >this board: >teams; W / none > A63 > AT762 W N E S > T84 1NT P 3S AP > 43 >K72 QJ9854 >94 J >AK962 J5 >JT2 A875 > T > KQ853 > Q73 > KQ92 > >Result: -140 > >1NT and 3S were both alerted. (Under Austrian regulations, >1NT has to be alerted when the range is not 15-17). >EW had their CC on the table. On the inside - which was >visible -, 1NT was explained as 14-16; on the outside as 14- >16 vul, 11-13 n/vul. S did not ask about the NT range (he >looked at the CC). 3S was explained as N/FCG. >After the hand S called me when he found out about the real >range and said he would have doubled 3S, and N would then >have bid 4H. > >4H goes down on a D lead or CA, D continuation. >4S goes down on a high C lead or unlucky declarer play. > >What percentages would you assume for the various contracts >in computing a 12C3 score? > >Regards, >Petrus I would rule under L12C3 the result of 3S, NS -140 = 100% South has not been damaged, as the precise range of the 1NT opening is irrelevant to the auction. The stronger West's 1NT is, the weaker East's 3S will be. And the weaker West's 1NT is, the stronger East's 3S will be. Of course, I would apply an appropriate PP to EW for the mismarked convention card, but NS's score would remain unadjusted. 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 Aug 14 18:57:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7E8uSP07306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 18:56:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7E8uNK07302 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 18:56:23 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7E8u7A15691 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 09:56:07 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 09:56 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) 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: <200208132117.OAA28251@mailhub.irvine.com> Adam wrote: > On the > other hand, a 1NT opening is not primarily intended to set or even > suggest a final contract (although it is often passed), but rather to > give partner a picture of your hand so that he can cooperate with you > to find the best contract. On this I must beg to differ. Playing a weak NT my 3rd/4th hand 1NT openings are very much intended to set the final contract - I don't expect partner (whose failure to open a weak 2 pretty much denies a good 5 card suit) to interfere. 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 Aug 14 20:18:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EAHrw07343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 20:17:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7EAHlK07339 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 20:17:48 +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 MAA11800; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:15:15 +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 MAA09645; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:17:31 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020814122235.00a76d30@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:26:54 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) In-Reply-To: <002c01c242f7$2c795660$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <120802224.4246@webbox.com> <004501c24224$ae0ae280$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <002a01c24265$a53a80c0$854b27d9@pbncomputer> 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 g7EAHnK07340 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:28 13/08/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >Using this artful dodge, they have outlawed a canapé opening of a >three-card heart suit, because it isn't "natural" by their definition of >the word. Yet the Laws say such a bid does not constitute a convention, >and therefore cannot be controlled. And, by the way, bidding the shorter >of two suits first is just as logical as bidding the longer first, it's a >treatment, not a convention. AG : IIRC, Le Dentu's argument was that, when faced with the problem of bidding two suits, it was logical to show the longest one at the highest level. >Now, the Laws' definition of convention reads as if there were no such >thing as a notrump bid. It does say that opening the bidding with a suit >that "may be short" by partnership agreement is a convention, even if >opener is "willing to play" there (as indicated by its non-forcing >nature). As I read it, anyway. AG : nonforcing doesn't mean one is willing to play there. A Landy 2C, a takeout double, a Transfer overcall are all nonforcing. >If it is argued that such an opening is not a convention because of the >willingness to play there, then okay, opening 1NT with 4-4-4-1 with a >small singleton is not a convention either. But if the argument is that >opening a non-forcing 1D with one or two diamonds is certainly a >convention, with partner doing what he can to find another strain, then >perhaps the 4-4-4-1 small-singleton notrump opening should be a convention >too. As with the short-diamond opening, opener's "willingness to play" >there is pretty weak. AG : hmm. It seems that, if the message is "I don't hold any long suit", 1NT is more natural (No-Trump, remember) than 1D. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 14 20:24:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EAOSG07357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 20:24:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7EAOMK07353 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 20:24:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id MAA12604; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:21:44 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id MAA14211; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:24:00 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020814122847.00a8ce50@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:33:23 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) Cc: piret@dice.ucl.ac.be, johnson@prm.ucl.ac.be In-Reply-To: <009301c24316$a657ab20$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <20020813201523.A15BC2FD3C@server3.fastmail.fm> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:11 13/08/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >In a matchpoint game, this is a notrump-oriented hand, not true of a >small-doubleton 4-4-4-1 hand. AG : a small-doubleton 4441 hand is a rare bird indeed. It is notoriously difficult to bid it. [Last night, Gilles and myself were at least caught without a defence to a convention, and the result was, er, strange. It took some time to realise that this convention was disallowed, which was a good reason for anybody not to devise a defense against it] >The "willingness to play" notrump is several >orders of magnitude greater, and it could be argued (I'm neutral on this, >not a partisan) that the difference makes this not a convention. I would >also open 3NT with the hand you give, but would not even think of opening >1NT with a small-doubleton 4-4-4-1 hand. AG : perseverare diabolicumst :-/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 14 20:30:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EAULr07369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 20:30:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (eurasianchemtech.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7EAUGK07365 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 20:30:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id MAA01946; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:27:43 +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 MAA18651; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:29:54 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020814123608.00a8a800@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:39:18 +0200 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: 1NT openings with a singleton (was RE: [BLML] Late Play) 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 09:56 14/08/2002 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <200208132117.OAA28251@mailhub.irvine.com> >Adam wrote: > > > On the > > other hand, a 1NT opening is not primarily intended to set or even > > suggest a final contract (although it is often passed), but rather to > > give partner a picture of your hand so that he can cooperate with you > > to find the best contract. > >On this I must beg to differ. Playing a weak NT my 3rd/4th hand 1NT >openings are very much intended to set the final contract - I don't expect >partner (whose failure to open a weak 2 pretty much denies a good 5 card >suit) to interfere. AG : you're right. One of the original arguments for a 1st seat weak NTopening was that, if partner holds 1/3 of the remaining strength, and a fairly balanced hand, a 12 HCP 1NT opening will often make 7 tricks, while a 17 HCP opening plus 1/3 of the remaining strength could make 3NT. Thus, in a sense, a 11-13 NT is more natural, in the litteral sense, than a 16-18 NT. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 14 20:46:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EAk0507386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 20:46:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7EAjtK07382 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 20:45:55 +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 MAA15983; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:43:22 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id MAA00378; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:45:39 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020814124125.00a8ac10@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:55:02 +0200 To: Ed Reppert , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: References: <000a01c24279$39565370$6401a8c0@hare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 18:46 13/08/2002 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 8/12/02, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > > >Try law 74C1, Law 40, and ACBL requires that each partnerships has > >matching convention cards on the table and that both players must play > >the same conventions hence your 1NT bid that is different depending > >on which partner bids is illegal! > >I may be mistaken, but I don't remember an ACBL regulation requiring >that both players must play the same conventions. Aside from that, the >range of a natural NT bid is not a convention. If the cards both say >"Joe opens 1NT on 12-14 and Bill opens 1NT on 15-17" then the >partnership has matching cards. So I don't think this one flies. :-) AG : it doesn't crash either. L40E1 tells us this might be regulated, and most Leagues do, quite rightly so. With Philippe, my usual partner in Juniors events, we played Benjy 2C, but his 2C-2D-2M sequences denied a side suit, mines didn't. We simply didn't agree, so we decided that each would do as pleases him. However, it was judged by authorities that this was not "the use of different systems", only a matter of judgment. After all, how many times does it happen that a well-fitted pair gives differing answers to a bidding problem ? What is regulated in most occurrences is that the meaning of the bid, and thus the explanation one would give, must be the same. Matters of style are not, and most regulations do mention this. When playing a 15-17 NT, I bet that the Pro would open 1NT on Kxx - xx - AQJxx - KJx, while the client would not. This doesn't constitute use of a different system, even if both players are aware of the other one's habits. 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 Aug 14 20:49:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EAnmA07398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 20:49:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7EAngK07394 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 20:49:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (200.246-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.246.200]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7EAnMb00734 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:49:23 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D5A35B6.8080408@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:49:26 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many References: <51ZXA7NMOKRNSN4Z5WUHEA985BB71Z.3d589f11@pp-xp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Petrus, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >>("Get another computer team" is not a helpful answer :)). >> >> >>No, but it is the correct one. >> >>After all, your computer should be able to change the pair >> > numbers on > >>the board - >> > no problem > > and it should be able to deal with different numbers of > >>played boards. >> > > not yet > > >> Then why should it not be able to handle one pair that >>has 33 results when most others only have 32? There must >> > be some pair > >>with only 31 results too - not ? >> > > In fact, but not in law. The pair who played only 31 boards > will get 60% on the board they could not play because their > opponents had already played it. > And as it is impossible to get a new computer program in > mid-event I still hope someone can think of a workaround > that is a legal as possible. > I understand what you mean. But then what you have is the following. Not all pairs play every board (or it cannot happen) so there are less "lines" on the scoresheet that there are tables. True? Now one pair that was not supposed to play the board, does anyway. All your computer needs to be able to do is create an extra "line" on the scorecard to incorporate this extra pair. And if the computer can't do that, there is nothing you can do but manual correction and looking for a better program. I would manually correct the score of the pair that gets one extra 60% over and above the boards that they have played. > Regards, > Petrus > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium currently at the World University Bridge Championships in Brugge http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html Brugge homepage : http://www.ruca.ua.ac.be/dua/brugge02/Brugge2002.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 14 21:31:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EBUDF07421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 21:30:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7EBU8K07417 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 21:30:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from pp-xp [10.90.16.33] by mail.eduhi.at (SMTPD32-7.10) id AE5C600288; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 13:26:20 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster OSB To: BLML Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 13:29:52 +0200 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C3 headache MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Opera 6.04 build 1135 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk 14.08.2002 08:14:55, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >>Two experienced pairs, one German and one Hungarian, played >>this board: >>teams; W / none >> A63 >> AT762 W N E S >> T84 1NT P 3S AP >> 43 >>K72 QJ9854 >>94 J >>AK962 J5 >>JT2 A875 >> T >> KQ853 >> Q73 >> KQ92 >> >>Result: -140 >> >>1NT and 3S were both alerted. (Under Austrian regulations, >>1NT has to be alerted when the range is not 15-17). >>EW had their CC on the table. On the inside - which was >>visible -, 1NT was explained as 14-16; on the outside as 14- >>16 vul, 11-13 n/vul. S did not ask about the NT range (he >>looked at the CC). 3S was explained as N/FCG. >>After the hand S called me when he found out about the real >>range and said he would have doubled 3S, and N would then >>have bid 4H. >> >>4H goes down on a D lead or CA, D continuation. >>4S goes down on a high C lead or unlucky declarer play. >> >>What percentages would you assume for the various contracts >>in computing a 12C3 score? >> >>Regards, >>Petrus > >I would rule under L12C3 the result of 3S, NS -140 = 100% > >South has not been damaged, as the precise range of the 1NT >opening is irrelevant to the auction. The stronger West's >1NT is, the weaker East's 3S will be. And the weaker West's >1NT is, the stronger East's 3S will be. > Not necessarily: E might have QJxxxxx in spades and bust opposite a 12 count; NS prospects wouild seem brighter if W's upper limit is 13 rather than 16. Regards, Petrus -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 14 23:39:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EDchi07556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 23:38:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from www.fastmail.fm (fastmail.fm [209.61.183.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7EDcbK07551 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 23:38:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from www.fastmail.fm (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7875D6DABF for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:38:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: from server3.fastmail.fm (server3.internal [10.202.2.134]) by www.fastmail.fm (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2BD76DAA9 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:38:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: by server3.fastmail.fm (Postfix, from userid 99) id 60B662FD5F; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:38:17 -0500 (CDT) Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 1.2 (F2.6; T1.001; A1.47; B2.12; Q2.03) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 13:38:17 UT From: "David Kent" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" X-Epoch: 1029332298 X-Sasl-enc: G9vKNMzZnLF9OENFoFhiyQ Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Message-Id: <20020814133817.60B662FD5F@server3.fastmail.fm> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 23:15:21 -0700, "Marvin L. French" said: > > From: "Ed Reppert" < > > > On 8/12/02, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > > > > >Try law 74C1, Law 40, and ACBL requires that each partnerships has > > >matching convention cards on the table and that both players must play > > >the same conventions hence your 1NT bid that is different depending > > >on which partner bids is illegal! > > > > I may be mistaken, but I don't remember an ACBL regulation requiring > > that both players must play the same conventions. Aside from that, the > > range of a natural NT bid is not a convention. If the cards both say > > "Joe opens 1NT on 12-14 and Bill opens 1NT on 15-17" then the > > partnership has matching cards. So I don't think this one flies. :-) > > > It's a matter of law, Ed, not regulation. > > ACBL Election to L40E: Both members of a partnership must employ the same > system that shows on the convention card. > > And 40E itself says that an SO can restrict methods shown on the CC (but not > style and judgment variations within the bounds of those methods). > > Do you really think that for every non-convention on the CC members of a pair > can have different ranges (WJO/SJO, weak/sound preempts, 4/5 card majors, > weak/strong two bids, etc.) and yet be playing the same system? If so, I doubt > that anyone would agree with you. > You certainly can vary your system on a board-to-board basis, as did Soloway and Goldman. They played Precision at favourable or equal and Aces Scientific at unfavourable. They each had one convention card that they would flip to show the system they were playing on that board. So my partner and I have the same idea, except that we change the card based on who is in 1st or 2nd seat. When partner, who likes to open a strong NT, is in first or 2nd, we show the cc that has "strong NT in 1st/2nd and weak NT in 3rd/4th". Likewise when I am in 1st or 2nd seat, we show the cc that has "weak NT in 1st/2nd and strong NT in 3rd/4th". Anything wrong with this? -- Dave Kent -- http://fastmail.fm/ - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 15 00:22:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EEMXw07582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 00:22:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7EEMRK07578 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 00:22:28 +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 QAA21142; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:19:54 +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 QAA24736; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:22:10 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020814161218.00a916c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:31:33 +0200 To: "David Kent" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: <20020814133817.60B662FD5F@server3.fastmail.fm> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:38 14/08/2002 +0000, David Kent wrote: >On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 23:15:21 -0700, "Marvin L. French" > said: > > > > From: "Ed Reppert" < > > > > > On 8/12/02, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > > > > > > >Try law 74C1, Law 40, and ACBL requires that each partnerships has > > > >matching convention cards on the table and that both players must play > > > >the same conventions hence your 1NT bid that is different depending > > > >on which partner bids is illegal! > > > > > > I may be mistaken, but I don't remember an ACBL regulation requiring > > > that both players must play the same conventions. Aside from that, the > > > range of a natural NT bid is not a convention. If the cards both say > > > "Joe opens 1NT on 12-14 and Bill opens 1NT on 15-17" then the > > > partnership has matching cards. So I don't think this one flies. :-) > > > > > It's a matter of law, Ed, not regulation. > > > > ACBL Election to L40E: Both members of a partnership must employ the same > > system that shows on the convention card. > > > > And 40E itself says that an SO can restrict methods shown on the CC > (but not > > style and judgment variations within the bounds of those methods). > > > > Do you really think that for every non-convention on the CC members of > a pair > > can have different ranges (WJO/SJO, weak/sound preempts, 4/5 card majors, > > weak/strong two bids, etc.) and yet be playing the same system? If so, > I doubt > > that anyone would agree with you. > > >You certainly can vary your system on a board-to-board basis, as did >Soloway and Goldman. They played Precision at favourable or equal and >Aces Scientific at unfavourable. They each had one convention card >that they would flip to show the system they were playing on that >board. > >So my partner and I have the same idea, except that we change the card >based on who is in 1st or 2nd seat. When partner, who likes to open a >strong NT, is in first or 2nd, we show the cc that has "strong NT in >1st/2nd and weak NT in 3rd/4th". Likewise when I am in 1st or 2nd >seat, we show the cc that has "weak NT in 1st/2nd and strong NT in >3rd/4th". > >Anything wrong with this? AG : yes. There is a general policy (often explicitly stated by SOs) that : 1) Your bids (and mentions on your CC) may vary in signification, according to - the seat (meaning : your order of bidding), including overcalls (ie, according to whether partner has already passed) ; example : weak NT 3rd/4th - the PH status ; example : unusual *1* NT O/C after pass - the vulnerability ; example : variable NT - the scoring ; example : WJR at pairs, SJR at IMPs - your opponent's system ; example : strong double vs weak NT, double for majors vs strong NT 2) Some SOs will admit that your CC mention 'playing this-and-this, unless disallowed, then playing this-and-this', thus avoiding the need to write several CCs for different-ranked events 3) Your bids may not vary in signification (but there might be differences, eg in the degree of aggressiveness) according to : - the player who holds the hand - the state of the match - the personality of the opponents 4) You may discard any convention during a tournament, but not introduce new ones To me, it seems that your idea can't fall into category 1), because you're not only changing the meaning of the bid according to your seat, but according to who you are (or according to who of you was first tot speak), which isn't among the listed items. If all this sounds like 'you may not, because it is disallowed', well, I did feel it was as obvious as that, but you asked for details, didn't you ? Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 15 01:38:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EFbrA07611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 01:37:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7EFbmK07607 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 01:37:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7EFbX309840 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:37:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004f01c243a8$61b035e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <20020814133817.60B662FD5F@server3.fastmail.fm> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:24:04 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Kent" > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > Do you really think that for every non-convention on the CC members of a pair > > can have different ranges (WJO/SJO, weak/sound preempts, 4/5 card majors, > > weak/strong two bids, etc.) and yet be playing the same system? If so, I doubt > > that anyone would agree with you. > > > You certainly can vary your system on a board-to-board basis, as did > Soloway and Goldman. They played Precision at favourable or equal and > Aces Scientific at unfavourable. They each had one convention card > that they would flip to show the system they were playing on that > board. Perfectly legal. You can have a different CC for each of the vulnerability-position possibilities, for a total of 16. > > So my partner and I have the same idea, except that we change the card > based on who is in 1st or 2nd seat. That is a different idea. The ACBL allows system differences based only on vulnerability and/or seat position, not on who is sitting where. > When partner, who likes to open a > strong NT, is in first or 2nd, we show the cc that has "strong NT in > 1st/2nd and weak NT in 3rd/4th". Likewise when I am in 1st or 2nd > seat, we show the cc that has "weak NT in 1st/2nd and strong NT in > 3rd/4th". > > Anything wrong with this? > Yes. You are not playing the same system, as your 1st/2nd seat openings have different ranges depending on who is sitting there. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 15 02:21:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EGLSF07639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 02:21:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7EGLNK07635 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 02:21:23 +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 JAA01837; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 09:21:04 -0700 Message-Id: <200208141621.JAA01837@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:06:26 +1000." Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 09:23:58 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: > Ed Reppert wrote: > > [snip] > > >>Aside from that, the range of a natural NT bid is not a > >>convention. If the cards both say "Joe opens 1NT on 12-14 > >>and Bill opens 1NT on 15-17" then the partnership has > >>matching cards. So I don't think this one flies. :-) > > Laurie Kelso replied: > > >Law 40E1 gives the sponsoring organisation the right to > >prescribe that both members of the partnership employ the > >same system. This is much more wide-ranging than their > >powers in regard to the regulation of conventions. > > > >The actual ACBL board of Directors election says: "Both > >members of a partnership must employ the same system that > >appears on the convention card." > > L40E1 specifically prohibits SOs from regulating the > differing style and judgement of members of a partnership. > > Bill might judge that a weak NT is doubled for penalties > too often, so judge that in his style 15-17 is required. > > Joe might judge that a weak NT improves results in > subsequent auctions, so judge that in his style 12-14 is > required. Sure. And Bill might judge that Standard American is a better system, while Joe might judge that Precision is better, so Joe's 1C is artificial and forcing while Bill's is natural. And it can't be prohibited because it's a matter of judgment. Right? -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 15 02:53:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EGqfO07657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 02:52:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from c3po.skynet.be (c3po.skynet.be [195.238.3.237]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7EGqZK07653 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 02:52:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (200.246-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.246.200]) by c3po.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7EGqH707256 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 18:52:17 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D5A8AC4.9070609@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 18:52:20 +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] one board too many References: <63XU95ML733Y2WDBVQWUMJLJB9OM83ZU.3d5a40c6@pp-xp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Petrus, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >> >> > That's not the problem; you don't even need that extra line > as the score against the correct EW pair (NS nothing, EW > 60%) need not be entered. > But you will have to use a different top score (33 times top > instead of 32 times top) to compute the errant pair's > percentage and ranking, and that's where the software fails. > Of course, you can compute it by hand and edit the results' > file in a text editor... > But that too is a common occurence. When there is a bye, half the field will have played a different number of boards and so the software should be able to cope with that problem as well ... > Regards, > Petrus > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium currently at the World University Bridge Championships in Brugge http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html Brugge homepage : http://www.ruca.ua.ac.be/dua/brugge02/Brugge2002.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 15 05:24:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EJNQV07778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 05:23:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5-0.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 g7EJNIK07770 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 05:23:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g7EJMtW26521; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:22:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:20:55 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: "Marvin L. French" , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <00e901c24355$c249e8e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 8/13/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >You have to put a single notrump range on the CC, which can vary only >with seat position or vulnerability, that's it. I see no regulation that says that. In fact, at one point in one of the regs, the ACBL speaks to a NT range which is discontinuous. Is that one range, or two? (The implication of what is written by the ACBL in that area is that such an agreement is legal, under certain circumstances). >Different ranges mean different systems, so partners must adhere to >the single range stated. Pfui. If I play "stone age" Acol, with a variable NT range (different ranges depending on vulnerability), I'm still playing Acol, whatever the range I have in my hand. If I play SA with a strong NT with one partner, and SA with a weak NT with another, I'm still playing SA. Why should it be any different if I play weak NT and my partner plays strong? >However, a little conservatism or aggressiveness *within the range >shown* by either partner is a matter of style and judgment. Except when the range is 10-12. :-( 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 Aug 15 05:24:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EJNQR07779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 05:23:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5-0.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 g7EJNJK07771 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 05:23:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g7EJN1W26667 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:23:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:12:08 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20020814095600.00d817b0@pop.ihug.com.au> 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 8/14/02, Laurie Kelso wrote: >The actual ACBL board of Directors election says: "Both members of a >partnership must employ the same system that appears on the convention >card." So if the card(s) say "Joe's 1NT is 12-14, and Bill's is 14-17", they *are* employing "the same system that appears on the convention card." :-) 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 Aug 15 05:32:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EJVre07798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 05:31:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail3.panix.com (mail3.panix.com [166.84.1.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7EJVmK07794 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 05:31:48 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail3.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id E59A4981C4; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:31:27 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:31:18 -0400 To: Petrus Schuster OSB From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C3 headache Cc: BLML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 5:23 PM +0200 8/12/02, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >What percentages would you assume for the various contracts in >computing a 12C3 score? Why would one compute a 12C3 score? 12C2 gives EW -420 and in my judgement leads to NS +420. Is this unjust? Inequitable? Why go further? To my mind every use of 12C3 must lead to headaches -- that's only one reason I'm opposed to it. Even when it's in force, though, as I understand things there's no requirement to use it unless the 12C2 adjustment is found wanting. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 15 05:52:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EJqLG07820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 05:52:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7EJqEK07811 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 05:52:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g7EJpuC29622 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:51:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:43:27 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical 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 8/14/02, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >3) Your bids may not vary in signification (but there might be >differences, eg in the degree of aggressiveness) according to : - the >player who holds the hand - the state of the match - the personality >of the opponents Some SOs may indeed do this, and I concede that it is probably legal under 40E. But I don't think the ACBL has made this distinction. At least not in any written material to which I, a mere player, have access (by which I mean that it may be written in ACBLScore Tech notes or some other place not accessible to me. If it is written where I could find it, I don't recall it.) >If all this sounds like 'you may not, because it is disallowed', well, >I did feel it was as obvious as that, but you asked for details, >didn't you ? When you're speaking of what is and is not disallowed in bridge, it's never (IMO) obvious because: 1. the laws are sometimes ambiguous. 2. different SOs have different regulations 3. those regulations are sometimes ambiguous 4. "case law" not readily available to the general public affects meaning or interpretation 5. even when a meaning appears to be clear, different people can interpret it differently (as we've seen on this list a time or six). 6. sometimes TDs rule "their way" regardless of anything else.* *on that one, an anecdote - in discussing law 24 with a local club director, I pointed out that it allows the *declarer* to decide whether a card exposed during the auction by a player who later becomes a defender is a penalty card. Her response was "I'm not gonna let that happen." 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 Aug 15 05:52:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EJqOn07821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 05:52:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7EJqHK07816 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 05:52:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g7EJq1C29777 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:52:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:24:21 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <010001c2435a$090d9d40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 8/13/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >It's a matter of law, Ed, not regulation. > >ACBL Election to L40E: Both members of a partnership must employ the >same system that shows on the convention card. I already addressed that. >And 40E itself says that an SO can restrict methods shown on the CC >(but not style and judgment variations within the bounds of those >methods). Has the ACBL done so? In writing? >Do you really think that for every non-convention on the CC members of >a pair can have different ranges (WJO/SJO, weak/sound preempts, 4/5 >card majors, weak/strong two bids, etc.) and yet be playing the same >system? If so, I doubt that anyone would agree with you. I'm getting used to that. :-) What defines a "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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 15 06:02:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EK1rP07844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 06:01:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7EK1mK07840 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 06:01:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from 207-172-96-12.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([207.172.96.12] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #6) id 17f4Kh-0001OD-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:01:31 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020814153218.00afc960@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:04:33 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: <20020814133817.60B662FD5F@server3.fastmail.fm> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:38 AM 8/14/02, David wrote: >You certainly can vary your system on a board-to-board basis, as did >Soloway and Goldman. They played Precision at favourable or equal and >Aces Scientific at unfavourable. They each had one convention card >that they would flip to show the system they were playing on that >board. > >So my partner and I have the same idea, except that we change the card >based on who is in 1st or 2nd seat. When partner, who likes to open a >strong NT, is in first or 2nd, we show the cc that has "strong NT in >1st/2nd and weak NT in 3rd/4th". Likewise when I am in 1st or 2nd >seat, we show the cc that has "weak NT in 1st/2nd and strong NT in >3rd/4th". > >Anything wrong with this? Yes. In addition to forbidding partners from playing different methods, the ACBL has also forbidden changing one's system in mid-session (except with the TD's explicit permission). No TD would allow you to switch between "strong NT 1st/2nd, weak 3rd/4th" and "weak NT 1st/2nd, strong 3rd/4th", which are clearly two different systems, based on which of you happened to be in 1st/2nd. You would be allowed to play "strong 1/2 & weak 3/4 not vulnerable; weak 1/2 & strong 3/4 vulnerable", as the ACBL has ruled that variations based on vulnerability are permissable within the definition of a given "system". That would be analogous to what Goldman-Soloway do. It would be illegal, for example, for them to play "A.S. vul else Precision when Goldman opens; Precision vul else A.S. when Soloway opens". The bottom line: If parts of your system vary with seat or vulnerability, it's still considered a single system, but if parts of it vary depending on who's bidding (as in 1NT-P-2H to play by the pro, transfer by the client) it's two different systems, and not allowed (in ACBL competition). Varying by seat is allowed; changing the way in which you vary by seat depending on who's in which seat sounds like a cleverly discerned loophole, but one which, for better or worse, has already been plugged. 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 Aug 15 06:33:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EKX8R07864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 06:33:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7EKX3K07860 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 06:33:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from pp-xp [10.90.16.33] by mail.eduhi.at (SMTPD32-7.10) id AD9726B01BA; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:29:11 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster OSB To: BLML Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:32:44 +0200 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C3 headache MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Opera 6.04 build 1135 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk 14.08.2002 21:31:18, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >At 5:23 PM +0200 8/12/02, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >>What percentages would you assume for the various contracts in >>computing a 12C3 score? > >Why would one compute a 12C3 score? > >12C2 gives EW -420 and in my judgement leads to NS +420. Is this >unjust? Inequitable? Why go further? > EW -420 probably is the most unfavourable result at all probable (though a case might be made for -590). But I am not so sure about the NS score: We were of the opinion that over 4H, EW were *likely* to bid 4S. And IMO, 12C3 should be used to obtain a single score whenever 12C2 would result in a split score. >To my mind every use of 12C3 must lead to headaches -- that's only >one reason I'm opposed to it. OTOH, in about 5 cases of 12C3 scores in one week, no one complained about the score adjustment; 12C2 has not lead to such customer satisfaction. >Even when it's in force, though, as I >understand things there's no requirement to use it unless the 12C2 >adjustment is found wanting. 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 Thu Aug 15 06:54:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EKrxt07882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 06:53:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (adsl-66-126-103-122.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [66.126.103.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7EKrsK07878 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 06:53:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from simba.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@simba.irvine.com [192.160.8.19]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA03836; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 13:53:34 -0700 Message-Id: <200208142053.NAA03836@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:43:27 EDT." Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 13:56:31 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > On 8/14/02, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >3) Your bids may not vary in signification (but there might be > >differences, eg in the degree of aggressiveness) according to : - the > >player who holds the hand - the state of the match - the personality > >of the opponents > > Some SOs may indeed do this, and I concede that it is probably legal > under 40E. But I don't think the ACBL has made this distinction. At > least not in any written material to which I, a mere player, have access > (by which I mean that it may be written in ACBLScore Tech notes or some > other place not accessible to me. If it is written where I could find > it, I don't recall it.) When I was looking into this, the first place I looked was in the "Conditions of Contest For All ACBL Events" (or something to that efffect) on the ACBL web site. That document says only that partners must have identical convention cards. I have no doubt that Marvin and Laurie are correct that the ACBL has ruled that both members of a partnership must use the same system (a rule that the Laws clearly permit them to make). I wish they (the ACBL) would get their story straight, however; the CoC ought to make this clear, IMHO. Maybe the real regulation does exist somewhere on the ACBL website, but I haven't tried to find it, mostly because their looney-web ... er, lunaweb ... site is rather hostile to Netscape 4.xx, which is what I'm using at work, so it's painful to try to look in too many places for information. Nevertheless, the fact that the ACBL is boneheaded when it comes to making information accessible, and often boneheaded about how they phrase their regulations, doesn't mean that the regulation doesn't exist. I have no reason to believe that Marvin and Laurie are both hallucinating identically when they quote the ACBL's L40E election. In fact, I'm not even clear on why this debate is continuing here, unless it's in celebration of National Nitpicking Week or something. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 15 06:57:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EKvIm07895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 06:57:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (mta07-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7EKvDK07890 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 06:57:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.149.6]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020814205655.XNBG13709.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 21:56:55 +0100 Message-ID: <00e601c243d5$216075e0$069568d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <20020814133817.60B662FD5F@server3.fastmail.fm> <004f01c243a8$61b035e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 21:35:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Kent: > When partner, who likes to open a > strong NT, is in first or 2nd, we show the cc that has "strong NT in > 1st/2nd and weak NT in 3rd/4th". Likewise when I am in 1st or 2nd > seat, we show the cc that has "weak NT in 1st/2nd and strong NT in > 3rd/4th". Anything wrong with this? Marvin L French Yes. You are not playing the same system, as your 1st/2nd seat openings have different ranges depending on who is sitting there. Nigel Guthrie Although it may not suit some mixed partnerships (pro-am or m-f), the laws seem to insist that both partners use the same methods. But are you allowed to agree that one partner will make more aggressive bids or psyches than the other? Can both agree that 1N is weak but that only one partner may, in practice, bid it. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 -- ======================================================================== (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 Aug 15 06:57:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EKvPt07900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 06:57:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (mta07-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7EKvIK07896 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 06:57:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.149.6]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020814205701.XNCO13709.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 21:57:01 +0100 Message-ID: <00e801c243d5$252ac450$069568d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 21:51:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gtattan Endicott >If you think the Director is going astray you can >raise a question, politely, but you are required to >do as he instructs regardless of your personal >opinion of what is correct. > ~ G ~ +=+ Nigel Guthrie: Surely, we all agree on this? There is no point in playing any game if you flout the rules, deliberately. At bridge, the TD is the legal authority. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 -- ======================================================================== (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 Aug 15 07:26:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7ELPxE07928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 07:25:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta202-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta202-rme.xtra.co.nz [210.86.15.145]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7ELPsK07924 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 07:25:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz ([210.86.15.142]) by mta202-rme.xtra.co.nz with ESMTP id <20020814212534.IFLJ1010.mta202-rme.xtra.co.nz@mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz> for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:25:34 +1200 Received: from laptop ([210.55.46.131]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20020814212532.KVYY9788.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:25:32 +1200 Message-ID: <005a01c243d8$e782c860$832e37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "BLML" References: <00e801c243d5$252ac450$069568d5@SCRAP> Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:23:54 +1200 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray > Gtattan Endicott > >If you think the Director is going astray you can > >raise a question, politely, but you are required to > >do as he instructs regardless of your personal > >opinion of what is correct. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > Nigel Guthrie: > Surely, we all agree on this? > There is no point in playing any game if you > flout the rules, deliberately. > At bridge, the TD is the legal authority. With reservations... I would ignore any instruction that I can not use weapons that are an integral part of the game. "You may not bid 1s" "You may not ruff" "You may not psyche" Would be some such rulings. As I said earlier I don't think Tiger Woods would continue to play if the referee took away his putter. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 15 08:39:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EMcuj07973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 08:38:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7EMcpK07969 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 08:38:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7EMcY326525 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:38:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006601c243e3$32b735a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <63XU95ML733Y2WDBVQWUMJLJB9OM83ZU.3d5a40c6@pp-xp> <3D5A8AC4.9070609@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:25:37 -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: "Herman De Wael" > When there is a bye, half the > field will have played a different number of boards and so the > software should be able to cope with that problem as well ... > Yes, by factoring, which is not really fair. We should have a better method, just as Neuberg is a better method for boards that are played a different number of times. The fewer the at-bats in baseball, the easier it is to have a high (or low) batting average. The fewer boards a pair plays, the easier it is to get a good score (or a bad one).Same principle. There is a "shrinking factor" that tends to pull high scores down and low scores up as the number of boards played increases. Can't someone come up with a way to account for this effect? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 15 08:52:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EMqDS07992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 08:52:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7EMq8K07988 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 08:52:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.148.116]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020814225150.UMWX23840.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 23:51:50 +0100 Message-ID: <000101c243e5$2f2c4f40$749468d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Wish list Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 23:10:17 +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 West-Meads: 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. Nigel: I meant to say more than that. IMO, Bridge is still a game for gentle(wo)men. The vast majority of players want to win within the laws. But all these bad laws encourage a growing minority to rationalise law-breaking. A law needs review if it is... ...hard to understand or ...widely flouted or ...rarely enforced. Another good example is that, in EBU events, especially in 3rd seat, most experienced partnerships routinely ignore the "EBU rule of 19" restrictions, as specified in the "EBU Orange Book". Nobody I know has heard of an instance of this rule being enforced. On one occasion, as an experiment in futility, I called the TD. Of course he could do nothing except quote the Orange Book. Without (inter)national "psyche" records, what could he have done? I suppose the we few players who abide by such laws but vainly complain about them should not be surprised to be labelled as paranoid masochists. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 -- ======================================================================== (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 Aug 15 09:09:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EN8xJ08018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:09:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7EN8qK08011 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:08:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7EN8a307324 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <008401c243e7$646d8280$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:03:40 -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 >From Ed Reppert > > So if the card(s) say "Joe's 1NT is 12-14, and Bill's is 14-17", they > *are* employing "the same system that appears on the convention > card." :-) > Pfui. That's two systems on one convention card. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 15 09:09:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7EN90b08019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:09:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7EN8pK08010 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:08:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7EN8a307320 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <008301c243e7$645391e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:02:11 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Marvin L. French" Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical > On 8/13/02, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >You have to put a single notrump range on the CC, which can vary only > >with seat position or vulnerability, that's it. > > I see no regulation that says that. Sometimes you have to take my word for things, Ed. Would I lie to you? I got this from Gary Blaiss as part of a discussion about L40E. He is (or was) responsible for implementing L40E and its "Election" in the back of the book, as ACBL: Chief Tournament Director, and this decision was part of his implementation. He allows more than one convention card, and more than one treatment on a convention card, but only if the differences relate to vulnerability and seat position. Anything else is treated as creating more than one system, which is not allowed. Okay, I found it. Ed, you are causing me to waste my valuable time. ACBL Alert Procedure. Page 6 of 11.Part III: PRE-ALERTS "TWO SYSTEM" METHODS: "Some pairs may vary their system by position, by vulnerability, or by a combination of the two. While this is legal, ....." That's it. What is not permitted is not allowed. > In fact, at one point in one of the > regs, the ACBL speaks to a NT range which is discontinuous. Is that one > range, or two? (The implication of what is written by the ACBL in that > area is that such an agreement is legal, under certain circumstances). That is two ranges, permissible on the GCC. But both partners have to employ both ranges or they are playing different systems. > > >Different ranges mean different systems, so partners must adhere to > >the single range stated. > > Pfui. If I play "stone age" Acol, with a variable NT range (different > ranges depending on vulnerability), I'm still playing Acol, whatever the > range I have in my hand. So what? Each partner is playing the same range rules on every board, not different ones. > If I play SA with a strong NT with one partner, > and SA with a weak NT with another, I'm still playing SA So what? We're talking about differences with the same partner during a session. >. Why should it > be any different if I play weak NT and my partner plays strong? Because partners must play the same system and that's two different systems. (blue in the face now) > > >However, a little conservatism or aggressiveness *within the range > >shown* by either partner is a matter of style and judgment. Bad syntax, sorry . "...or agressivenes by either partner *within the range shown*..." is what I should have written. > > Except when the range is 10-12. :-( No exception. As a matter of style or judgment, one partner can lean toward either limit. And even exceed it on occasion, if partner doesn't allow for that. Get off this, Ed, you're beating a dead horse :-)) Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 15 09:27:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7ENQcN08042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:26:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7ENQXK08038 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:26:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7ENQH314033 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:26:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <008e01c243e9$dce48540$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <00e801c243d5$252ac450$069568d5@SCRAP> Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:14:40 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Nigel Guthrie" > Gtattan Endicott > >If you think the Director is going astray you can > >raise a question, politely, but you are required to > >do as he instructs regardless of your personal > >opinion of what is correct. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > Nigel Guthrie: > Surely, we all agree on this? > There is no point in playing any game if you > flout the rules, deliberately. > At bridge, the TD is the legal authority. With reservations. If any damage to our side caused by an illegal instruction can be fixed later, okay. But when the illegal instruction can possibly cause damage that cannot be fixed later, I am very slow to obey it. As when a TD says to play a board later when the auction has already started. That could be very damaging to my side, and I wouldn't do it unless I know (1) that the other pair is honest and (2) that the other pair won't suspect us of being dishonest when we get a top on the board. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 15 09:38:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7ENc7P08058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:38:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7ENc2K08054 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:38:02 +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 QAA04965; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:37:41 -0700 Message-Id: <200208142337.QAA04965@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:02:11 PDT." <008301c243e7$645391e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:40:39 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: > > >However, a little conservatism or aggressiveness *within the range > > >shown* by either partner is a matter of style and judgment. > > Bad syntax, sorry . "...or agressivenes by either partner *within the range > shown*..." is what I should have written. > > > > Except when the range is 10-12. :-( > > No exception. As a matter of style or judgment, one partner can lean > toward either limit. And even exceed it on occasion, if partner > doesn't allow for that. I think Ed was referring to the ACBL "policy" that if your notrump range is 10-12 (or 10-anything), you can't use judgment to open a good 9-count. (Of course, you can still decide to treat a bad 13-count as a 12-count, and the partners may have differing judgment in this regard.) -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 15 10:41:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7F0ets08093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:40:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imf13bis.bellsouth.net (mail213.mail.bellsouth.net [205.152.58.153]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7F0eoK08089 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:40:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from Dell4400 ([66.21.234.45]) by imf13bis.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with SMTP id <20020815004204.DDBK9094.imf13bis.bellsouth.net@Dell4400>; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 20:42:04 -0400 From: "David Kent" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 20:39:01 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <008301c243e7$645391e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > On 8/13/02, Marvin L. French wrote: > Page 6 of 11.Part III: PRE-ALERTS "TWO SYSTEM" METHODS: "Some pairs may vary their system by position, by vulnerability, or by a combination of the two. While this is legal, ....." ----------- OK. When Dave is in 1st or 2nd seat, we play weak NT in 1st/2nd and strong NT in 3rd/4th. When Don is in 1st or 2nd seat, we play strong NT in 1st/2nd and weak NT in 3rd/4th. So I have varied my system by position. WTP? -- Dave Kent -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 15 10:53:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7F0r8U08109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:53:08 +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 g7F0r3K08105 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:53:03 +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 LAA13575 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:08:35 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:47:45 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C3 headache To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:40:29 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 15/08/2002 10:47:20 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: >>I would rule under L12C3 the result of 3S, NS -140 = 100% >> >>South has not been damaged, as the precise range of the 1NT >>opening is irrelevant to the auction. The stronger West's >>1NT is, the weaker East's 3S will be. And the weaker >>West's 1NT is, the stronger East's 3S will be. Petrus replied: >Not necessarily: E might have QJxxxxx in spades and bust >opposite a 12 count; NS prospects would seem brighter if >W's upper limit is 13 rather than 16. Petrus is correct *if* East would bid 3S with QJxxxxx and bust no matter what the range of the 1NT opening bid. If, however, East would bid 3S with that hand only opposite a 14-16 1NT opening, but be content with a simple 2-level bid opposite a 11-13 1NT opening, then I stand by my ruling. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 15 10:59:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7F0xMp08122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:59:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7F0xHK08118 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:59:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA15489 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:14:49 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:53:59 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:57:37 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 15/08/2002 10:53:34 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel Guthrie wrote: >Surely, we all agree on this? >There is no point in playing any game if you >flout the rules, deliberately. >At bridge, the TD is the legal authority. I agree that there is no point playing the game if "the legal authority" flouts the rules. Civil disobedience in the tradition of Gandhi or Martin Luther King is the only appropriate solution to "legal authorities" acting illegally. 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 Aug 15 11:22:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7F1M6T08143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:22:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7F1LtK08139 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:22:01 +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 SAA06104; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 18:21:35 -0700 Message-Id: <200208150121.SAA06104@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 14 Aug 2002 20:39:01 EDT." Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 18:24:34 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David wrote: > > On 8/13/02, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > Page 6 of 11.Part III: PRE-ALERTS > > "TWO SYSTEM" METHODS: > > "Some pairs may vary their system by position, by vulnerability, or by a > combination of the two. While this is legal, ....." > > ----------- > OK. When Dave is in 1st or 2nd seat, we play weak NT in 1st/2nd and strong > NT in 3rd/4th. When Don is in 1st or 2nd seat, we play strong NT in 1st/2nd > and weak NT in 3rd/4th. So I have varied my system by position. WTP? Since it differs depending on who is sitting where, you have varied your system by two variables: by position (which it is legal to vary your system by), and which player is sitting where relative to who deals on the board (which it is *not* legal to vary your system by, since it is neither position nor vulnerability). Why are you and a couple others trying so hard to find a loophole when it's so clear what the ACBL does not want to allow? Are you all engaging in some sort of obscurity contest? -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 15 12:11:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7F2AUr08184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:10:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7F2AFK08167 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:10:16 +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 g7F29wC02470; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:09:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 21:21:14 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: Eric Landau cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020814153218.00afc960@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 8/14/02, Eric Landau wrote: >Varying by seat is allowed; changing the way in which you vary by seat >depending on who's in which seat sounds like a cleverly discerned >loophole, but one which, for better or worse, has already been plugged. Eric, As you're the second or third person who's said this, I have to ask: have you a reference? 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 Aug 15 12:11:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7F2ATO08183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:10:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7F2AFK08166 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:10:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g7F29vC02436; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:09:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 21:24:51 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: "Marvin L. French" , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <008301c243e7$645391e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 8/14/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >What is not permitted is not allowed. Where does it say that? :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 15 12:11:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7F2AUA08185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:10:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7F2AGK08170 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:10:17 +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 g7F29xC02500 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:09:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 21:31:16 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <200208142337.QAA04965@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 8/14/02, Adam Beneschan wrote: >I think Ed was referring to the ACBL "policy" that if your notrump >range is 10-12 (or 10-anything), you can't use judgment to open a good >9-count. Yep. 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 Aug 15 12:11:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7F2ASY08182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:10:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7F2AEK08164 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:10:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g7F29tC02411; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:09:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 21:30:03 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: "Marvin L. French" , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <008401c243e7$646d8280$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 8/14/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >From Ed Reppert >> >> So if the card(s) say "Joe's 1NT is 12-14, and Bill's is 14-17", they >> *are* employing "the same system that appears on the convention >> card." :-) >> >Pfui. That's two systems on one convention card. Where is "system" defined? When I arrived in England in 1990, and started playing bridge again, I discovered that the EBU was in process of switching from a system of approving "systems" to one of approving (or not) individual conventions. As I understand (I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong) the rationale behind this change was at least partly that it had become too difficult to isolate what made a collection of agreements a "system". IOW they had no clear definition of the term "system". To the best of my knowledge, there still isn't one, either there or here. If you can't define "system" then you can't claim that any given collection of bidding agreements is not one. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 15 12:16:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7F2GQv08219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:16:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5-0.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 g7F2GKK08215 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:16:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g7F2FsW23561; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:15:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:15:43 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: Adam Beneschan cc: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <200208150121.SAA06104@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 8/14/02, Adam Beneschan wrote: >Why are you and a couple others trying so hard to find a loophole when >it's so clear what the ACBL does not want to allow? Are you all >engaging in some sort of obscurity contest? The Alert Regulations deal with what notifications to opponents are required, given our agreements. I would have thought that such regulations do *not* define what agreements are permissible, that being more properly the portfolio of conditions of contest (including which convention charts are allowed, and any modifications to them). If the definition of what agreements are allowable is (partly) in the Alert Regs, then *that* IMO is where the obscurity lies. 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 Aug 15 12:21:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7F2L3m08240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:21:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7F2KwK08236 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:20:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA06421 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:36:29 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:15:39 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:14:24 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 15/08/2002 12:15:14 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 are you allowed to agree that one >partner will make more aggressive bids >or psyches than the other? > >Can both agree that 1N is weak but that >only one partner may, in practice, bid >it. With many of my partners, I have the twin agreement: 1NT - 4H = preemptive, to play 1NT - 4C = preemptive transfer to hearts If I always bid 4C, and pard always bids 4H, we are now playing one-way transfers. Are we playing the forbidden *two systems*, since pard never bids 4C, and I never bid 4H? Or are we legitimately exercising the style and judgement that pard plays 4H contracts better than me? Best wishes Richard PS There is a myth that a top-class player had a tradition of playing once a year with their much weaker spouse in their local Christmas Pairs. The spouse was only permitted to bid clubs, the top-class player was never dummy, and they always won the Christmas Pairs. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 15 13:44:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7F3iAX08285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:44:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m08.mx.aol.com (imo-m08.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.163]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7F3i4K08281 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:44:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from Doghoward@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id 7.4f.21e19513 (4592) for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 23:43:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Doghoward@aol.com Message-ID: <4f.21e19513.2a8c7d65@aol.com> Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 23:43:33 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 138 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In a message dated 08/14/2002 9:22:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, adam@irvine.com writes: > Why are you and a couple others trying so hard to find a loophole when > it's so clear what the ACBL does not want to allow? Are you all > engaging in some sort of obscurity contest? > > -- Adam I hate to delurk to belabor the obvious, especially in such eminent company, but in a word, it's called TROLLING and it clogs mailboxes unnecessarily. And the universal defense to this action is simple: "Do not feed the troll(s)!" Ed I told Althea I was feeling lost Lacking in some direction Althea told me upon scrutiny my back might need protection -- Hunter -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 15 14:04:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7F43Jo08303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:03:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7F43FK08299 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:03:15 +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 OAA26318 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:18:44 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:57:55 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:02:43 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 15/08/2002 01:57:29 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Where is "system" defined? > >When I arrived in England in 1990, and started playing bridge again, I >discovered that the EBU was in process of switching from a system of >approving "systems" to one of approving (or not) individual conventions. >As I understand (I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong) the rationale >behind this change was at least partly that it had become too difficult >to isolate what made a collection of agreements a "system". IOW they had >no clear definition of the term "system". To the best of my knowledge, >there still isn't one, either there or here. > >If you can't define "system" then you can't claim that any given >collection of bidding agreements is not one. > >Regards, > >Ed I both agree and disagree with Ed. Chapter 1 of the Laws has no explicit definition of the word *system*. However, L40E1 has an *implicit* definition of a partnership's system, which is "their conventions and other agreements". And, if we drill down to the more fundamental word "agreements", then an agreement that Joe's 1NT is 12-14, and an agreement that Bill's 1NT is 15-17, is *two* separate agreements about a 1NT opening. So consequently *two* separate systems are based on those two separate 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 Thu Aug 15 14:58:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7F4vj808327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:57:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7F4veK08323 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:57:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7F4vO327597; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 21:57:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00b101c24418$1e79d540$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: References: <200208142337.QAA04965@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 21:47:24 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Adam Beneschan" > > Marvin wrote: > > > > >However, a little conservatism or aggressiveness *within the range > > > >shown* by either partner is a matter of style and judgment. > > > > Bad syntax, sorry . "...or agressivenes by either partner *within the range > > shown*..." is what I should have written. > > > > > > Except when the range is 10-12. :-( > > > > No exception. As a matter of style or judgment, one partner can lean > > toward either limit. And even exceed it on occasion, if partner > > doesn't allow for that. > > I think Ed was referring to the ACBL "policy" that if your notrump > range is 10-12 (or 10-anything), you can't use judgment to open a good > 9-count. (Of course, you can still decide to treat a bad 13-count as > a 12-count, and the partners may have differing judgment in this > regard.) > Yes, yes, thanks Adam. I am not certain that a rare 9 HCP opening would get an automatic penalty at an NABC, but I don't have time to check that out. Is it written somewhere? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 15 15:28:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7F5S0608354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:28:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7F5RtK08350 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:27:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7F5Rd310348 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00d001c2441c$5679ef80$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:24:47 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Kent" > > On 8/13/02, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > Page 6 of 11.Part III: PRE-ALERTS > > "TWO SYSTEM" METHODS: > > "Some pairs may vary their system by position, by vulnerability, or by a > combination of the two. While this is legal, ....." > > ----------- > OK. When Dave is in 1st or 2nd seat, we play weak NT in 1st/2nd and strong > NT in 3rd/4th. When Don is in 1st or 2nd seat, we play strong NT in 1st/2nd > and weak NT in 3rd/4th. So I have varied my system by position. WTP? > You are varying your system by person as well as by position. This is my last on this subject, as I am out of patience with it. Argue with Memphis if you want to pursue the matter.. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 15 17:28:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7F7RbH08407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:27:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7F7RWK08403 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:27:32 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7F7REQ29394 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 08:27:14 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 08:27 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray 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: <00e801c243d5$252ac450$069568d5@SCRAP> > Gtattan Endicott > >If you think the Director is going astray you can > >raise a question, politely, but you are required to > >do as he instructs regardless of your personal > >opinion of what is correct. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > Nigel Guthrie: > Surely, we all agree on this? > There is no point in playing any game if you > flout the rules, deliberately. > At bridge, the TD is the legal authority. No. The TD is the authority for enforcing the laws. It is not necessarily OK to commit a crime because a policeman tells you to. There is no question of "flouting" the laws when the TD has issued an illegal instruction. 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 Aug 15 19:11:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7F9ASJ08485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 19:10:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7F9AOK08481 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 19:10:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id AFEA10F90112; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 02:10:02 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk From: "David Burn" Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray Message-Id: <150802227.7802@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 02:10:09 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim wrote: >There is no question of "flouting" the laws when the TD has issued an illegal instruction. They don't usually issue those. But they do occasionally issue stupid instructions. At the start of every major championship played with screens, for example, the chief TD will announce the alerting procedure. You are supposed to put your alert card on the bidding tray in front of your screen mate, and he is supposed to pick it up and give it back to you in order to show that he has seen the alert. Now, the players know perfectly well that as well as being a waste of time, all this can be heard clearly on the other side of the screen, and thus that partner will know you have alerted, eliminating one of the major advantages of screens in that they prevent the transmission of unauthorised information. The TD's instruction is therefore a stupid one, and the players simply don't follow it. In the final session of a major American tournament, a board was fouled. After this had been discovered during the scoring up, the Director ordered that it be replayed. The final contract at one table, reached after a somewhat esoteric auction, went several down redoubled, for the players knew what the Director did not - that a single board fouled in the final stanza is not replayed when the result of the match without that board is known to a contestant. 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 Aug 15 22:15:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7FCExp08654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 22:14:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7FCEsK08650 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 22:14:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-15.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.15] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #6) id 17fJWO-0000U8-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 08:14:36 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020815081305.00a8d100@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 08:17:39 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020814153218.00afc960@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 09:21 PM 8/14/02, Ed wrote: >On 8/14/02, Eric Landau wrote: > > >Varying by seat is allowed; changing the way in which you vary by seat > >depending on who's in which seat sounds like a cleverly discerned > >loophole, but one which, for better or worse, has already been plugged. > >As you're the second or third person who's said this, I have to ask: >have you a reference? Do I need one? I merely assert that "1NT weak 1st/2nd, strong 3rd/4th" and "1NT strong 1st/2nd, weak 3rd/4th" are sufficiently different to meet the ACBL's (probably nowhere officially stated) definition of "different systems". IMO, that's sufficiently self-evident not to require a formal interpretation to make it so. As a TD, it is certainly how I would rule. 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 Aug 15 22:24:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7FCOYt08669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 22:24:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7FCOTK08665 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 22:24:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-15.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.15] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #6) id 17fJfg-0001kr-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 08:24:12 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020815082024.00b07470@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 08:27:15 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:14 PM 8/14/02, richard.hills wrote: >With many of my partners, I have the twin >agreement: > >1NT - 4H = preemptive, to play >1NT - 4C = preemptive transfer to hearts > >If I always bid 4C, and pard always bids >4H, we are now playing one-way transfers. > >Are we playing the forbidden *two systems*, >since pard never bids 4C, and I never bid >4H? Yes. >Or are we legitimately exercising the >style and judgement that pard plays 4H >contracts better than me? The ACBL regulation in question is intended to prohibit acting on such judgments. You can argue about the literal interpretation of the words of the regulations (or such of them as have actually been published), but cannot deny that you are, even if we assume literal "legitimacy", exercising an unintended loophole in the regulations to your own advantage. >PS There is a myth that a top-class player >had a tradition of playing once a year with >their much weaker spouse in their local >Christmas Pairs. > >The spouse was only permitted to bid clubs, >the top-class player was never dummy, and >they always won the Christmas Pairs. If it were not a myth (and assuming we're talking about an ACBL-sanctioned event), they would be cheating. There are probably others in the club who would be equally capable of "always [winning] the Christmas Pairs" if they cheated every time. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 15 23:06:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7FD6U608695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 23:06:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7FD6PK08691 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 23:06:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.148.80]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020815130603.RDTC28874.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:06:03 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01c2445c$84677d50$509468d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:05:54 +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 In-Reply-To: <00e801c243d5$252ac450$069568d5@SCRAP> > Gtattan Endicott > >If you think the Director is going astray you can > >raise a question, politely, but you are required to > >do as he instructs regardless of your personal > >opinion of what is correct. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > Nigel Guthrie: > Surely, we all agree on this? > There is no point in playing any game if you > flout the rules, deliberately. > At bridge, the TD is the legal authority. Tim West-meads: No. The TD is the authority for enforcing the laws. It is not necessarily OK to commit a crime because a policeman tells you to. There is no question of "flouting" the laws when the TD has issued an illegal instruction. Nigel: Bridge is a game; not a matter of life or death; and, in most games, players must abide by the referee's decisions. Even in real life, you are usually expected to comply with "illegal" police instructions e.g. to drive onto the pavement (sidewalk) to allow an emergency vehicle to pass. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 -- ======================================================================== (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 Aug 15 23:31:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7FDUZL08713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 23:30:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe69.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.204]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7FDUUK08709 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 23:30:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 06:30:08 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [172.151.88.64] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020815082024.00b07470@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 08:31:04 -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 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Aug 2002 13:30:08.0859 (UTC) FILETIME=[DFE342B0:01C2445F] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 7:27 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical > At 10:14 PM 8/14/02, richard.hills wrote: > > >With many of my partners, I have the twin > >agreement: > > > >1NT - 4H = preemptive, to play > >1NT - 4C = preemptive transfer to hearts > > > >If I always bid 4C, and pard always bids > >4H, we are now playing one-way transfers. > > > >Are we playing the forbidden *two systems*, > >since pard never bids 4C, and I never bid > >4H? > > Yes. > > >Or are we legitimately exercising the > >style and judgement that pard plays 4H > >contracts better than me? > > The ACBL regulation in question is intended to prohibit acting on such > judgments. Presumably this is so? But are we only to be permitted the light of a star one trillion light years away? regards roger pewick > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 16 00:01:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7FE1RF08744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 00:01:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7FE1MK08740 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 00:01:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.148.130]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020815140104.ORDQ5047.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:01:04 +0100 Message-ID: <000001c24464$32c513b0$829468d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <200208142053.NAA03836@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:57:03 +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 Marvin L. French: Page 6 of 11.Part III: PRE-ALERTS "TWO SYSTEM" METHODS: "Some pairs may vary their system by position, by vulnerability, or by a combination of the two. While this is legal, ....." That's it. What is not permitted is not allowed. Nigel Guthrie: Yet another example of a rule that is... (a) Local, so disadvantaging foreigners and causing unecessary complications (b) Obscurely located, badly phrased, hard to apply, widely unknown, frequently flouted, and rarely enforced. Nigel: Not only do such rules tempt normally honest players to rationalise cheating -- but also they handicap the diminishing group of suckers who comply with them. The rule itself is OK. Who would quarrel with it, if it were: (i) Agreed (or imposed) internationally and (ii) Stated, in the appropriate section of the WBF laws, simply, clearly, and unambiguously? All this may be belabouring the obvious but is there any law-maker willing to tackle this urgent problem? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 -- ======================================================================== (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 Aug 16 00:04:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7FE4Zh08756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 00:04:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from www.fastmail.fm (fastmail.fm [209.61.183.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7FE4UK08752 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 00:04:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from www.fastmail.fm (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA976DAB5; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:04:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from server3.fastmail.fm (server3.internal [10.202.2.134]) by www.fastmail.fm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD086DB59; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:03:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: by server3.fastmail.fm (Postfix, from userid 99) id 32D332FD1A; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:03:25 -0500 (CDT) Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 1.2 (F2.6; T1.001; A1.47; B2.12; Q2.03) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:03:25 UT From: "David Kent" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" X-Epoch: 1029420247 X-Sasl-enc: EGisw9UND5KG3U3xuadrUA Cc: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Message-Id: <20020815140325.32D332FD1A@server3.fastmail.fm> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 18:24:34 -0700, "Adam Beneschan" said: > > David wrote: > > > > On 8/13/02, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > > Page 6 of 11.Part III: PRE-ALERTS > > > > "TWO SYSTEM" METHODS: > > > > "Some pairs may vary their system by position, by vulnerability, or by a > > combination of the two. While this is legal, ....." > > > > ----------- > > OK. When Dave is in 1st or 2nd seat, we play weak NT in 1st/2nd and strong > > NT in 3rd/4th. When Don is in 1st or 2nd seat, we play strong NT in 1st/2nd > > and weak NT in 3rd/4th. So I have varied my system by position. WTP? > > Since it differs depending on who is sitting where, you have varied > your system by two variables: by position (which it is legal to vary > your system by), and which player is sitting where relative to who > deals on the board (which it is *not* legal to vary your system by, > since it is neither position nor vulnerability). > What is your definition of position if not position relative to the dealer? -- Dave Kent -- http://fastmail.fm - Ever wonder why we aren't named snailmail.sm? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 16 00:26:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7FEQR408774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 00:26:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7FEQMK08770 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 00:26:22 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7FEQ3Z06920 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:26:03 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:26 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray 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: <000d01c2445c$84677d50$509468d5@SCRAP> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Tim West-meads: > No. The TD is the authority for enforcing the laws. It is not > necessarily OK to commit a crime because a policeman tells you to. > There is no question of "flouting" the laws when the TD has issued an > illegal instruction. > > Nigel: > Bridge is a game; not a matter of life or death; and, in most > games, players must abide by the referee's decisions. So what. It is a game with rules. If a TD chooses to issue an instruction outside those rules one has a choice to make. Golf is game too. Would you obey a referee who told you to take a free drop while nobody was looking? > Even in real life, you are usually expected to comply with > "illegal" police instructions e.g. to drive onto the pavement > (sidewalk) to allow an emergency vehicle to pass. That is a "legal" police instruction - well within their normal powers. An illegal one would be "drive up on the pavement to disperse that group of protestors". I'm sorry that the concept of TDs sometimes acting outside their powers seems so difficult to grasp. It's rare, but it happens. 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 Aug 16 01:02:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7FF1Zl08800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 01:01:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.mailstart.com (i2i2mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7FF1UK08796 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 01:01:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from muave [207.231.76.117] by mail.mailstart.com (SMTPD32-5.05) id A23219201D8; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 08:01:06 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com From: "David Burn" Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Message-Id: <150802227.28866@webbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 08:01:15 -0700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Kent wrote: >What is your definition of position if not position relative to the dealer? There is, of course, one of the usual ambiguities here, but this is a very silly debate indeed to which I intend to make one and only one contribution. The ambiguity arises in the use of the term "position", since it is not clear whether this means "the position of an individual" or "the position of a pair" with respect to the dealer, nor is it clear whether "you" means "you singular" or "you plural". It is fairly obvious that in each case, the latter is what was meant by the ACBL when it made its regulation. The effect of this is that however meany different methods a partnership elects to employ, the opponents need not know which *individual* is in which position in order to know which method is in use; they need only know the "position" from which the initial action arises. It is equally obvious that the alternative proposed by Mr Kent and others is a possible interpretation, and that the ACBL should employ an English speaker as a matter of some urgency. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 16 05:21:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7FJL1U08925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 05:21:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7FJKtK08921 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 05:20:56 +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 g7FJKbs01894 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:20:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006201c24490$b171cd80$6501a8c0@irv> From: "Irv Kostal" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:19:35 -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 RARE? I was told, by a director in Los Angeles that my system at the time was not legal, and he barred me from playing it, in spite of my quoting the appropriate ACBL regulations concerning it. I subsequently submitted my system to Charley McCracken, who dealt with such things at the time, who assured me my system was just fine. I asked him to please so inform the director in question. Had you or I made such a mistake, I assume we would apologize, but this director's comment was, "I still think it should be barred!" He is no friend of mine, you can be sure. Irv Kostal ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" Snip, snip, > > I'm sorry that the concept of TDs sometimes acting outside their powers > seems so difficult to grasp. It's rare, but it happens. > > 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 Aug 16 06:33:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7FKWTb08960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 06:32:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7FKWKK08952 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 06:32:21 +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 g7FKW1C27012; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 16:32:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 16:25:55 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020815081305.00a8d100@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 8/15/02, Eric Landau wrote: >Do I need one? Perhaps not, but I seem to. :-) >I merely assert that "1NT weak 1st/2nd, strong 3rd/4th" >and "1NT strong 1st/2nd, weak 3rd/4th" are sufficiently different to >meet the ACBL's (probably nowhere officially stated) definition of >"different systems". IMO, that's sufficiently self-evident not to >require a formal interpretation to make it so. As a TD, it is >certainly how I would rule. Well, as an aspiring TD, I'm afraid it doesn't make sense to me. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 16 06:33:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7FKWS808959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 06:32:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7FKWKK08951 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 06:32:21 +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 g7FKVxC26955; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 16:32:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 16:20:17 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: Doghoward@aol.com cc: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <4f.21e19513.2a8c7d65@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 8/14/02, Doghoward@aol.com wrote: >I hate to delurk to belabor the obvious, especially in such eminent >company, but in a word, it's called TROLLING and it clogs mailboxes >unnecessarily. If you're accusing me of trolling, sir, you are mistaken. 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 Aug 16 07:08:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7FL8DH08988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 07:08:13 +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 g7FL88K08984 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 07:08:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7FL7oR22806 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:07:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002401c2449f$afba34a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <006201c24490$b171cd80$6501a8c0@irv> Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:55:40 -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: "Irv Kostal" > RARE? I was told, by a director in Los Angeles that my system at the time > was not legal, and he barred me from playing it, in spite of my quoting the > appropriate ACBL regulations concerning it. I subsequently submitted my > system to Charley McCracken, who dealt with such things at the time, who > assured me my system was just fine. I asked him to please so inform the > director in question. > > Had you or I made such a mistake, I assume we would apologize, but this > director's comment was, "I still think it should be barred!" He is no > friend of mine, you can be sure. > You should also have reported the matter to the ACBL's Chief Tournament Director at the time (Gary Blaiss?). I have found that this gets good results, which on one occasion was a letter of apology from the ACBL TD involved. She had told me that I as dummy could not dispute a defensive claim, and the AC agreed with her! Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 16 08:03:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7FM2UN09021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 08:02:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7FM2PK09017 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 08:02:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-15.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.15] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #6) id 17fSgw-0000ca-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 18:02:06 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020815173900.00aa5920@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 18:05:10 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020815081305.00a8d100@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 04:25 PM 8/15/02, Ed wrote: >On 8/15/02, Eric Landau wrote: > > >Do I need one? > >Perhaps not, but I seem to. :-) > > >I merely assert that "1NT weak 1st/2nd, strong 3rd/4th" > >and "1NT strong 1st/2nd, weak 3rd/4th" are sufficiently different to > >meet the ACBL's (probably nowhere officially stated) definition of > >"different systems". IMO, that's sufficiently self-evident not to > >require a formal interpretation to make it so. As a TD, it is > >certainly how I would rule. > >Well, as an aspiring TD, I'm afraid it doesn't make sense to me. I think we may be getting hung up on "system". Marv cited the published alert regulations and reported a correspondence from Gary Blaiss using that word, but it's a particularly ill-chosen one. I don't have the citation, but there was something (more or less) officially stating the ACBL policy on this. The author cited the classic example of what isn't permitted: a response to a 1NT opening played as a transfer by one partner but natural by the other. Now we don't have a definition of system, but I think I know one when I see one. "S.A. with strong NTs" and "S.A. with weak NTs" are (arguably) two different systems. Whereas "S.A. with strong NTs and Stayman" and "S.A. with strong NTs, Stayman, and Jacoby transfers" are (arguably) the same system, namely "S.A. with strong NTs". So while the prohibition as written is strong enough to settle Dave Kent's hash, it's not obviously strong enough to unambiguously cover the case we are given as an example of what it is intended to cover. Nevertheless, we know what it was intended to cover, so we should read it as being strong enough to cover it. When we do that, we realize that the regulations would have been a great deal clearer if they had addressed pairs that "vary their methods" rather than "vary their system". 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 Aug 16 09:11:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7FNAFx09065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:10:15 +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 g7FNAAK09061 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:10:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7FN9qR10556 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 16:09:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006701c244b0$bc828b40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020815081305.00a8d100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020815173900.00aa5920@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 16:08:47 -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" > I think we may be getting hung up on "system". Marv cited the > published alert regulations and reported a correspondence from Gary > Blaiss using that word, but it's a particularly ill-chosen one. It was chosen because that is the word (undefined) used for this purpose in L40E. > > Now we don't have a definition of system, but I think I know one when I > see one. "S.A. with strong NTs" and "S.A. with weak NTs" are > (arguably) two different systems. Whereas "S.A. with strong NTs and > Stayman" and "S.A. with strong NTs, Stayman, and Jacoby transfers" are > (arguably) the same system, namely "S.A. with strong NTs". So while > the prohibition as written is strong enough to settle Dave Kent's hash, > it's not obviously strong enough to unambiguously cover the case we are > given as an example of what it is intended to cover. Nevertheless, we > know what it was intended to cover, so we should read it as being > strong enough to cover it. > > When we do that, we realize that the regulations would have been a > great deal clearer if they had addressed pairs that "vary their > methods" rather than "vary their system". > I'm under the impression that "system" in both the Laws and ACBL regulations is the set of methods employed by a partnership, not a bidding system like SA. Acol, Precision, etc, which we we all refer to as systems. It is unfortunate that the Laws and the ACBL use the word as they do. Eric's suggestion seems like a good one, for both the Laws and ACBL regulations. I said I was out of this thread, but I must open anything from Eric! Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 16 09:42:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7FNfsX09089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:41:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7FNfmK09085 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:41:48 +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 g7FNfSC25809; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 19:41:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 19:40:06 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020815173900.00aa5920@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 8/15/02, Eric Landau wrote: >I think we may be getting hung up on "system". Marv cited the >published alert regulations and reported a correspondence from Gary >Blaiss using that word, but it's a particularly ill-chosen one. > >I don't have the citation, but there was something (more or less) >officially stating the ACBL policy on this. The author cited the >classic example of what isn't permitted: a response to a 1NT opening >played as a transfer by one partner but natural by the other. I have fired off a query to "rulings@acbl.org", asking if the method (range of 1NT depends on which of the pair is opening it) is illegal, and if so, for a cite of specific laws/regs which make it so. I'll post their reply when I get 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 Fri Aug 16 10:33:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7G0X7A09130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:33:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7G0X3K09126 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:33:03 +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 KAA23666 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:48:28 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:27:37 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:32:26 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 16/08/2002 10:27:12 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills: >>With many of my partners, I have the twin >>agreement: >> >>1NT - 4H = preemptive, to play >>1NT - 4C = preemptive transfer to hearts >> >>If I always bid 4C, and pard always bids >>4H, we are now playing one-way transfers. >> >>Are we playing the forbidden *two systems*, >>since pard never bids 4C, and I never bid >>4H? Eric Landau: >Yes. Richard Hills: >>Or are we legitimately exercising the >>style and judgement that pard plays 4H >>contracts better than me? Eric Landau: >The ACBL regulation in question is intended >to prohibit acting on such judgments. You >can argue about the literal interpretation >of the words of the regulations (or such of >them as have actually been published), but >cannot deny that you are, even if we assume >literal "legitimacy", exercising an >unintended loophole in the regulations to >your own advantage. Richard Hills: I support Eric in his other postings opposing meretricious reasoning purporting to "discover" a loophole in the regulation the ACBL made under a power specifically granted by L40E1. However, in my particular thought experiment above, I believe that Eric is defining "one system" too narrowly and "two systems" too broadly. In most non-relay systems, players usually have a range of calls they can choose from when deciding to further describe their hand to their partner. For example, note the popularity of the Master Solvers' Club in The Bridge World, or Bidding Forum in Australian Bridge. If a partnership has a suite of identical methods, If members of that partnership choose different calls from that suite to describe the same hand, Then they are exercising different judgements. To say that that partnership is playing the illegal "two systems" is equivalent to saying that *all* partnerships play the illegal "two systems". Therefore, *all* ACBL-land partnerships should be immediately expelled for cheating. :-) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 16 10:39:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7G0dFa09143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:39:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from orngca-mls01.socal.rr.com (orngca-mls01.socal.rr.com [66.75.160.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7G0dAK09139 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:39:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from irv (cpe-66-74-18-75.dc.rr.com [66.74.18.75]) by orngca-mls01.socal.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.3) with SMTP id g7G0cpA21397 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:38:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000d01c244bd$106ecdc0$6501a8c0@irv> From: "Irv Kostal" To: "BLML" References: <006201c24490$b171cd80$6501a8c0@irv> <002401c2449f$afba34a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:37:12 -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 It's water under the bridge at this point, Marv, and the director in question has been demoted for other reasons anyway, so no further action on my part is called for. Besides, an insincere apology (which I feel is what I'd get) doesn't do much for me. The story goes that this person was asked how to bid a pair of hands, and bid them up to 7S. When it was pointed out that they were missing the spade ace his response was characteristic; he reportedly said, "There's no way to stay out it!" Irv P.S. I tried to send you a private msg, and the mlfrench@writeme.com address just bounces back to me. Have you changed your email address? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray > > > From: "Irv Kostal" > > > RARE? I was told, by a director in Los Angeles that my system at the time > > was not legal, and he barred me from playing it, in spite of my quoting the > > appropriate ACBL regulations concerning it. I subsequently submitted my > > system to Charley McCracken, who dealt with such things at the time, who > > assured me my system was just fine. I asked him to please so inform the > > director in question. > > > > Had you or I made such a mistake, I assume we would apologize, but this > > director's comment was, "I still think it should be barred!" He is no > > friend of mine, you can be sure. > > > You should also have reported the matter to the ACBL's Chief Tournament Director > at the time (Gary Blaiss?). I have found that this gets good results, which on > one occasion was a letter of apology from the ACBL TD involved. She had told me > that I as dummy could not dispute a defensive claim, and the AC agreed with her! > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 16 10:49:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7G0mtP09168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:48:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7G0mnK09164 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:48:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA27449 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 11:04:20 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:43:27 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: "bridge-laws::.gov.au":"rgb.anu.edu.au:>"<@bertha.au.csc.net> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:48:09 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 16/08/2002 10:43:02 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam wrote: >Why are you and a couple others trying so hard to find a loophole when >it's so clear what the ACBL does not want to allow? Are you all >engaging in some sort of obscurity contest? The five year mission of BLML is: "To boldly go splitting hairs, where no angels have danced on the head of a pin before." 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 Aug 16 11:28:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7G1SYG09191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 11:28:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from orngca-mls01.socal.rr.com (orngca-mls01.socal.rr.com [66.75.160.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7G1STK09187 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 11:28:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from irv (cpe-66-74-18-75.dc.rr.com [66.74.18.75]) by orngca-mls01.socal.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.3) with SMTP id g7G1SBA07018 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 18:28:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003501c244c3$f0e5d1e0$6501a8c0@irv> From: "Irv Kostal" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 18:26:26 -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 Yet such a system is in fact an advantageous way to play, for technical reasons. If I have Axx,AQTxxx,xx,xx, it is clearly best (it seems to me) if my partner plays it, but if I have x,AJTxxxx,x,Kxxx I think it's right to hide all that distribution from the opponents. I would always want to transfer with the first hand and just bid 4H with the second. Clearly this is an exercise in judgement, and not an attempt to steer the declaration to a stronger player. However, there seems to be a certain sentiment in favor of barring such systems, such as the EBU not liking Drury because people might use it to handle psych auctions. I have always been opposed to what I call "lowest common denominator" thinking. If I use the treatment improperly, then deal with me in an appropriate way, but don't deprive me of it because somebody else might use it improperly - deprive THEM of it. Irv ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 5:32 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical > > Richard Hills: > > >>With many of my partners, I have the twin > >>agreement: > >> > >>1NT - 4H = preemptive, to play > >>1NT - 4C = preemptive transfer to hearts > >> > >>If I always bid 4C, and pard always bids > >>4H, we are now playing one-way transfers. > >> > >>Are we playing the forbidden *two systems*, > >>since pard never bids 4C, and I never bid > >>4H? > > Eric Landau: > > >Yes. > > Richard Hills: > > >>Or are we legitimately exercising the > >>style and judgement that pard plays 4H > >>contracts better than me? > > Eric Landau: > > >The ACBL regulation in question is intended > >to prohibit acting on such judgments. You > >can argue about the literal interpretation > >of the words of the regulations (or such of > >them as have actually been published), but > >cannot deny that you are, even if we assume > >literal "legitimacy", exercising an > >unintended loophole in the regulations to > >your own advantage. > > Richard Hills: > > I support Eric in his other postings opposing > meretricious reasoning purporting to "discover" > a loophole in the regulation the ACBL made > under a power specifically granted by L40E1. > > However, in my particular thought experiment > above, I believe that Eric is defining "one > system" too narrowly and "two systems" too > broadly. > > In most non-relay systems, players usually > have a range of calls they can choose from > when deciding to further describe their hand > to their partner. > > For example, note the popularity of the > Master Solvers' Club in The Bridge World, or > Bidding Forum in Australian Bridge. > > If a partnership has a suite of identical > methods, > If members of that partnership choose > different calls from that suite to describe > the same hand, > Then they are exercising different judgements. > > To say that that partnership is playing the > illegal "two systems" is equivalent to saying > that *all* partnerships play the illegal "two > systems". > > Therefore, *all* ACBL-land partnerships should > be immediately expelled for cheating. :-) > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 16 13:51:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7G3oDb09274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:50:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7G3o8K09270 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:50:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA08123 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 14:05:40 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:44:47 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:42:46 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 16/08/2002 01:44:22 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 final session of a major American tournament, a board >was fouled. After this had been discovered during the scoring >up, the Director ordered that it be replayed. The final contract >at one table, reached after a somewhat esoteric auction, went >several down redoubled, for the players knew what the Director >did not - that a single board fouled in the final stanza is not >replayed when the result of the match without that board is known >to a contestant. > >David Burn >London, England I would rule the TD only partially at fault in getting this rule wrong. I would also sheet home a significant amount of blame to the Laws Drafting Committee. * Law 87 - Fouled Board - does not contain this rule, merely a cross-reference to Law 6. * Law 6D - New Shuffle and Redeal - does not contain this rule, merely a cross-reference to Law 86C. * With Law 86C we finally hit paydirt. If a National ACBL Director can be confused by the inane format of the Laws, how can the average club TD hope to avoid the mire? 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 Aug 16 17:02:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7G70Eq09353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 17:00:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout09.sul.t-online.com (mailout09.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.84]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7G708K09349 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 17:00:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd07.sul.t-online.de by mailout09.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17fb5G-0001ah-05; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 08:59:46 +0200 Received: from jurgenr (520085598528-0001@[80.128.61.179]) by fwd07.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17fb54-1lDiOOC; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 08:59:34 +0200 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) To: "Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 08:59:31 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <150802227.28866@webbox.com> X-Sender: 520085598528-0001@t-dialin.net 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 David Burn > Sent: Donnerstag, 15. August 2002 17:01 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Cc: adam@irvine.com > Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical > > > > It is equally obvious that the alternative proposed by Mr Kent > and others is a possible interpretation, and that the ACBL should > employ an English speaker as a matter of some urgency. > > David Burn > London, England That would be useful - even more useful would be if the WBFLC would employ writers with a command of English. Jürgen > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 16 17:14:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7G7E6s09370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 17:14:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout03.sul.t-online.com (mailout03.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7G7E1K09366 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 17:14:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd07.sul.t-online.de by mailout03.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17fbIf-0004Og-0B; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:13:37 +0200 Received: from jurgenr (520085598528-0001@[80.128.61.179]) by fwd07.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17fbIT-1lo0qeC; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:13:25 +0200 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?us-ascii?Q?Jurgen_Rennenkampff?=) To: "Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:13:22 +0200 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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020815173900.00aa5920@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: 520085598528-0001@t-dialin.net 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: Freitag, 16. August 2002 00:05 > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical > > > When we do that, we realize that the regulations would have been a > great deal clearer if they had addressed pairs that "vary their > methods" rather than "vary their system". Yes, if you think it would be more amusing to define "method" than to define "system". No definition is needed if each call is to have the same meaning when made by either partner in the identical context. Now would you like to know the meaning of "meaning"? Jurgen > > > 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 Aug 16 20:50:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7GAmtH09477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 20:48:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (www.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7GAmnK09473 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 20:48:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id MAA27198; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:46:16 +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 MAA26106; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:48:28 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020816125459.00a9f290@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:57:55 +0200 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray 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 15:26 15/08/2002 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <000d01c2445c$84677d50$509468d5@SCRAP> >Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > Tim West-meads: > > No. The TD is the authority for enforcing the laws. It is not > > necessarily OK to commit a crime because a policeman tells you to. > > There is no question of "flouting" the laws when the TD has issued an > > illegal instruction. > > > > Nigel: > > Bridge is a game; not a matter of life or death; and, in most > > games, players must abide by the referee's decisions. > >So what. It is a game with rules. If a TD chooses to issue an >instruction outside those rules one has a choice to make. >Golf is game too. Would you obey a referee who told you to take a free >drop while nobody was looking? > > > Even in real life, you are usually expected to comply with > > "illegal" police instructions e.g. to drive onto the pavement > > (sidewalk) to allow an emergency vehicle to pass. > >That is a "legal" police instruction - well within their normal powers. >An illegal one would be "drive up on the pavement to disperse that group >of protestors". AG : if a TD told me to sing my system explanations, I would not do it, the first reason being trouble to other contestants. If a TD told me not to play a board when we are late, I would comply, the first reason being that other contestants wouldn't suffer from this ; they might even benefit from the smoothness of the movement. This is _mutatis mutandis_ the same distinction as above : instructions that go against general interest may be ignored. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 16 22:51:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7GCoUv09640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 22:50:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7GCoPK09636 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 22:50:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #6) id 17fgYH-00014i-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 08:50:05 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020816083746.00aa5250@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 08:53:11 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: <003501c244c3$f0e5d1e0$6501a8c0@irv> 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 09:26 PM 8/15/02, Irv wrote: >Yet such a system is in fact an advantageous way to play, for technical >reasons. If I have Axx,AQTxxx,xx,xx, it is clearly best (it seems to >me) if >my partner plays it, but if I have x,AJTxxxx,x,Kxxx I think it's right to >hide all that distribution from the opponents. I would always want to >transfer with the first hand and just bid 4H with the second. Clearly >this >is an exercise in judgement, and not an attempt to steer the >declaration to >a stronger player. > >However, there seems to be a certain sentiment in favor of barring such >systems, such as the EBU not liking Drury because people might use it to >handle psych auctions. I have always been opposed to what I call "lowest >common denominator" thinking. If I use the treatment improperly, then >deal >with me in an appropriate way, but don't deprive me of it because somebody >else might use it improperly - deprive THEM of it. I hope there is no such sentiment, and I really don't think there is. Irv is right about technical advantage. I personally like to have a similar agreement; in my usual methods (when I play transfers), the only distinction between, say, 1NT-P-4H and 1NT-P-2D-P-2H-P-4H is responder's opinion as to which hand should declare. I would be one of the loudest screamers if someone suggested that this should not be legal. But the operative word in that agreement here is "hand". If one partner *always* bids the game directly while the other one *always* transfers, that is presumptively not a difference in style, but a different agreement: one in which the distinction is the partnership's (collective) opinion as to which *partner* should declare. That falls into the category of agreements which the ACBL has outlawed. Of course, if an unethical partnership has the latter agreement but claims it's the former, we may be hard-pressed (or entirely unable) to find any compelling evidence that they are violating the rules, even though they are. But that doesn't give us cause to want to punish or constrain those ethical partnerships who play a perfectly legimate set of methods that allow for choice of declarer on some auctions. >----- Original Message ----- >From: > > > Richard Hills: > > > > >>With many of my partners, I have the twin > > >>agreement: > > >> > > >>1NT - 4H = preemptive, to play > > >>1NT - 4C = preemptive transfer to hearts > > >> > > >>If I always bid 4C, and pard always bids > > >>4H, we are now playing one-way transfers. > > >> > > >>Are we playing the forbidden *two systems*, > > >>since pard never bids 4C, and I never bid > > >>4H? > > > > Eric Landau: > > > > >Yes. > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > >>Or are we legitimately exercising the > > >>style and judgement that pard plays 4H > > >>contracts better than me? > > > > Eric Landau: > > > > >The ACBL regulation in question is intended > > >to prohibit acting on such judgments. You > > >can argue about the literal interpretation > > >of the words of the regulations (or such of > > >them as have actually been published), but > > >cannot deny that you are, even if we assume > > >literal "legitimacy", exercising an > > >unintended loophole in the regulations to > > >your own advantage. > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > I support Eric in his other postings opposing > > meretricious reasoning purporting to "discover" > > a loophole in the regulation the ACBL made > > under a power specifically granted by L40E1. > > > > However, in my particular thought experiment > > above, I believe that Eric is defining "one > > system" too narrowly and "two systems" too > > broadly. > > > > In most non-relay systems, players usually > > have a range of calls they can choose from > > when deciding to further describe their hand > > to their partner. > > > > For example, note the popularity of the > > Master Solvers' Club in The Bridge World, or > > Bidding Forum in Australian Bridge. > > > > If a partnership has a suite of identical > > methods, > > If members of that partnership choose > > different calls from that suite to describe > > the same hand, > > Then they are exercising different judgements. > > > > To say that that partnership is playing the > > illegal "two systems" is equivalent to saying > > that *all* partnerships play the illegal "two > > systems". > > > > Therefore, *all* ACBL-land partnerships should > > be immediately expelled for cheating. :-) Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 16 23:00:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7GD0Fb09657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 23:00:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7GD0AK09653 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 23:00:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #6) id 17fghj-0002lB-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 08:59:51 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020816085729.00b02bb0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:02:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020815173900.00aa5920@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:13 AM 8/16/02, jurgenr wrote: > > When we do that, we realize that the regulations would have been a > > great deal clearer if they had addressed pairs that "vary their > > methods" rather than "vary their system". > >Yes, if you think it would be more amusing to define "method" than to >define >"system". No definition is needed if each call is to have the same meaning >when made by either partner in the identical context. Now would you >like to >know the meaning of "meaning"? I'm not talking precise definitions here. But "method" and "system" are words used by bridge players all the time, and there is a general, if ill-defined, consensus as to what they mean. I merely submit that the consensual usage of the word "method" comes a lot closer to what the ACBL is talking about than the consensual usage of the word "system". That the latter creates unnecessary problems of interpretation has been amply demonstrated by some of the posts in this thread. Perhaps, as Bill Clinton said, it all depends on what the definition of "is" is. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 16 23:44:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7GDi5a09680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 23:44:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (eurasianchemtech.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7GDhxK09676 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 23:44:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id PAA17678; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:41:27 +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 PAA01258; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:43:38 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020816154130.00a814f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:53:04 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020816083746.00aa5250@pop.starpower.net> References: <003501c244c3$f0e5d1e0$6501a8c0@irv> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:53 16/08/2002 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 09:26 PM 8/15/02, Irv wrote: > >>Yet such a system is in fact an advantageous way to play, for technical >>reasons. If I have Axx,AQTxxx,xx,xx, it is clearly best (it seems to me) if >>my partner plays it, but if I have x,AJTxxxx,x,Kxxx I think it's right to >>hide all that distribution from the opponents. I would always want to >>transfer with the first hand and just bid 4H with the second. Clearly this >>is an exercise in judgement, and not an attempt to steer the declaration to >>a stronger player. >> >>However, there seems to be a certain sentiment in favor of barring such >>systems, such as the EBU not liking Drury because people might use it to >>handle psych auctions. I have always been opposed to what I call "lowest >>common denominator" thinking. If I use the treatment improperly, then deal >>with me in an appropriate way, but don't deprive me of it because somebody >>else might use it improperly - deprive THEM of it. > >I hope there is no such sentiment, and I really don't think there is. > >Irv is right about technical advantage. I personally like to have a >similar agreement; in my usual methods (when I play transfers), the only >distinction between, say, 1NT-P-4H and 1NT-P-2D-P-2H-P-4H is responder's >opinion as to which hand should declare. I would be one of the loudest >screamers if someone suggested that this should not be legal. But the >operative word in that agreement here is "hand". If one partner *always* >bids the game directly while the other one *always* transfers, that is >presumptively not a difference in style, but a different agreement: one in >which the distinction is the partnership's (collective) opinion as to >which *partner* should declare. That falls into the category of >agreements which the ACBL has outlawed. > >Of course, if an unethical partnership has the latter agreement but claims >it's the former, we may be hard-pressed (or entirely unable) to find any >compelling evidence that they are violating the rules, even though they >are. But that doesn't give us cause to want to punish or constrain those >ethical partnerships who play a perfectly legimate set of methods that >allow for choice of declarer on some auctions. AG : there will never be (or, being careful, there should never be) any rule against the fact that on Kx - 10xxx - Q10x - Qxxx the Pro will bid 1NT over her partner's 1C or 1D opening, and Mrs Guggenheim will bid 1H, because she would be delighted not to play the contract (at least not in NT). What can, and often will, be disallowed, is for Mrs Guggenheim to bid 1S on this hand, and the Pro will never raise her, thus avoiding badly-placed contracts. Of course, there are often different ways to get at a contract, and I offer another example : I would open 4C on xx-AKJxxxx-AKx-x, and 2H (Acol) on Kx-AKJxxxx-AQx-x. Having said that, it is illusory to think that the Pro and the Client will play the same number of boards. What is disallowed is for them to have conventional means to insure this. This is simply fairness to other pairs, according to the principle that bridge is a partnership game. If one player's weaknesses don't affect the result of the pair, other than by accident, then the ranking of the pair is unfair. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 17 00:20:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7GEJIu09711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 00:19:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eomer.vianetworks.nl (eomer.vianetworks.nl [212.61.15.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7GEJ6K09703 for ; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 00:19:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d420.iae.nl [212.61.5.166]) by eomer.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id D3B3220FE8; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:18:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <013201c2452f$dfb118a0$e4053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "BLML" , "bridge-laws" References: <00e801c243d5$252ac450$069568d5@SCRAP> <008e01c243e9$dce48540$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:07:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 1:14 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray > > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > > > Gtattan Endicott > > >If you think the Director is going astray you can > > >raise a question, politely, but you are required to > > >do as he instructs regardless of your personal > > >opinion of what is correct. > > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > Nigel Guthrie: > > Surely, we all agree on this? > > There is no point in playing any game if you > > flout the rules, deliberately. > > At bridge, the TD is the legal authority. > > With reservations. If any damage to our side caused by an illegal instruction > can be fixed later, okay. But when the illegal instruction can possibly cause > damage that cannot be fixed later, I am very slow to obey it. > > As when a TD says to play a board later when the auction has already started. > That could be very damaging to my side, and I wouldn't do it unless I know (1) > that the other pair is honest and (2) that the other pair won't suspect us of > being dishonest when we get a top on the board. Ben: That is why I would not be one of these players. A TD has to protect the players against a possible accusation; so he should not instruct the players to complete the play of the board later. It is a bad decision. In Law74A2 the TD is not mentioned but there is anyhow Law81C3. > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 17 00:20:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7GEJI309710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 00:19:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eomer.vianetworks.nl (eomer.vianetworks.nl [212.61.15.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7GEJ6K09702 for ; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 00:19:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d420.iae.nl [212.61.5.166]) by eomer.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id D3B3220FE8; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:18:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <013201c2452f$dfb118a0$e4053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "BLML" , "bridge-laws" References: <00e801c243d5$252ac450$069568d5@SCRAP> <008e01c243e9$dce48540$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:07:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 1:14 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray > > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > > > Gtattan Endicott > > >If you think the Director is going astray you can > > >raise a question, politely, but you are required to > > >do as he instructs regardless of your personal > > >opinion of what is correct. > > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > Nigel Guthrie: > > Surely, we all agree on this? > > There is no point in playing any game if you > > flout the rules, deliberately. > > At bridge, the TD is the legal authority. > > With reservations. If any damage to our side caused by an illegal instruction > can be fixed later, okay. But when the illegal instruction can possibly cause > damage that cannot be fixed later, I am very slow to obey it. > > As when a TD says to play a board later when the auction has already started. > That could be very damaging to my side, and I wouldn't do it unless I know (1) > that the other pair is honest and (2) that the other pair won't suspect us of > being dishonest when we get a top on the board. Ben: That is why I would not be one of these players. A TD has to protect the players against a possible accusation; so he should not instruct the players to complete the play of the board later. It is a bad decision. In Law74A2 the TD is not mentioned but there is anyhow Law81C3. > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 17 01:19:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7GFIxa09748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 01:18:59 +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 g7GFIrK09744 for ; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 01:18:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7GFIX320472 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:18:33 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:18 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020816154130.00a814f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Alain wrote: > Having said that, it is illusory to think that the Pro and the Client > will play the same number of boards. What is disallowed is for them to > have conventional means to insure this. This is simply fairness to > other pairs, according to the principle that bridge is a partnership > game. If one player's weaknesses don't affect the result of the pair, > other than by accident, then the ranking of the pair is unfair. If a strong player protects the results of a weak player then the pair will have a "ranking" better than the average of the two individuals - this is *because* bridge is a partnership game, not in conflict with it. If a pair wishes to develop methods that allow a better declarer to play more hands that is entirely reasonable. To me the regulations often adopted make it clear that if one player would use a 2D response to 1N as a transfer then so must the other. Likewise if a 3H response would be game forcing with hearts for one player it must have the same meaning for the other. Beyond that if I choose to put almost all my GF heart hands via 3H while partner puts his via 2D that too is perfectly fine (partner will, of course, disclose that *my* 2D transfers seldom have GF values). We have, in order to "right-side" the contract given up an alternative use for 1N-3H. One may speculate that when the CoC require pairs to try their best win an event it may be obligatory for a strong-weak pair to adopt an approach as outlined 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 Sat Aug 17 04:08:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7GI7ph09854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 04:07:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7GI7kK09850 for ; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 04:07:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7GI7Rx29535 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 11:07:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002001c2454f$a6dc8d00$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:47:53 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Jürgen Rennenkampff" > >> It is equally obvious that the alternative proposed by Mr Kent >> and others is a possible interpretation, and that the ACBL should >> employ an English speaker as a matter of some urgency. > >> David Burn >> London, England > That would be useful - even more useful would be if the WBFLC would employ > writers with a command of English. A command of *simple* English, using plain words when fancier words aren't needed. Who are they trying to impress? E.g., mainly vs primarily starting vs initial choose vs select allow vs permit call vs summon choice vs option later or following vs subsequent kibitzer vs spectator wrong vs incorrect or erroneous right vs correct agreement vs concurrence put back vs restore in turn vs in rotation repeated vs restated ask for vs request earlier vs previous trade vs exchange held vs maintained (...in such a position) take back vs withdraw or retract agrees to vs assents to on purpose vs intentionally determine vs ascertain keep vs retain etc. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 17 08:04:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7GM3g609944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 08:03:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7GM3bK09940 for ; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 08:03:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7GM3Ix07520; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:03:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002e01c24570$992fde20$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:02:18 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Tim West-meads" > Alain wrote: > > > Having said that, it is illusory to think that the Pro and the Client > > will play the same number of boards. What is disallowed is for them to > > have conventional means to insure this. This is simply fairness to > > other pairs, according to the principle that bridge is a partnership > > game. If one player's weaknesses don't affect the result of the pair, > > other than by accident, then the ranking of the pair is unfair. > > If a strong player protects the results of a weak player then the pair > will have a "ranking" better than the average of the two individuals - > this is *because* bridge is a partnership game, not in conflict with it. > If a pair wishes to develop methods that allow a better declarer to play > more hands that is entirely reasonable. As long as they are not playing two different systems. Some pros will open up atrociously weak preempts (I've seen a J9xxx 3C, and 2 HCP weak twos on several occasions). The clients do not do that, and the practice is not Pre-Alerted. Of course they can't Pre-Alert it, because their two-system methods are illegal. When the TD is called, they claim a one-time shot, or "It's a psych," and the TD buys it. > To me the regulations often > adopted make it clear that if one player would use a 2D response to 1N as > a transfer then so must the other. Likewise if a 3H response would be > game forcing with hearts for one player it must have the same meaning for > the other. Beyond that if I choose to put almost all my GF heart hands > via 3H while partner puts his via 2D that too is perfectly fine (partner > will, of course, disclose that *my* 2D transfers seldom have GF values). > We have, in order to "right-side" the contract given up an alternative use > for 1N-3H. I doubt the "seldom." One hand plays 2D/2H as only weak, the other as weak or strong. That's perilously close to a two-system partnership, if not over the line. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California > > One may speculate that when the CoC require pairs to try their best win an > event it may be obligatory for a strong-weak pair to adopt an approach as > outlined 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 17 11:17:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7H1Dec10013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 11:13:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from selenium.mcis.singnet.com.sg (selenium.singnet.com.sg [165.21.74.70]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7H1DYK10009 for ; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 11:13:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by selenium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:12:08 +0800 Received: from mx12.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.74.122]) by tellurium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Fri, 16 Aug 2002 18:54:06 +0800 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by mx12.singnet.com.sg (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g7GAs7kq007487 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 18:54:08 +0800 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7GAmtH09477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 20:48:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (www.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7GAmnK09473 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 20:48:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id MAA27198; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:46:16 +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 MAA26106; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:48:28 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020816125459.00a9f290@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:57:55 +0200 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray 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 15:26 15/08/2002 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <000d01c2445c$84677d50$509468d5@SCRAP> >Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > Tim West-meads: > > No. The TD is the authority for enforcing the laws. It is not > > necessarily OK to commit a crime because a policeman tells you to. > > There is no question of "flouting" the laws when the TD has issued an > > illegal instruction. > > > > Nigel: > > Bridge is a game; not a matter of life or death; and, in most > > games, players must abide by the referee's decisions. > >So what. It is a game with rules. If a TD chooses to issue an >instruction outside those rules one has a choice to make. >Golf is game too. Would you obey a referee who told you to take a free >drop while nobody was looking? > > > Even in real life, you are usually expected to comply with > > "illegal" police instructions e.g. to drive onto the pavement > > (sidewalk) to allow an emergency vehicle to pass. > >That is a "legal" police instruction - well within their normal powers. >An illegal one would be "drive up on the pavement to disperse that group >of protestors". AG : if a TD told me to sing my system explanations, I would not do it, the first reason being trouble to other contestants. If a TD told me not to play a board when we are late, I would comply, the first reason being that other contestants wouldn't suffer from this ; they might even benefit from the smoothness of the movement. This is _mutatis mutandis_ the same distinction as above : instructions that go against general interest may be ignored. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 17 11:47:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7H1i8f10031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 11:44:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tellurium.mcis.singnet.com.sg (tellurium.singnet.com.sg [165.21.74.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7H1i2K10027 for ; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 11:44:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by tellurium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:43:41 +0800 Received: from mx14.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.74.114]) by tellurium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:03:19 +0800 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by mx14.singnet.com.sg (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g7GD3Kb5029980 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:03:20 +0800 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7GD0Fb09657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 23:00:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7GD0AK09653 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 23:00:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #6) id 17fghj-0002lB-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 08:59:51 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020816085729.00b02bb0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:02:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020815173900.00aa5920@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:13 AM 8/16/02, jurgenr wrote: > > When we do that, we realize that the regulations would have been a > > great deal clearer if they had addressed pairs that "vary their > > methods" rather than "vary their system". > >Yes, if you think it would be more amusing to define "method" than to >define >"system". No definition is needed if each call is to have the same meaning >when made by either partner in the identical context. Now would you >like to >know the meaning of "meaning"? I'm not talking precise definitions here. But "method" and "system" are words used by bridge players all the time, and there is a general, if ill-defined, consensus as to what they mean. I merely submit that the consensual usage of the word "method" comes a lot closer to what the ACBL is talking about than the consensual usage of the word "system". That the latter creates unnecessary problems of interpretation has been amply demonstrated by some of the posts in this thread. Perhaps, as Bill Clinton said, it all depends on what the definition of "is" is. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 17 11:54:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7H1sEO10044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 11:54:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tellurium.mcis.singnet.com.sg (tellurium.singnet.com.sg [165.21.74.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7H1s9K10040 for ; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 11:54:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by tellurium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:52:26 +0800 Received: from mx15.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.74.115]) by tellurium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:47:33 +0800 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by mx15.singnet.com.sg (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g7GDlYZh011091 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:47:34 +0800 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7GDi5a09680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 23:44:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (eurasianchemtech.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7GDhxK09676 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 23:44:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id PAA17678; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:41:27 +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 PAA01258; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:43:38 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020816154130.00a814f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:53:04 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020816083746.00aa5250@pop.starpower.net> References: <003501c244c3$f0e5d1e0$6501a8c0@irv> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:53 16/08/2002 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 09:26 PM 8/15/02, Irv wrote: > >>Yet such a system is in fact an advantageous way to play, for technical >>reasons. If I have Axx,AQTxxx,xx,xx, it is clearly best (it seems to me) if >>my partner plays it, but if I have x,AJTxxxx,x,Kxxx I think it's right to >>hide all that distribution from the opponents. I would always want to >>transfer with the first hand and just bid 4H with the second. Clearly this >>is an exercise in judgement, and not an attempt to steer the declaration to >>a stronger player. >> >>However, there seems to be a certain sentiment in favor of barring such >>systems, such as the EBU not liking Drury because people might use it to >>handle psych auctions. I have always been opposed to what I call "lowest >>common denominator" thinking. If I use the treatment improperly, then deal >>with me in an appropriate way, but don't deprive me of it because somebody >>else might use it improperly - deprive THEM of it. > >I hope there is no such sentiment, and I really don't think there is. > >Irv is right about technical advantage. I personally like to have a >similar agreement; in my usual methods (when I play transfers), the only >distinction between, say, 1NT-P-4H and 1NT-P-2D-P-2H-P-4H is responder's >opinion as to which hand should declare. I would be one of the loudest >screamers if someone suggested that this should not be legal. But the >operative word in that agreement here is "hand". If one partner *always* >bids the game directly while the other one *always* transfers, that is >presumptively not a difference in style, but a different agreement: one in >which the distinction is the partnership's (collective) opinion as to >which *partner* should declare. That falls into the category of >agreements which the ACBL has outlawed. > >Of course, if an unethical partnership has the latter agreement but claims >it's the former, we may be hard-pressed (or entirely unable) to find any >compelling evidence that they are violating the rules, even though they >are. But that doesn't give us cause to want to punish or constrain those >ethical partnerships who play a perfectly legimate set of methods that >allow for choice of declarer on some auctions. AG : there will never be (or, being careful, there should never be) any rule against the fact that on Kx - 10xxx - Q10x - Qxxx the Pro will bid 1NT over her partner's 1C or 1D opening, and Mrs Guggenheim will bid 1H, because she would be delighted not to play the contract (at least not in NT). What can, and often will, be disallowed, is for Mrs Guggenheim to bid 1S on this hand, and the Pro will never raise her, thus avoiding badly-placed contracts. Of course, there are often different ways to get at a contract, and I offer another example : I would open 4C on xx-AKJxxxx-AKx-x, and 2H (Acol) on Kx-AKJxxxx-AQx-x. Having said that, it is illusory to think that the Pro and the Client will play the same number of boards. What is disallowed is for them to have conventional means to insure this. This is simply fairness to other pairs, according to the principle that bridge is a partnership game. If one player's weaknesses don't affect the result of the pair, other than by accident, then the ranking of the pair is unfair. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 17 12:02:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7H22cj10076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 12:02:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.mcis.singnet.com.sg (thorium.singnet.com.sg [165.21.74.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7H22XK10072 for ; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 12:02:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by thorium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:53:12 +0800 Received: from mx14.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.74.114]) by tellurium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Fri, 16 Aug 2002 22:23:14 +0800 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by mx14.singnet.com.sg (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g7GENFb5006769 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 22:23:15 +0800 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7GEJI309710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 00:19:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eomer.vianetworks.nl (eomer.vianetworks.nl [212.61.15.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7GEJ6K09702 for ; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 00:19:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d420.iae.nl [212.61.5.166]) by eomer.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id D3B3220FE8; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:18:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <013201c2452f$dfb118a0$e4053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "BLML" , "bridge-laws" References: <00e801c243d5$252ac450$069568d5@SCRAP> <008e01c243e9$dce48540$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:07:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 1:14 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray > > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > > > Gtattan Endicott > > >If you think the Director is going astray you can > > >raise a question, politely, but you are required to > > >do as he instructs regardless of your personal > > >opinion of what is correct. > > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > Nigel Guthrie: > > Surely, we all agree on this? > > There is no point in playing any game if you > > flout the rules, deliberately. > > At bridge, the TD is the legal authority. > > With reservations. If any damage to our side caused by an illegal instruction > can be fixed later, okay. But when the illegal instruction can possibly cause > damage that cannot be fixed later, I am very slow to obey it. > > As when a TD says to play a board later when the auction has already started. > That could be very damaging to my side, and I wouldn't do it unless I know (1) > that the other pair is honest and (2) that the other pair won't suspect us of > being dishonest when we get a top on the board. Ben: That is why I would not be one of these players. A TD has to protect the players against a possible accusation; so he should not instruct the players to complete the play of the board later. It is a bad decision. In Law74A2 the TD is not mentioned but there is anyhow Law81C3. > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 17 21:17:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7HBF6i10320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 21:15:06 +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 g7HBF0K10316 for ; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 21:15:01 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7HBEcX18668 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 12:14:39 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 12:14 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <002e01c24570$992fde20$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > > > > If a strong player protects the results of a weak player then the pair > > will have a "ranking" better than the average of the two individuals - > > this is *because* bridge is a partnership game, not in conflict with > > it. > > If a pair wishes to develop methods that allow a better declarer to > > play more hands that is entirely reasonable. > > As long as they are not playing two different systems. Some pros will > open up atrociously weak preempts (I've seen a J9xxx 3C, and 2 HCP weak > twos on several occasions). The clients do not do that, and the practice > is not Pre-Alerted. Of course they can't Pre-Alert it, because their > two-system methods are illegal. This is not, IMO a "two system method". When I play with Emily our cc makes it clear that we have very different minimum requirements for opening 2/3 bids. Sure the cc says 4-9 and I will very occasionally open on 3 or 10 (but only a very small percentage of 3 counts, those with QJT97x and an outside 4 card suit, qualify). Why do we have different requirements? Because if one of us has to play in a fragile doubled 2 level contract I am worth 1.5 extra tricks as declarer. > When the TD is called, they claim a one-time shot, or "It's a psych," > and the TD buys it. This is, of course, unacceptable. > > To me the regulations often > > adopted make it clear that if one player would use a 2D response to > > 1N as > > a transfer then so must the other. Likewise if a 3H response would be > > game forcing with hearts for one player it must have the same meaning > > for > > the other. Beyond that if I choose to put almost all my GF heart > > hands via 3H while partner puts his via 2D that too is perfectly fine > > (partner will, of course, disclose that *my* 2D transfers seldom have > > GF values). We have, in order to "right-side" the contract given up an > > alternative use for 1N-3H. > > I doubt the "seldom." One hand plays 2D/2H as only weak, the other as > weak or strong. Playing the above system one is still going to transfer on hands like xx,AKQJxx,JT9x,x. This hand wants to be played by the 1N opener regardless of relative player strengths. > That's perilously close to a two-system partnership, if > not over the line. The problem being that everybody sees the line in a different place. 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 Aug 18 03:53:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7HHq2g10522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 03:52:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7HHpvK10518 for ; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 03:51:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7HHpap11340; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 10:51:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002d01c24616$9a8aaec0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 10:50:37 -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: "Tim West-meads" > Marv wrote: > > > > > Some pros will > > open up atrociously weak preempts (I've seen a J9xxx 3C, and 2 HCP weak > > twos on several occasions). The clients do not do that, and the practice > > is not Pre-Alerted. Of course they can't Pre-Alert it, because their > > two-system methods are illegal. > > This is not, IMO a "two system method". When I play with Emily our cc > makes it clear that we have very different minimum requirements for > opening 2/3 bids. Sure the cc says 4-9 and I will very occasionally open > on 3 or 10 (but only a very small percentage of 3 counts, those with > QJT97x and an outside 4 card suit, qualify). That's fine, as you are varying within the bounds of your CC, with a very occasional step over the boundaries that your partner will not allow for. Perfectly legal "style and judgment" variations within a single system. But the pros I'm talking about have clients who do not make (pre-Alertable) extra-wild preempts, as they do. Also they may have 5-11 HCP on the CC, but will open 2-3 HCP weak twos in third position. They are not playing the same system, as these implicit agreements are not only illegal, but way outside the "style and judgment" differences that are permissible. > > Why do we have different requirements? Because if one of us has to play in > a fragile doubled 2 level contract I am worth 1.5 extra tricks as > declarer. > > > When the TD is called, they claim a one-time shot, or "It's a psych," > > and the TD buys it. > > This is, of course, unacceptable. > > > > > I doubt the "seldom." One hand plays 2D/2H as only weak, the other as > > weak or strong. > > Playing the above system one is still going to transfer on hands like > xx,AKQJxx,JT9x,x. This hand wants to be played by the 1N opener > regardless of relative player strengths. Then that's "seldom," and therefore okay. Some pros will not let some clients play such hands. Maybe there's a squeeze, or a guess, or a dummy reversal, or whatever, that the client will not play correctly, and it is possible for the hand to get a more favorable lead when played from his side (Opener has Axx spades, with KQ clubs, opening leader Jxxx spades, J109x clubs). When well behind in a match or with a poor score at matchpoints, needing a swing I might well play the heart contract myself even with a good partner. > > > That's perilously close to a two-system partnership, if > > not over the line. > > The problem being that everybody sees the line in a different place. I think we agree that "never" is over the line. 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 Aug 19 09:11:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7IMjRK11262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 08:45:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7IMjLK11258 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 08:45:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g7HN9nL28523 for ; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 00:09:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 00:32:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: [BLML] absence at Brighton MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS and I will be at Brighton for 10 days. Not sure what acess we'll have. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 19 10:11:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7INloH11307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 09:47:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7INlgK11290 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 09:47:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g7I0CKA00725 for ; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 01:12:21 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 00:08:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem References: <200208131518.LAA06316@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200208131518.LAA06316@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200208131518.LAA06316@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Sven Pran" >> when >> you calculate all scores as plus and minus relative to average rather than >> as absolute scores from zero to top then Neuberg and Ascherman >> becomes identical! > don't think so, on reflection. Will discuss by email if anyone interested >I think factoring Ascherman is always the same as using Neuberg. >(Actually, I'm pretty sure this is true, but after being corrected >by Henk yesterday, I'm no longer certain of anything.) >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 19 10:11:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7INlrJ11308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 09:47:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7INlgK11291 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 09:47:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g7I0CKA00726 for ; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 01:12:21 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 00:15:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many References: <63XU95ML733Y2WDBVQWUMJLJB9OM83ZU.3d5a40c6@pp-xp> <3D5A8AC4.9070609@skynet.be> <006601c243e3$32b735a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <006601c243e3$32b735a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <006601c243e3$32b735a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes > >From: "Herman De Wael" > >> When there is a bye, half the >> field will have played a different number of boards and so the >> software should be able to cope with that problem as well ... >> >Yes, by factoring, which is not really fair. We should have a better method, >just as Neuberg is a better method for boards that are played a different number >of times. > >The fewer the at-bats in baseball, the easier it is to have a high (or low) >batting average. The fewer boards a pair plays, the easier it is to get a good >score (or a bad one).Same principle. There is a "shrinking factor" that tends to >pull high scores down and low scores up as the number of boards played >increases. Can't someone come up with a way to account for this effect? > Ascherman >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 19 12:11:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7J1jo511373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:45:50 +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 g7J1jjK11369 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:45:46 +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 MAA05882 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 12:01:10 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:40:09 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:44:59 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 19/08/2002 11:39:43 AM 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] >>Irv is right about technical advantage. I personally >>like to have a similar agreement; in my usual methods >>(when I play transfers), the only distinction between, >>say, 1NT-P-4H and 1NT-P-2D-P-2H-P-4H is responder's >>opinion as to which hand should declare. I would be >>one of the loudest screamers if someone suggested that >>this should not be legal. >> >>But the operative word in that agreement here is "hand". >> >>If one partner *always* bids the game directly while the >>other one *always* transfers, that is presumptively not >>a difference in style, but a different agreement: one in >>which the distinction is the partnership's (collective) >>opinion as to which *partner* should declare. That >>falls into the category of agreements which the ACBL has >>outlawed. [snip] Alain Gottcheiner replied: [snip] >there should never be) any rule against the fact that on >Kx - 10xxx - Q10x - Qxxx the Pro will bid 1NT over her >partner's 1C or 1D opening, and Mrs Guggenheim will bid 1H, >because she would be delighted not to play the contract (at >least not in NT). [snip] I disagree with both Eric and Alain. There are two distinct issues here: 1. A system where one hand type is described by two bids 2. A system where two hand types are described by one bid Even Eric admits to using system 1 in his usual methods. Eric, however, argues that an objective analysis as to whether system 1 is, by its nature, the illegal "two systems" is not enough. Depending on the percentage use of previously legal calls by members of a partnership, Eric would rule an "a priori" legal system suddenly illegal. On the other hand, Alain's example is an example of system 2. Pro Mrs G 1D 1NT = denies a four-card major Mrs G Pro 1D 1NT = may hold four-card major Alain's example, and other system 2s, IMHO can clearly be regulated as illegal "two systems" methods under L40E1. 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 Aug 19 17:35:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7J7BNC11549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:11:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from c3po.skynet.be (c3po.skynet.be [195.238.3.237]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7J7BHK11545 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:11:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (175.165-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.165.175]) by c3po.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7J7Al700769 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 09:10:47 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D6099FA.7010009@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 09:10:50 +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] one board too many References: <63XU95ML733Y2WDBVQWUMJLJB9OM83ZU.3d5a40c6@pp-xp> <3D5A8AC4.9070609@skynet.be> <006601c243e3$32b735a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi John, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > writes > >> >>The fewer the at-bats in baseball, the easier it is to have a high (or low) >>batting average. The fewer boards a pair plays, the easier it is to get a good >>score (or a bad one).Same principle. There is a "shrinking factor" that tends to >>pull high scores down and low scores up as the number of boards played >>increases. Can't someone come up with a way to account for this effect? >> >> > Ascherman > Actually John, no. Ascherman just deals with the number of scores on one board, not with the number of boards played. What one needs there is the equivalent of a VP scale. Maybe we should simply do the same as the VP scale : divide by the square root of the number of boards. > >>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/ >> > -- 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 Aug 19 18:36:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7J8BdF11586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 18:11:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7J8BXK11582 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 18:11:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-3906.bb.online.no [80.212.223.66]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA06813 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:11:03 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00bc01c24757$f6fe8f40$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <63XU95ML733Y2WDBVQWUMJLJB9OM83ZU.3d5a40c6@pp-xp> <3D5A8AC4.9070609@skynet.be> <006601c243e3$32b735a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D6099FA.7010009@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:10:51 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > writes > > > >> > >>The fewer the at-bats in baseball, the easier it is to have a high (or low) > >>batting average. The fewer boards a pair plays, the easier it is to get a good > >>score (or a bad one).Same principle. There is a "shrinking factor" that tends to > >>pull high scores down and low scores up as the number of boards played > >>increases. Can't someone come up with a way to account for this effect? > >> > >> > > Ascherman > > > > > Actually John, no. > > Ascherman just deals with the number of scores on one board, not with > the number of boards played. What one needs there is the equivalent > of a VP scale. > > Maybe we should simply do the same as the VP scale : divide by the > square root of the number of boards. I have previously been involved in a lengthy discussion on a related item: Sit-outs. You will have no problem, and in my opinion a perfectly fair solution (at least as fair as can be) if you consider any tournament to comprise the total number of boards involved whether there are sit-outs etc. or not and use Neuberg (or Acherman) to compensate for the various number of participants playing each board. This is the way we always do it in Norway. (Well: Almost always) In the given example we have a tournament (probably) comprising 36 different boards out of which all participants are supposed to sit out on 4 boards (the actual numbers are irrelevant). All participants then receive an A+ score on the boards they do not play ("they are not to blame for not playing those boards") and each board is scored using Neuberg (or Acherman) to calculate the scores for the number of participants playing the board as opposed to the total number of participating pairs. If a pair then plays an "extra" board in such a way that it should not just be cancelled, it is a simple matter to score that board as having been played by just another participant. Instead of receiving the A+ score they receive whatever they make (And please spare me another discussion on formalities that artificial adjusted scores cannot be awarded for boards not intended to be played. We do consider such boards part of the tournament, apply Law 12C1 with the "irregularity" being that not all participants will play all the boards, and award A+ on the reason that the affected participants are not at fault - period) 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 Aug 19 21:06:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7JAgGZ11667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 20:42:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7JAgAK11663 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 20:42:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (175.165-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.165.175]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7JAfgb05972 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 12:41:42 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D60CB68.5030609@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 12:41:44 +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] one board too many References: <63XU95ML733Y2WDBVQWUMJLJB9OM83ZU.3d5a40c6@pp-xp> <3D5A8AC4.9070609@skynet.be> <006601c243e3$32b735a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D6099FA.7010009@skynet.be> <00bc01c24757$f6fe8f40$6400a8c0@WINXP> 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: > > I have previously been involved in a lengthy discussion on a related item: > Sit-outs. > > You will have no problem, and in my opinion a perfectly fair solution > (at least as fair as can be) if you consider any tournament to comprise > the total number of boards involved whether there are sit-outs etc. or not > and use Neuberg (or Acherman) to compensate for the various number > of participants playing each board. > > This is the way we always do it in Norway. (Well: Almost always) > > In the given example we have a tournament (probably) comprising 36 > different boards out of which all participants are supposed to sit out on > 4 boards (the actual numbers are irrelevant). > > All participants then receive an A+ score on the boards they do not > play ("they are not to blame for not playing those boards") and each > board is scored using Neuberg (or Acherman) to calculate the scores > for the number of participants playing the board as opposed to the total > number of participating pairs. > > If a pair then plays an "extra" board in such a way that it should not just > be cancelled, it is a simple matter to score that board as having been > played by just another participant. Instead of receiving the A+ score > they receive whatever they make > > (And please spare me another discussion on formalities that artificial > adjusted scores cannot be awarded for boards not intended to be > played. We do consider such boards part of the tournament, apply > Law 12C1 with the "irregularity" being that not all participants will > play all the boards, and award A+ on the reason that the affected > participants are not at fault - period) > OK, I'll spare you a lengthy discussion. Except to say that the opposite view is equally defendable, and the one in actual use in the whole world minus Norway. Now if we want to make regulations that are world wide - do we give every bridge player in the world an equal vote, except Geir Helgemo, who is of course worth 2 million others? > regards Sven > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > -- 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 Aug 19 21:46:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7JBNHU11690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 21:23:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7JBKYK11686 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 21:20:34 +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 NAA15996; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:17:52 +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 NAA16548; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:20:07 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020819131951.00a83af0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:29:37 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , "Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: <002001c2454f$a6dc8d00$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:47 16/08/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >A command of *simple* English, using plain words when fancier words aren't >needed. Who are they trying to impress? AG : I must be deeply struck by the virus of unwise fancy, because I would select (or choose) about half the words in the right column and half in the left one. Please tell me which one you find "plain". It seems more like a distinction between purely anglo-saxon words (left) and international words (right). Perhaps the fact that my primary (or main) language is French is the reason why I prefer 'initial', 'correct', 'exchange' etc. >E.g., > >mainly vs primarily >starting vs initial >choose vs select >allow vs permit >call vs summon AG : as a long-time role- and CCG-player, the idea of Summoning the Director makes me enthusiastic. The material component is a piece of parchment tainted in vivid orange, which isn't destroyed by the casting. As an additional casting cost, remove your remaining cards from the game for the time the TD remains at the table. >choice vs option >later or following vs subsequent >kibitzer vs spectator >wrong vs incorrect or erroneous >right vs correct AG : so either 'incorrect' or 'wrong' is 'wrong' or 'incorrect' ... Shades of Grelling's paradox -<:-P Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 19 22:48:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7JCPmw11827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 22:25:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hermes.bmc.uu.se (hermes.bmc.uu.se [130.238.39.245]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7JCPdK11823 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 22:25:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from terveen (terveen.ytbioteknik.uu.se [130.238.44.17]) by hermes.bmc.uu.se (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-62649U1500L1000S0V35) with SMTP id se for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:25:07 +0200 Message-ID: <012201c2477b$eaec4f20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020812134755.00a8a130@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] New specifications for card faces???? Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:28:26 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_011F_01C2478C.AE5B2E80" 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_011F_01C2478C.AE5B2E80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am not color blind myself, so I cannot say how it works in reallife. = The most common form of color blindness makes it impossible to discern = red from green. This means that for the vast majority of color blind = people the deck is changed from having two black suits and two red suits = to one black suit (spades) and three red suits (hearts, diamonds and = clubs (green)). My suggestion would be to have spades blue, hearts red, diamonds orange = and clubs black. The NT bidding cards in the bidding box can than be = made in green. But it may be a good idea to ask somebody who _is_ color blind. Rik ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Alain Gottcheiner=20 To: Sven Pran ; Bridge Laws Submissions=20 Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 1:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] New specifications for card faces???? At 11:28 12/08/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: Today I heard rumours that a regulation has been issued (by WBF???) specifying that the playing cards must be redesigned to be = absolutely symmetrical. Not only must the assymetric spot on the 7-spots be moved, but also the spade, heart and club symbols as used on the Aces and all odd-numbered spot cards be redesigned so that there is no up- or down-side on those. =20 As I wrote: Rumours, but apparently with some confidence. AG :this is a *very good* idea. The French have tried it at the = Deauville Festival, and most of the players found it very sensible. The 6 and 10 are made symmetrical by making the middle-left symbol = pointing upwards, the middle-right downwards. It remains the same when = you rotate the card. The 3, 5, 7 and 9 have their center pip modified in such a way that it = is rotation-symmetrical (no problem for diamonds ; clubs are made = 4-leafed ; spades and hearts are split as honor cards are, in their = globality, in some designs : =BD upwards, =BD downwards). The aim is to avoid cheating by placing the played card in different = positions so that a different number of pips appear upwards to partner. = Apparently this had occurred in recent times. Another innovation happened : each suit had its own color (diamonds = were dull orange, clubs green). This I have found a marvellous idea. In = 120 deals, I didn't even missort my cards once, which is statistically = significant. 1st of April or not, I'm immensely in favor of these changings. If somebody can find an argument against them, I will listen = carefully, but I bet there isn't any. Best regards, Alain.=20 ------=_NextPart_000_011F_01C2478C.AE5B2E80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am not color blind myself, so I = cannot say how it=20 works in reallife. The most common form of color blindness makes it = impossible=20 to discern red from green. This means that for the vast majority of = color blind=20 people the deck is changed from having two black suits and two red suits = to one=20 black suit (spades) and three red suits (hearts, diamonds and clubs=20 (green)).
 
My suggestion would be to have spades = blue, hearts=20 red, diamonds orange and clubs black. The NT bidding cards in the = bidding box=20 can than be made in green.
 
But it may be a good idea to ask = somebody who _is_=20 color blind.
 
Rik
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Alain = Gottcheiner=20
To: Sven Pran ; Bridge Laws Submissions
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 = 1:56=20 PM
Subject: Re: [BLML] New = specifications=20 for card faces????

At 11:28 12/08/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote:
Today I=20 heard rumours that a regulation has been issued (by = WBF???)
specifying that the playing cards must be = redesigned to be=20 absolutely
symmetrical. Not = only must the=20 assymetric spot on the 7-spots be
moved,=20 but also the spade, heart and club symbols as used on = the
Aces and all odd-numbered spot cards be = redesigned so that=20 there
is no up- or down-side = on=20 those.
 
As I wrote: = Rumours, but=20 apparently with some confidence.

AG :this is = a *very=20 good* idea. The French have tried it at the Deauville Festival, and = most of=20 the players found it very sensible.
The 6 and 10 are made = symmetrical by=20 making the middle-left symbol pointing upwards, the middle-right = downwards. It=20 remains the same when you rotate the card.
The 3, 5, 7 and 9 have = their=20 center pip modified in such a way that it is rotation-symmetrical (no = problem=20 for diamonds ; clubs are made 4-leafed ; spades and hearts are split = as honor=20 cards are, in their globality, in some designs : =BD upwards, =BD=20 downwards).
The aim is to avoid cheating by placing the played card = in=20 different positions so that a different number of pips appear upwards = to=20 partner. Apparently this had occurred in recent times.

Another=20 innovation happened : each suit had its own color (diamonds were dull = orange,=20 clubs green). This I have found a marvellous idea. In 120 deals, I = didn't even=20 missort my cards once, which is statistically significant.

1st = of April=20 or not, I'm immensely in favor of these changings.
If somebody can = find an=20 argument against them, I will listen carefully, but I bet there isn't=20 any.

Best=20 = regards,

        Alain.=20 ------=_NextPart_000_011F_01C2478C.AE5B2E80-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 20 00:02:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7JDdAa11899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 23:39:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg6.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg6.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7JDd0K11895 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 23:39:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-176.erendis.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.198.176] helo=pc) by cmailg6.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17gmjh-0001SS-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:38:25 +0100 Message-ID: <001c01c24785$5c9cd640$b0c6883e@pc> From: "LarryBennett" To: "BLML" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020812134755.00a8a130@pop.ulb.ac.be> <012201c2477b$eaec4f20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Subject: Re: [BLML] New specifications for card faces???? Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:32:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01C2478D.4FB02560" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C2478D.4FB02560 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I, like I understand, forty percent of males, am colour blind. Like the = majority of those I am red/green. Seperate colours are little problem. The main difficulty is with red on = a black or green background, particularly dark reds. Traffic lights are = perfectly clear, but it might explain my lack of batting prowess against = faster bowlers. (Cricket for the heathen parts of the world :-) Larry I am not color blind myself, so I cannot say how it works in reallife. = The most common form of color blindness makes it impossible to discern = red from green. This means that for the vast majority of color blind = people the deck is changed from having two black suits and two red suits = to one black suit (spades) and three red suits (hearts, diamonds and = clubs (green)). My suggestion would be to have spades blue, hearts red, diamonds = orange and clubs black. The NT bidding cards in the bidding box can than = be made in green. But it may be a good idea to ask somebody who _is_ color blind. Rik ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C2478D.4FB02560 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I, like I understand, forty = percent of=20 males, am colour blind. Like the majority of those I am = red/green.
Seperate colours are little = problem. The=20 main difficulty is with red on a black or green background, particularly = dark=20 reds. Traffic lights are perfectly clear, but it might explain my lack = of=20 batting prowess against faster bowlers. (Cricket for the heathen parts = of the=20 world :-)
 
Larry

I am not color blind myself, so I = cannot say how=20 it works in reallife. The most common form of color blindness makes it = impossible to discern red from green. This means that for the vast = majority of=20 color blind people the deck is changed from having two black suits and = two red=20 suits to one black suit (spades) and three red suits (hearts, diamonds = and=20 clubs (green)).
 
My suggestion would be to have spades = blue,=20 hearts red, diamonds orange and clubs black. The NT bidding cards in = the=20 bidding box can than be made in green.
 
But it may be a good idea to ask = somebody who=20 _is_ color blind.
 
Rik
 
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C2478D.4FB02560-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 20 00:29:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7JE5RR11936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 00:05:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7JE5LK11932 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 00:05:22 +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 KAA24682 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:04:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA18915 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:04:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:04:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208191404.KAA18915@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > Ascherman just deals with the number of scores on one board, not with > the number of boards played. What one needs there is the equivalent > of a VP scale. > > Maybe we should simply do the same as the VP scale : divide by the > square root of the number of boards. I think this is the correct approach, although there is no need for VP's or other artificiality. One wants to compare the probabilities of achieving a given score, i.e. to calculate the final standings in "sigmas" instead of in percent. Sigma ought to go as the square root of the number of boards played, and thus deviations from average should be reduced by this factor. For example, consider the case where there is a bye, so half the field plays 24 boards and half plays 26. Each board is played the same number of times, so there is no problem with that. For the pairs who only played 24 boards, subtract 50% from their scores, multiply the result by sqrt(24/60)=0.96, and add the 50% back. Thus a pair with 60% in raw score over 24 boards has an equivalent score over 26 boards of 59.6%. This is just over half a (US) matchpoint, so it won't usually make a difference but could do so in close finishes. Unlike Aschermann/Neuberg, I think this approach has sound mathematical justification, although I am not aware of its being used in practice anywhere. I think I'll suggest it at the MIT/DL bridge club and see what the reaction is. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 20 00:32:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7JE9u611943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 00:09:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7JE9pK11939 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 00:09:51 +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 QAA19912; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:07:09 +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 QAA14827; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:09:24 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020819161422.00a799b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:18:54 +0200 To: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen), "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] New specifications for card faces???? In-Reply-To: <012201c2477b$eaec4f20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020812134755.00a8a130@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g7JE9rK11940 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:28 19/08/2002 +0200, Rik Terveen wrote: >I am not color blind myself, so I cannot say how it works in reallife. The >most common form of color blindness makes it impossible to discern red >from green. This means that for the vast majority of color blind people >the deck is changed from having two black suits and two red suits to one >black suit (spades) and three red suits (hearts, diamonds and clubs (green)). > >My suggestion would be to have spades blue, hearts red, diamonds orange >and clubs black. The NT bidding cards in the bidding box can than be made >in green. AG : the only suits whose color is justified by external reasons are hearts and clubs. Clover isn't black, even for the color-blind. One color-blind bridge-playing friend of mine, who claims never to have missorted his suits, thinks that clubs can't be misconstrued for another suit, because their color is fairly dull. I guess it appears as light grey. But of course, if one accepts to depart from 'natural' colrors, your suggestion is quite efficient. Best regards, Alain. > >But it may be a good idea to ask somebody who _is_ color blind. > >Rik >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: Alain Gottcheiner >>To: Sven Pran ; >>Bridge Laws Submissions >>Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 1:56 PM >>Subject: Re: [BLML] New specifications for card faces???? >> >>At 11:28 12/08/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >>>Today I heard rumours that a regulation has been issued (by WBF???) >>>specifying that the playing cards must be redesigned to be absolutely >>>symmetrical. Not only must the assymetric spot on the 7-spots be >>>moved, but also the spade, heart and club symbols as used on the >>>Aces and all odd-numbered spot cards be redesigned so that there >>>is no up- or down-side on those. >>> >>>As I wrote: Rumours, but apparently with some confidence. >> >>AG :this is a *very good* idea. The French have tried it at the Deauville >>Festival, and most of the players found it very sensible. >>The 6 and 10 are made symmetrical by making the middle-left symbol >>pointing upwards, the middle-right downwards. It remains the same when >>you rotate the card. >>The 3, 5, 7 and 9 have their center pip modified in such a way that it is >>rotation-symmetrical (no problem for diamonds ; clubs are made 4-leafed ; >>spades and hearts are split as honor cards are, in their globality, in >>some designs : ½ upwards, ½ downwards). >>The aim is to avoid cheating by placing the played card in different >>positions so that a different number of pips appear upwards to partner. >>Apparently this had occurred in recent times. >> >>Another innovation happened : each suit had its own color (diamonds were >>dull orange, clubs green). This I have found a marvellous idea. In 120 >>deals, I didn't even missort my cards once, which is statistically significant. >> >>1st of April or not, I'm immensely in favor of these changings. >>If somebody can find an argument against them, I will listen carefully, >>but I bet there isn't 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 Tue Aug 20 00:43:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7JEJtu11965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 00:19:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7JEJoK11961 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 00:19:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id KAA25337 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:19:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA19129 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:19:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:19:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208191419.KAA19129@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: > Thus a pair with 60% > in raw score over 24 boards has an equivalent score over 26 boards of > 59.6%. This is just over half a (US) matchpoint, Sorry, off by a factor of two. The difference is just over one US matchpoint or two Euro matchpoints. I think. :-) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 20 01:59:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7JFYvJ12028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 01:34:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (mta07-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7JFYqK12024 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 01:34:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.149.66]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020819153424.WZEK13709.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:34:24 +0100 Message-ID: <004901c24795$ed8c76a0$429568d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020816125459.00a9f290@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:34:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads: No. The TD is the authority for enforcing the laws. > It is not necessarily OK to commit a crime because a policeman > tells you to. There is no question of "flouting" the laws when > the TD has issued an illegal instruction. Nigel: Bridge is a game; not a matter of life or death; and, in most games, players must abide by the referee's decisions. Tim: So what. It is a game with rules. If a TD chooses to issue an > instruction outside those rules one has a choice to make. > Golf is game too. Would you obey a referee who told you to take a free > drop while nobody was looking? Nigel: Even in real life, you are usually expected to comply with "illegal" police instructions e.g. to drive onto the pavement (sidewalk) to allow an emergency vehicle to pass. >Tim: That is a "legal" police instruction - well within their normal powers. > in illegal one would be "drive up on the pavement to disperse that group > of protestors". Alan Gottcheiner: if a TD told me to sing my system explanations, I would not do it, the first reason being trouble to other contestants. If a TD told me not to play a board when we are late, I would comply, the first reason being that other contestants wouldn't suffer from this; they might even benefit from the smoothness of the movement. This is _mutatis mutandis_ the same distinction as above : instructions that go against general interest may be ignored. Nigel: If a TD (or referee or policeman) tells you to do something that you think is wrong, you should try to explain why you think it is wrong. If he insists, you obey, and it turns out that he was wrong, then the law should protect you; if you disobey and he is right, then, IMO, you should be subject to further sanctions. Hence, IMO, only if it is clear that the authority is acting outside his jurisdiction, should you persist in refusal. e.g. If a TD says "do not psyche for the remainder of the session", then I may protest but, whether the instruction is legal or not, I will comply. e.g. if a TD says "as a PP you must strangle your partner", then however tempted, I will refuse; because even if some local bridge law prescribes such a sanction, IMO, higher laws supervene to proscribe it. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 -- ======================================================================== (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 Aug 20 02:53:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7JGTXN12069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 02:29:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout10.sul.t-online.com (mailout10.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7JGTRK12065 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 02:29:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd04.sul.t-online.de by mailout10.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17gpOl-0005uu-07; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 18:28:59 +0200 Received: from jurgenr (520085598528-0001@[217.229.12.13]) by fwd04.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17gpOc-0BF4ymC; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 18:28:50 +0200 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) To: "Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] one board too many Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 18:28:40 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200208191404.KAA18915@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Sender: 520085598528-0001@t-dialin.net 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 Steve Willner > Sent: Montag, 19. August 2002 16:05 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many > > > > From: Herman De Wael > > Ascherman just deals with the number of scores on one board, not with > > the number of boards played. What one needs there is the equivalent > > of a VP scale. > > > > Maybe we should simply do the same as the VP scale : divide by the > > square root of the number of boards. > > I think this is the correct approach, although there is no need for > VP's or other artificiality. > > One wants to compare the probabilities of achieving a given score, > i.e. to calculate the final standings in "sigmas" instead of in > percent. Sigma ought to go as the square root of the number of boards > played, and thus deviations from average should be reduced by this > factor. > > For example, consider the case where there is a bye, so half the field > plays 24 boards and half plays 26. Each board is played the same > number of times, so there is no problem with that. For the pairs who > only played 24 boards, subtract 50% from their scores, multiply the > result by sqrt(24/60)=0.96, and add the 50% back. Thus a pair with 60% > in raw score over 24 boards has an equivalent score over 26 boards of > 59.6%. This is just over half a (US) matchpoint, so it won't usually > make a difference but could do so in close finishes. > > Unlike Aschermann/Neuberg, I think this approach has sound mathematical > justification, although I am not aware of its being used in practice > anywhere. I think I'll suggest it at the MIT/DL bridge club and see > what the reaction is. This procedure is wrong for several reasons. First, you are implicitly assuming that the expectation is 50%. To see this, let the number of boards increase from 26 to some large number; your corrected value will always appoach 50%. Second, it is the deviation about the mean that is inversely proportional to the sqrt(n), not the deviation about some arbitrary value. Third, in order to justify any simple estimate of this kind you need an average of (independent) identically distributed random variables. This is not the case for bridge scores and serious difficulties arise due to the arithmetic done on ranks. All of the methods - Ascherman, Mitchell, Newman etc - that combine scores from fouled boards are pure voodoo; there are no statistical grounds for any of these adjustments unless extraneous information is taken into account. Jürgen > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 20 04:32:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7JIA7U12141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 04:10:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7JIA1K12137 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 04:10:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g7IIYdA02634 for ; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 19:34:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 19:07:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many References: <63XU95ML733Y2WDBVQWUMJLJB9OM83ZU.3d5a40c6@pp-xp> <3D5A8AC4.9070609@skynet.be> <006601c243e3$32b735a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <3D6099FA.7010009@skynet.be> In-Reply-To: <3D6099FA.7010009@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 <3D6099FA.7010009@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Hi John, > >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> writes >> >>> >>>The fewer the at-bats in baseball, the easier it is to have a high (or low) >>>batting average. The fewer boards a pair plays, the easier it is to get a good >>>score (or a bad one).Same principle. There is a "shrinking factor" that tends >to >>>pull high scores down and low scores up as the number of boards played >>>increases. Can't someone come up with a way to account for this effect? >>> >>> >> Ascherman >> > > >Actually John, no. Gah, misread it. Umm, I'm not sure square root is right. It's ok for imps. 7 x root(No.Boards) works pretty well for VP scales, but that's based on the noise content of the data collected using imp scoring. I'd be happy to use root(No.Boards) for Butler. Because we're comparing two large but comparable numbers this is close to 0.5 x the normal adjustment (if I recall how binomial expansions work correctly). I'd be happy with that. mps is another matter I think. > >Ascherman just deals with the number of scores on one board, not with >the number of boards played. What one needs there is the equivalent >of a VP scale. > >Maybe we should simply do the same as the VP scale : divide by the >square root of the number of boards. > >> >>>Marv >>>Marvin L. French >>>San Diego, California >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>======================================================================== >>>(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >>>"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >>>A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ >>> >> > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 20 04:44:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7JIKT612153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 04:20:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7JIKOK12149 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 04:20:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.148.203]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020819181957.OGTZ5047.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 19:19:57 +0100 Message-ID: <00df01c247ad$0d979f30$cb9468d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020709144104.00abb610@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 19:20:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nigel: 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. Eric Landau: 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]." Nigel: I would prefer the laws to dictate (1); with or without Standard System defaults; but I would settle for (2). Eric: 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). Nigel: Thank you Eric for your clear explanation. I am still puzzled by two points... A. It seems strange to say "We do not have a specific agreement". when you suspect there may be one written in your convention card but you are not absolutely certain what it is. B. It seems wrong to me that "[You] need need not disclose whatever inferences you may derive from [your agreements]". e.g. Opponents ask about our auction: 2N-3c-; 3D-3h; 3N End 2N: 20-22 HCP, shape 5332 4432 or 4333 (any suits). 3C: Puppet Stayman asking for five card majors. 3D: Puppet with no 4 card major. (3H and 3S would have shown five cards in the bid suits; 3N would have shown two hearts and three spades). 3H: Four spades. 3N: Natural. (3S would have promised exactly three spades; 4 bids would have shown aces and promised exactly four spades) We seem to have leant over backwards to comply with your instructions Nevertheless, I feel that it would take a logician to work out that, inter alia, the 3N bidder has four hearts. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 -- ======================================================================== (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 Aug 20 05:18:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7JIssL12178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 04:54:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7JIsmK12174 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 04:54:49 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7JIsMC03175 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 19:54:23 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 19:54 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray 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: <004901c24795$ed8c76a0$429568d5@SCRAP> Nigel wrote: > If a TD (or referee or policeman) tells you to do something that you > think is wrong, you should try to explain why you think it is wrong. > If he insists, you obey, and it turns out that he was wrong, then the > law should protect you; Just about correct. I think you would need to convince a court that a reasonable person *might* regard the instruction as legitimate. > if you disobey and he is right, then, IMO, you should be subject to > further sanctions. of course > Hence, IMO, only if it is clear that the authority is acting outside > his jurisdiction, should you persist in refusal. Indeed. And the law would not protect you if you obeyed an obviously illegitimate instruction. > e.g. If a TD says "do not psyche for the remainder of the session", > then I may protest but, whether the instruction is legal or not, I will > comply. But here we differ. I would make no special effort to psych but would do so if an appropriate hand came along. I guess that you class this one as "probably wrong but might be legitimate" while I class it as "obviously outwith his powers/illegal" hence the different choices. I have never, it must be said, been a big fan of unquestioning obedience to authority. 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 Aug 20 05:53:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7JJTge12200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 05:29:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.1.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7JJTbK12196 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 05:29:37 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 2B2609162; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:28:10 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:28:00 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As in my Toronto summary my goal is to discover whether committees are improving rulings overall. This time I've summarized the cases from the Las Vegas NABC. The casebook can be found at http://www.acbl.org/casebooks/Las_Vegas_Fall01.pdf 23 cases were decided by committee, 19 by panels. I examined each case in an effort to determine whether the committee or panel made the same ruling as the director, improved upon the table ruling, worsened it, or whether I found the case too close to call. Here are my results -- as always, comments are welcome. Committees Panels Same Improved Worsened TCTC Same Improved Worsened TCTC 1 7 17 11 2 15 22 13 3 8 24 4 23 16 9 34 5 27 18 12 38 6 28 19 20 10 32 31 21 14 36 33 29 25 42 37 30 26 40 35 41 39 Totals: 8 10 1 4 10 7 1 1 Committees did about as well as panels, and both did better than the table directors. It's only to be expected that committees and panels do a better job than the table director. They have more time to determine the facts and to consider their ruling. It's also important to remember that we see a biased sample of director rulings -- hundreds or thousands of rulings are never appealed. It's also worth noting that some casebook panelists believe that the cases handled by panels tend to be easier. I agree, as witness the 4-1 ratio of cases I judged too close to call. I have classified the infamous Reisinger decision (case 41) as one the committee improved. While I don't know that the committee made the right decision (I think it's too close to call) the floor director clearly made an incorrect decision in my view by allowing the score for the offenders to stand. The director ought to have applied Law 72b1. -- 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 Tue Aug 20 06:04:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7JJhGp12211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 05:43:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.1.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7JJeXK12203 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 05:40:33 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 330D79133; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:40:08 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <007801c236c5$f2705320$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <007801c236c5$f2705320$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:39:20 -0400 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees Cc: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:05 PM -0700 7/28/02, Marvin L. French 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). Marv, after my Toronto Appeals Summary you ought to know that the methodology used by Rich to categorize decisions is not appropriate for the purpose of discussions like this. In particular Rich categorizes committee decisions as "poor" if they render a correct decision but fail to assess a warning for an Appeal Without Merit. Please see my Las Vegas appeals summary and let me know if there's anything there with which you disagree. I do not mean to imply that NABC Appeals Committee members are universally well qualified. Still, usually one member who understands a case well ought to be able to sway the committee -- this is a strength of the committee system. It failed in case 17, where the dissenter failed to sway his committee even though he chaired it. -- 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 Tue Aug 20 06:05:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7JK5C112234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 06:05:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7JK57K12230 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 06:05:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7JHHvA14166 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:17:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002c01c247a4$3b43c160$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020819131951.00a83af0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 09:52:20 -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: "Alain Gottcheiner" > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >A command of *simple* English, using plain words when fancier words aren't > >needed. Who are they trying to impress? > > AG : I must be deeply struck by the virus of unwise fancy, because I would > select (or choose) about half the words in the right column and half in the > left one. Please tell me which one you find "plain". > It seems more like a distinction between purely anglo-saxon words (left) > and international words (right). > Perhaps the fact that my primary (or main) language is French is the reason > why I prefer 'initial', 'correct', 'exchange' etc. To English speakers anglo-saxon words have more punch, as they are the words used in everyday speech when there is a choice between them and "foreign" words. Unnecessary use of the latter marks the speaker or writer as one who is trying to show others how smart s/he is. Sometimes the use of the fancier words is necessary because plain speech cannot give the sense one has in mind, or has no word at all for it. That is part of the richness of the English language, which has a huge "borrowed" vocabulary that makes our dictionaries so thick. Do the French even have dictionaries? I understand they resist foreign imports, as spoiling the purity of the language. > >E.g., > > > >mainly vs primarily > >starting vs initial > >choose vs select > >allow vs permit > >call vs summon > > AG : as a long-time role- and CCG-player, the idea of Summoning the > Director makes me enthusiastic. Well, over here we call the director, name a starting foursome, choose a partner, allow smoking only at breaks, and play the game mainly for fun. The fancier words are seldom heard. They are commonly used by freshmen in English I to show the teacher how many words the writer knows, by writers of signs, and by lawyers. > > >choice vs option > >later or following vs subsequent > >kibitzer vs spectator > >wrong vs incorrect or erroneous > >right vs correct > > AG : so either 'incorrect' or 'wrong' is 'wrong' or 'incorrect' ... Shades > of Grelling's paradox -<:-P > I miss the paradox. We make the right play or the wrong play when there is a choice, perhaps listening to what the kibitzer has to say in the following postmortem. 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 Aug 20 06:44:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7JKiY212265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 06:44:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu (col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu [128.206.3.151]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7JKiTK12261 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 06:44:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.10] ([128.206.98.10]) by col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:44:01 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:05:54 -0500 To: BLML From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Aug 2002 20:44:01.0742 (UTC) FILETIME=[2658F6E0:01C247C1] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: >From: "Adam Beneschan" >> >> Marvin wrote: >> >> > > >However, a little conservatism or aggressiveness *within the range >> > > >shown* by either partner is a matter of style and judgment. >> > >> > Bad syntax, sorry . "...or agressivenes by either partner *within the >>range >> > shown*..." is what I should have written. >> > > >> > > Except when the range is 10-12. :-( >> > >> > No exception. As a matter of style or judgment, one partner can lean >> > toward either limit. And even exceed it on occasion, if partner >> > doesn't allow for that. >> >> I think Ed was referring to the ACBL "policy" that if your notrump >> range is 10-12 (or 10-anything), you can't use judgment to open a good >> 9-count. (Of course, you can still decide to treat a bad 13-count as >> a 12-count, and the partners may have differing judgment in this >> regard.) >> >Yes, yes, thanks Adam. I am not certain that a rare 9 HCP opening would get an >automatic penalty at an NABC, but I don't have time to check that out. Is it >written somewhere? > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > > At a sectional in Jefferson City, Missouri, this spring, a player playing a 10-12 NT range opened a 9 HCP hand one notrump. The Director initially ruled a penalty, but on appeal, spent a good deal of time in calling Memphis for further advice (just how good is this late on a Saturday afternoon?) and ruled that the penalty should be waved, as this was (by the offender's testimony) a rare occurence, no more than one such call in a year. On another subject, I'll be travelling for the next few days, so I'll not be enjoying these words of wisdom until Sept. 19. Meanwhile, we'll be visiting our Grandcat Caruso in Albuquerque (as well as grandchildren) and our niececats in LA, as well as the grandniece cats (and my sister-in-law and our nieces and nephew and grandnieces.) This will be a good antidote to the depression of losing six Swiss matches in a row in St. Louis yesterday. (We won the first match, against the worst team we met, by 4 imps.) REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 20 07:27:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7JLRCm12291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 07:27:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7JLR7K12287 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 07:27:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7JLQgA14917 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:26:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00a001c247c6$fb299be0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <007801c236c5$f2705320$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:09:58 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Adam Wildavsky" > Marvin L. French 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). > > Marv, after my Toronto Appeals Summary you ought to know that the > methodology used by Rich to categorize decisions is not appropriate > for the purpose of discussions like this. In particular Rich > categorizes committee decisions as "poor" if they render a correct > decision but fail to assess a warning for an Appeal Without Merit. Take another look please, Adam. While Rich asterisked cases that included such failures, the asterisks are in both Good and Poor Columns, indicating to me that they played no part in that judgment. The criteria for both TD panels and ACs seem to be the same, so the comparison is fair. The whole evaluation scheme is a little crazy. A tough decision that has a split panel opinion will be rated as rather low when half the panelists disagree with it, even though the TD Panel or AC has done its job very well. Not to mention that panelists score performance using whole numbers on a scale of something like 1 to 5, but their average score is shown as a percentage carried to one decimal place! I don't know where the boundary is between Good and Poor in Rich's tabulation. It may sound like I'm on the side of doing away with ACs. I'm not, unless there is no way of improving their perforrmance. The tradition has always been that TDs determine what the Laws say about an irregularity while ACs determine what the facts are, and I'm a conservative. > Please see my Las Vegas appeals summary and let me know if there's > anything there with which you disagree. Where does it appear? > > I do not mean to imply that NABC Appeals Committee members are > universally well qualified. After writing the above, I looked at the current AC membership in the LV casebook and saw that the group has been whittled down somewhat (by 9). Maybe there's a move toward improvement, I don't know, but the Las Vegas AC ratings were well below those of the previous NABC. > Still, usually one member who understands > a case well ought to be able to sway the committee -- this is a > strength of the committee system. It failed in case 17, where the > dissenter failed to sway his committee even though he chaired it. And the decision was poor according to the casebook panelists (60.3 rating). That shouldn't happen. 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 Aug 20 08:02:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7JM2FE12313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 08:02:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe48.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7JM2AK12309 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 08:02:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:01:40 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [172.132.200.174] From: "Roger Pewick" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:03:59 -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 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Aug 2002 22:01:40.0365 (UTC) FILETIME=[FF1A6BD0:01C247CB] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Wildavsky" To: Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 14:28 PM Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary > As in my Toronto summary my goal is to discover whether committees > are improving rulings overall. This time I've summarized the cases > from the Las Vegas NABC. The casebook can be found at > > http://www.acbl.org/casebooks/Las_Vegas_Fall01.pdf > > 23 cases were decided by committee, 19 by panels. I examined each > case in an effort to determine whether the committee or panel made > the same ruling as the director, improved upon the table ruling, > worsened it, or whether I found the case too close to call. Here are > my results -- as always, comments are welcome. > > Committees Panels > > Same Improved Worsened TCTC Same Improved Worsened TCTC > 1 7 17 11 2 15 22 13 > 3 8 24 4 23 > 16 9 34 5 27 > 18 12 38 6 28 > 19 20 10 32 > 31 21 14 36 > 33 29 25 42 > 37 30 26 > 40 35 > 41 39 > > Totals: > 8 10 1 4 10 7 1 1 > Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC Thanks Adam for your efforts. I homed in on #17 and have a contrary opinion. The one question whose answer is necessary to settle this case was neither asked nor answered, at least satisfactorily: 'was the pause for this player of normal length after the skip bid?' Taking about 10 seconds normally means within 7-15 seconds. That is to say it is asking too much of a player who needs to think to expect him to promptly rise from his library at ten seconds- to do so means he must do two things: think bridge and calculate 10 seconds. If he does the latter he was not doing the former. And what are we after? Of course we are after the fair opportunity to think. When I first read the case it bothered me that a 15 second pause was ruled UI because 15 seconds is scientifically within the limit of error in estimating a 10 second pause. So, does this player normally take about ten seconds after a skip bid or is she a typical abuser and usually takes 3 or 4 seconds unless she really needs more? If east is a good pauser then certainly the ruling should be that 15 seconds does not create UI [There was no issue made about body language, was there?]. If east was not a good pauser then a significant deviation from her normal pause was UI. Therefore, if there was UI then the director was 60% because he in actuality did not find out if there was UI, he ruled out of hand that 15 seconds was UI even though that is about the allotted 10 seconds. And if there wasn't UI then the AC was 40% because [even though the table result would have been right] they should have adjusted as they ruled there was UI from the pause. regards roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 20 11:22:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7K1KIh12390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:20:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7K1KDK12386 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:20:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7K1JmA01062 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 18:19:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00eb01c247e7$8b935020$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 18:18:25 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Adam Wildavsky" > As in my Toronto summary my goal is to discover whether committees > are improving rulings overall. This time I've summarized the cases > from the Las Vegas NABC. The casebook can be found at > > http://www.acbl.org/casebooks/Las_Vegas_Fall01.pdf > > 23 cases were decided by committee, 19 by panels. I examined each > case in an effort to determine whether the committee or panel made > the same ruling as the director, improved upon the table ruling, > worsened it, or whether I found the case too close to call. Here are > my results -- as always, comments are welcome. > > Committees Panels > > SameImprovedWorseTCTC SameImprovedWorseTCTC > 1 7 17 11 2 15 22 13 > 3 8 24 4 23 > 16 9 34 5 27 > 18 12 38 6 28 > 19 20 10 32 > 31 21 14 36 > 33 29 25 42 > 37 30 26 > 40 35 > 41 39 > > Totals: > 8 10 1 4 10 7 1 1 My comments: Case 1. The ACs score adjustment was wrong, the TD's correct (one more trick), so I would put that under worsened. 2 The TD said there was no tempo break, the panel that there was a break but no damage. I'd say that was an improvement in a way 8 The TD ruling and AC decision were the same, adjustment to +140. 11. The casebook panelists' general opinion was that the AC (no LA) improved the TD's ruling (LA). Even tough Ron Gerard agreed. 18. "Same," yes, but both the TD and AC were wrong, which is worse for an AC than a TD in UI cases 24. I don't see as TCTC. The TD was right, the ruling change in screening wrong, and the AC wrong.. In my opinion. 28. Improved, yes, but with the wrong score adjustment. 29. TD law error, but wrong adjustment (and outrageous PP) by the AC. By accident the TD adjustment was right. Worsened. 31. Same, but both TD and AC were wrong. As I said above, in a UI case this is much worse for an AC than a TD. 32. I say worsened, because CCs *must* be completed. If a box isn't checked that's ipso facto a partnerhip agreement. 34. TD/AC agreed reasonably, why the TCTC? 38 I say worsened, but the panelists thought improved, so I'll buy TCTC 41. The *cause celebre* of the tournament, which I would say is TCTC I agree with the other classifications. . For the ACs' totals I have 3 more worsened, 1 more the same, 2 fewer improved, and 2 fewer TCTCs. For the panels' totals I have one fewer the same, and one more worsened. There were many difficult cases, with plenty of room for argument. 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 Aug 20 12:02:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7K22LP12419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 12:02:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7K22GK12415 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 12:02:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7K21pA15847 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 19:01:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <011701c247ed$6bba7c00$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200208191404.KAA18915@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 19:00:52 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" > One wants to compare the probabilities of achieving a given score, > i.e. to calculate the final standings in "sigmas" instead of in > percent. Sigma ought to go as the square root of the number of boards > played, and thus deviations from average should be reduced by this > factor. > > For example, consider the case where there is a bye, so half the field > plays 24 boards and half plays 26. Each board is played the same > number of times, so there is no problem with that. For the pairs who > only played 24 boards, subtract 50% from their scores, multiply the > result by sqrt(24/60)=0.96, and add the 50% back. Thus a pair with 60% > in raw score over 24 boards has an equivalent score over 26 boards of > 59.6%. > > Unlike Aschermann/Neuberg, I think this approach has sound mathematical > justification, although I am not aware of its being used in practice > anywhere. I think I'll suggest it at the MIT/DL bridge club and see > what the reaction is. > That is just the simple adjustment I have been looking for. It doesn't take into account the spread of scores in the 24-board field, nor the placement of a pair within that spread, which could be significant, but it's surely better than factoring. Please, Steve, pursue this to the level of the C&C committee when you become convinced that it is a satisfactory method. The ACBLScor program should be modified to perform this adjustment as a matter of course. That will be a hard sell, I suppose. Players don't like to see their percentage score adjusted downward, but fairness is not a popularity contest. Are there any other opinions or suggestions? 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 Aug 20 13:04:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7K33vM12482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 13:03:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.1.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7K33qK12478 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 13:03:53 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 77B308F2D; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 23:03:26 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00a001c247c6$fb299be0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <007801c236c5$f2705320$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <00a001c247c6$fb299be0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 23:03:15 -0400 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees Cc: , Rich Colker Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 2:09 PM -0700 8/19/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >Take another look please, Adam. While Rich asterisked cases that included such >failures, the asterisks are in both Good and Poor Columns, >indicating to me that >they played no part in that judgment. My mistake. I find no evidence of this in the Las Vegas casebook. >The criteria for both TD panels and ACs seem to be the same, so the >comparison is fair. Yes, if their cases were of similar difficulty. I don't think they have been. This becomes important given your next point. >The whole evaluation scheme is a little crazy. A tough decision that has a >split panel opinion will be rated as rather low when half the >panelists disagree >with it, even though the TD Panel or AC has done its job very well. We agree here. This is partly what made me decide to summarize on my own. I have suggested to Rich that at a minimum he should categorize decisions as good, poor, or too close to call. As I recall Rich told me he thought that would be too complex for his average reader. -- 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 Tue Aug 20 13:51:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7K3oji12523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 13:50:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail3.panix.com (mail3.panix.com [166.84.1.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7K3odK12519 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 13:50:40 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail3.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 78024982C5; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 23:50:13 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00eb01c247e7$8b935020$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <00eb01c247e7$8b935020$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 23:50:01 -0400 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary Cc: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 6:18 PM -0700 8/19/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >1. The ACs score adjustment was wrong, the TD's correct (one more trick), so I >would put that under worsened. I tend to agree with you, but I thought it was close, and both the director and the committee got the most important part of the ruling right. >2 The TD said there was no tempo break, the panel that there was a >break but no >damage. I'd say that was an improvement in a way Six of one, a half dozen of the other? >8 The TD ruling and AC decision were the same, adjustment to +140. My error -- thanks for catching it! >11. The casebook panelists' general opinion was that the AC (no LA) >improved the >TD's ruling (LA). Even tough Ron Gerard agreed. I think this was a "you had to be there" decision. I'd have wanted to hear North and South. Still, since I asked for input I have moved the case into the "improved" column. >18. "Same," yes, but both the TD and AC were wrong, which is worse for an AC >than a TD in UI cases My methodology does not take this into effect. Remember, I am not evaluating committees in a vacuum, I want to determine whether or not they improve table rulings on the whole. I'm intentionally ignoring cases where the table ruling is unchanged. >24. I don't see as TCTC. The TD was right, the ruling change in >screening wrong, >and the AC wrong.. In my opinion. As Rich points out, this was a Keystone Cops case. Neither the director, the screening director, nor the committee seemed to have bothered to refer to the laws. I'm not a fan of 27b1, but it is the law and we must abide by it -- no one did. >28. Improved, yes, but with the wrong score adjustment. Too fine a gradation for me -- improved, worsened, unchanged, and TCTC are the only choices. >29. TD law error, but wrong adjustment (and outrageous PP) by the AC. By >accident the TD adjustment was right. Worsened. Well, certainly not improved. Still, there was a clear director error, and the correct ruling relies on an ACBL policy which the AC could not have known. I'm moving this to TCTC. >31. Same, but both TD and AC were wrong. As I said above, in a UI case this is >much worse for an AC than a TD. See 18 above. >32. I say worsened, because CCs *must* be completed. If a box isn't checked >that's ipso facto a partnerhip agreement. I don't understand. So they had an agreement that 2H was forcing, and North passed it. Where's the infraction? >34. TD/AC agreed reasonably, why the TCTC? You're right, I've moved it to the "Agreed" column. >38 I say worsened, but the panelists thought improved, so I'll buy TCTC My reasoning also. My judgement corresponds to yours on this case. >41. The *cause celebre* of the tournament, which I would say is TCTC I preemptively explained why I put this in the "Improved" column. In my view while the AC ruling was TCTC the director's ruling was just plain wrong. >I agree with the other classifications. > >For the ACs' totals I have 3 more worsened, 1 more the same, 2 fewer improved, >and 2 fewer TCTCs. I now have 10 unchanged, 9 improved, 1 worsened, and 3 TCTC. >For the panels' totals I have one fewer the same, and one more worsened. I've made no changes to my categorizations of the Panel's actions. Do you agree that the panel cases were easier on the whole? >There were many difficult cases, with plenty of room for argument. What else is BLML for?! -- 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 Tue Aug 20 15:33:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7K5Wux12621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:32:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7K5WpK12617 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:32:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7K5WPA14600 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 22:32:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <012801c2480a$d66aee00$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00eb01c247e7$8b935020$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 22:14:00 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Adam Wildavsky" > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >32. I say worsened, because CCs *must* be completed. If a box isn't checked > >that's ipso facto a partnerhip agreement. > > I don't understand. So they had an agreement that 2H was forcing, and > North passed it. Where's the infraction? I got a little mixed up there. However,: North said he knew of no partnership agreement, it was not discussed so far as he could remember. He passed because he thought 2H was non-forcing when playing Ogust, while his CC said it was forcing. Players have a responsibility to know what their CC says, and he did not. He didn't choose to disregard a partnership agreement, he *guessed* one, an Alertable one, hoping it would turn out okay. If he had said, "I knew it was forcing but I chose to pass," I might buy that. In this situation I think he owed the opponents an Alert, even though he was ignorant of that obligation. The ACBL's General Conditions of Contest, under PLAY: 5. A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions). A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed. I think this applies when a call is made under the umbrella of a convention, in this case Ogust. 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 Aug 20 15:45:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7K5jVn12647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:45:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7K5jQK12643 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:45:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7K5j0A19158 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 22:45:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <012b01c2480c$981c63c0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <005d01c236a8$74eba0c0$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> <007801c236c5$f2705320$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <00a001c247c6$fb299be0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Abolition of Appeals Committees Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 22:43:51 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Adam Wildavsky" > Marvin L. French wrote: > >The criteria for both TD panels and ACs seem to be the same, so the > >comparison is fair. > > Yes, if their cases were of similar difficulty. I don't think they > have been. This becomes important given your next point. Agreed. > > >The whole evaluation scheme is a little crazy. A tough decision that has a > >split panel opinion will be rated as rather low when half the > >panelists disagree > >with it, even though the TD Panel or AC has done its job very well. > > We agree here. This is partly what made me decide to summarize on my > own. I have suggested to Rich that at a minimum he should categorize > decisions as good, poor, or too close to call. As I recall Rich told > me he thought that would be too complex for his average reader. > Hmph. The TD panel and AC numerical ratings include more than just correctness of decisions made, but also their fact-finding effort and correctness of analyses. Also, Adam, I read that the ratings can be affected by the casebook "panelists' views of PPs and/or Award Without Merit Warnings that were assessed or should have been." The quality of the decision should be rated in isolation as good, poor, or too close to call. No numbers, just as you have done. Let PPs, AWMWs, poor methodolgy, etc., be the subjects of a separate rating What readers want to know is: Was the decision the right one? But who decides? The casebook panelists, while mostly very knowledgeable concerning matters of fact, are not always dependable in their judgment of what is legal or what accords with ACBL regulations. Thinking about this, I think we need a rating system that is more extended than your minimum three levels. Perhaps a scale of 0 to 10 (no decimal!), implying that 5 is "too close to call." 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 Aug 20 17:24:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7K7O5r12721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:24:05 +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 g7K7O0K12717 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:24:00 +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 RAA18284 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:39:33 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:18:28 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:13:18 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 20/08/2002 05:18:02 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 g7K7O1K12718 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: [snip] >>>32. I say worsened, because CCs *must* be completed. If a box >>>isn't checked that's ipso facto a partnership agreement. Adam Wildavsky replied: >>I don't understand. So they had an agreement that 2H was >>forcing, and North passed it. Where's the infraction? [snip] I understand an SO using its power to prescribe a system card under L40E1. I can even understand an SO using L40E1 in conjunction with L40D to limit a partnership's *choice* between conventions. _But_... I don't understand that L40E1 means that a partnership *must* choose a particular agreement. If a box isn't checked, that is *not* necessarily a partnership agreement, but could be merely an incomplete system card. And an incomplete system card does *not* necessarily imply an inaccurate system card - in this Case 32, it seems that the incompleteness corresponded with a non-agreement. In response to Bobby Wolff's suggestion of a PP for the Case 32 incomplete system card, Rich Colker wrote: >Nice touch, Wolffie. Keep right on penalizing Flight B/C >players for technical infractions (assuming, for the sake of >argument, that there was even an infraction here - which is >very unlikely) and in a couple of years the few dozen of us >who are left will be able to hold our NABCs in church basements. > >That little lost lamb is baa-ack again. In his case it's >understandable that in the years since he was a beginner he has >forgotten what it's like to bid intuitively, without agreements >about what's forcing and what isn't. Maybe you've never seen a >novice or intermediate player pass a forcing bid before, but it >happens all the time. I guess they should all Alert their one- >over-one and two-over-one auctions as nonforcing since their >partners might just up and pass. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 20 20:13:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7KACxf12826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 20:12:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7KACrK12822 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 20:12:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd05.sul.t-online.de by mailout04.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17h5zr-0005Lk-02; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 12:12:23 +0200 Received: from jurgenr (520085598528-0001@[217.89.11.229]) by fwd05.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17h5zX-1m8MT2C; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 12:12:03 +0200 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) To: "Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] one board too many Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 12:11:51 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <011701c247ed$6bba7c00$1c981e18@san.rr.com> X-Sender: 520085598528-0001@t-dialin.net 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 Marvin L. French > Sent: Dienstag, 20. August 2002 04:01 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many > > > > From: "Steve Willner" > > > One wants to compare the probabilities of achieving a given score, > > i.e. to calculate the final standings in "sigmas" instead of in > > percent. Sigma ought to go as the square root of the number of boards > > played, and thus deviations from average should be reduced by this > > factor. > > > > For example, consider the case where there is a bye, so half the field > > plays 24 boards and half plays 26. Each board is played the same > > number of times, so there is no problem with that. For the pairs who > > only played 24 boards, subtract 50% from their scores, multiply the > > result by sqrt(24/60)=0.96, and add the 50% back. Thus a pair with 60% > > in raw score over 24 boards has an equivalent score over 26 boards of > > 59.6%. > > > > Unlike Aschermann/Neuberg, I think this approach has sound mathematical > > justification, although I am not aware of its being used in practice > > anywhere. I think I'll suggest it at the MIT/DL bridge club and see > > what the reaction is. > > > That is just the simple adjustment I have been looking for. It > doesn't take into > account the spread of scores in the 24-board field, nor the > placement of a pair > within that spread, which could be significant, but it's surely > better than > factoring. > > Please, Steve, pursue this to the level of the C&C committee when > you become > convinced that it is a satisfactory method. The ACBLScor program should be > modified to perform this adjustment as a matter of course. That > will be a hard > sell, I suppose. Players don't like to see their percentage score adjusted > downward, but fairness is not a popularity contest. > > Are there any other opinions or suggestions? As I pointed out before, the suggested procedure is incorrect. You should easily be able to see this once you realize that the results from the board with fewer plays are always reduced but, in fact, these results are underestimates as often as they are overestimates. Nevertheless what the original poster was saying has some virtue: What one might do is to form a weighted average between the two percentile results, and there is some logic to using weights proportional to the square root of the number of plays. This procedure can be justified theoretically under certain assumptions concerning the distribution of the scores that are clearly not satisfied in our case. Nevertheless, this may be the best practical approximation. Jürgen > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 20 23:30:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7KDTJG12982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 23:29:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7KDTEK12978 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 23:29:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.148.192]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020820132845.BJZE5047.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 14:28:45 +0100 Message-ID: <003a01c2484d$8b65a010$c09468d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 14:28:58 +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 CORRECTED.... Nigel: 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 explicitly discussed. (4) Admit only to explicitly discussed specific agreements, about which you are absolutely certain. {snip] Eric: 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). Nigel: Thank you Eric for your clear explanation. I am still puzzled by two points... A. It seems strange to say "We do not have a specific agreement". when you suspect there may be one written in your convention card but you are not absolutely certain what it is. B. It seems wrong to me that "[You] need need not disclose whatever inferences you may derive from [your agreements]". e.g. Opponents ask about our auction: 2N-3c-; 3D-3h; 3N End 2N: 20-22 HCP, shape 5332 4432 or 4333 (any suits). 3C: Puppet Stayman asking for five card majors. 3D: Puppet with no FIVE card major. (3H and 3S would have shown five cards in the bid suits; 3N would have shown two hearts and three spades). 3H: Four spades. 3N: Natural. (3S would have promised exactly three spades; 4 bids would have shown aces and promised exactly four spades) We seem to have leant over backwards to comply with your instructions Nevertheless, I feel that it would take a logician to work out that, inter alia, the 3N bidder has four hearts. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 -- ======================================================================== (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 Aug 21 03:06:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7KH5Bd13082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 03:05:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7KH55K13078 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 03:05:06 +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 17hCQg-0003HC-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 18:04:33 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:52:02 +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 The end is nigh. Merow! I have acquired a thing [claiming to be Siamese] called Minke, who likes to jump on my tail. Since I do not have the interest in Bridge Laws that Quango did I have told Minke he must learn all about the Laws so he can put you right. I do not expect this while he is a kitten, of course. New pictures are not up, but will appear soon, including one of Quango in his last days. I shall let you all know. 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, Minke 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 =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= 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 Wed Aug 21 03:06:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7KH6Qq13094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 03:06:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7KH6LK13090 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 03:06:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7KH5sL26288 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 10:05:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001901c2486b$b694c9a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 09:40:35 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: > > Marvin French wrote: > > [snip] > > >>>32. I say worsened, because CCs *must* be completed. If a box > >>>isn't checked that's ipso facto a partnership agreement. > > Adam Wildavsky replied: > > >>I don't understand. So they had an agreement that 2H was > >>forcing, and North passed it. Where's the infraction? > > [snip] > > I understand an SO using its power to prescribe a system card > under L40E1. I can even understand an SO using L40E1 in > conjunction with L40D to limit a partnership's *choice* between > conventions. > > _But_... > > I don't understand that L40E1 means that a partnership *must* > choose a particular agreement. > > If a box isn't checked, that is *not* necessarily a partnership > agreement, but could be merely an incomplete system card. The ACBL requires that the CC be completed. There is no excuse for not doing this, even for novices. A last-minute partnership can use the SAYC until they have time to complete a card themselves. 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 Aug 21 04:11:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7KIBOH13152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 04:11:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7KIBJK13148 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 04:11:19 +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 OAA00709 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 14:10:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA26218 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 14:10:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 14:10:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208201810.OAA26218@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > That is just the simple adjustment I have been looking for. It's simple, but I'm no longer sure it's correct! I've received some useful comments from the MIT list, and Jurgen's comments in this list were also pertinent. I am rethinking exactly what information we are trying to extract and will post again if I reach any conclusion. There have been several comments on the MIT list (and one from John P. here) that the effect is too small to worry about, even if it is correctable. Certainly it is much smaller than many other random effects: field imbalance to name just one. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 21 09:26:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7KNO7c13266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:24:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7KNO2K13262 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:24:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA13693 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:39:34 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:18:29 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 08:34:49 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 21/08/2002 09:18:03 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard wrote: [snip] >>I don't understand that L40E1 means that a partnership *must* >>choose a particular agreement. >> >>If a box isn't checked, that is *not* necessarily a partnership >>agreement, but could be merely an incomplete system card. Marv replied: >The ACBL requires that the CC be completed. There is no excuse >for not doing this, even for novices. Marv is begging the question whether the ACBL requirement is within its L40E1 powers. Surely even the ACBL cannot require a novice pair to give MI that they have an agreement, when they actually do not have an agreement. (Unless the ACBL is a convert to the De Wael School.) >A last-minute partnership can use the SAYC until they have time >to complete a card themselves. Again, that means the novice pair are giving MI that they are using *all* the SAYC agreements, when they may never have heard of some of the more obscure SAYC agreements. If the ACBL wishes to persist in its regulation that the CC *must* be completed, then it *must* redesign the checkboxes on the ACBL CC. For example: [] Forcing [] Non-forcing [] Undiscussed [] None of the above (specify): ______________________________ 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 Aug 21 15:16:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7L5F2b13410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:15:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7L5EvK13406 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:14:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7L5ETL06722 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 22:14:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <008901c248d1$7f760180$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200208201810.OAA26218@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 22:13:30 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > That is just the simple adjustment I have been looking for. > > It's simple, but I'm no longer sure it's correct! I've received some > useful comments from the MIT list, and Jurgen's comments in this list > were also pertinent. > > I am rethinking exactly what information we are trying to extract > and will post again if I reach any conclusion. > > There have been several comments on the MIT list (and one from John P. > here) that the effect is too small to worry about, even if it is > correctable. Certainly it is much smaller than many other random > effects: field imbalance to name just one. Put little on little, and pretty soon you will have a big pile - Ovid? Each small improvement in fairness is of little significance, but many such improvements can add up to a much fairer game. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 21 17:07:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7L76hN13457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:06:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7L76cK13453 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:06:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA13310 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:22:06 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:00:59 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:02:23 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 21/08/2002 05:00:34 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: >North said he knew of no partnership agreement, it was >not discussed so far as he could remember. He passed >because he thought 2H was non-forcing when playing >Ogust, [snip] >The ACBL's General Conditions of Contest, under PLAY: > >>5. A partnership is responsible for knowing when their >>methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions). >>A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents >>did not originally have a clear understanding of when >>and how to use a convention that was employed. The second sentence of the ACBL regulation is legal under the WBF-endorsed interpretation of L40D that any convention-related regulation is legal. But under what Law does the ACBL purport to *require* that partnerships *must* have "probable auction" agreements? Marv continued: >I think this applies when a call is made under the >umbrella of a convention, in this case Ogust. But in the actual auction the Ogust convention was *not used*! The actual auction was entirely n a t u r a l ! ! Even if the ACBL General Conditions of Contest have created the offence of Convention Disruption, calling a misunderstanding over the negative inferences of an *unused* convention to be Convention Disruption is... {insert superlative here} 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 Aug 21 17:11:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7L7BC913474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:11:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from vador.skynet.be (vador.skynet.be [195.238.3.236]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7L7B6K13470 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:11:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (100.55-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.55.100]) by vador.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7L7AZB05703 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:10:35 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D633CF2.8090608@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:10:42 +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] Las Vegas Appeals Summary 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, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard wrote: > > [snip] > > >>>I don't understand that L40E1 means that a partnership *must* >>>choose a particular agreement. >>> >>>If a box isn't checked, that is *not* necessarily a partnership >>>agreement, but could be merely an incomplete system card. >>> > > Marv replied: > > >>The ACBL requires that the CC be completed. There is no excuse >>for not doing this, even for novices. >> > > Marv is begging the question whether the ACBL requirement is > within its L40E1 powers. Surely even the ACBL cannot require a > novice pair to give MI that they have an agreement, when they > actually do not have an agreement. (Unless the ACBL is a > convert to the De Wael School.) > > The De Wael school does not apply to novices. The ACBL would not be following the DwS if they insist that novices always have agreements. But to all other pairs, the ACBL is quite correct in saying that if someone bids 2Cl with majors, the assumption that they have an agreement that 2Cl show majors is to be taken as the basis of a ruling. After all, that's what the Laws say ! -- 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 Aug 21 17:56:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7L7tnZ13493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:55:49 +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 g7L7tiK13489 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:55:44 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7L7tEs28506 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 08:55:14 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 08:55 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary 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: <001901c2486b$b694c9a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > The ACBL requires that the CC be completed. There is no excuse for not > doing this, even for novices. A last-minute partnership can use the SAYC > until they have time to complete a card themselves. Even if the convention card is complete one cannot assume that the absence of a check in a box labelled "2H non-forcing" means that an agreement exists that 2H is forcing. If the bid is undiscussed there will also be no check - but that will correctly reflect the agreements. I have not discussed what a 2N overcall of 1 spade means with Emily. Our CC is therefore left blank in this area. 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 Aug 21 18:06:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7L86Nr13509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:06:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imailg1.svr.pol.co.uk (imailg1.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.179]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7L86GK13505 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:06:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.92.67.23] (helo=mail18.svr.pol.co.uk) by imailg1.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17hQUt-0004al-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:05:47 +0100 Received: from modem-119.blue-spotted-stingray.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.238.119] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17hQUr-0002yy-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:05:47 +0100 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA20496; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:07:00 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many References: <200208191404.KAA18915@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 21 Aug 2002 08:41:28 +0100 In-Reply-To: Steve Willner's message of "Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:04:56 -0400 (EDT)" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 77 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: > > From: Herman De Wael > > Ascherman just deals with the number of scores on one board, not with > > the number of boards played. What one needs there is the equivalent > > of a VP scale. > > > > Maybe we should simply do the same as the VP scale : divide by the > > square root of the number of boards. > > I think this is the correct approach, although there is no need for > VP's or other artificiality. > > One wants to compare the probabilities of achieving a given score, > i.e. to calculate the final standings in "sigmas" instead of in > percent. Sigma ought to go as the square root of the number of boards > played, and thus deviations from average should be reduced by this > factor. > > For example, consider the case where there is a bye, so half the field > plays 24 boards and half plays 26. Each board is played the same > number of times, so there is no problem with that. For the pairs who > only played 24 boards, subtract 50% from their scores, multiply the > result by sqrt(24/60)=0.96, and add the 50% back. Thus a pair with 60% > in raw score over 24 boards has an equivalent score over 26 boards of > 59.6%. This is just over half a (US) matchpoint, so it won't usually > make a difference but could do so in close finishes. > > Unlike Aschermann/Neuberg, I think this approach has sound mathematical > justification, although I am not aware of its being used in practice > anywhere. I think I'll suggest it at the MIT/DL bridge club and see > what the reaction is. This probably deals quite fairly with average pairs, and eliminates the "Unfairness of Variance" whereby the score of a pair who plays fewer boards has a greater variance, giving them a greater chance of being lucky enough to win the event. For an average pair, it doesn't affect their average score, which is 50%. However, for pairs who are not average, it introduces a new unfairness (the "Unfairness of Mean") by changing their expected score. For example, a good pair who play fewer boards would have their expected score moved towards 50%. I think that in practice, the Unfairness of Mean that you introduce is likely to be greater than the Unfairness of Variance that you eliminate, for the better pairs. And if you're interested in finding a *winner* in a fair way, then it's the better pairs that are most relevant. To illustrate, I did the following computer experiment. You have two groups, each containing three "good" pairs, who score a random number of matchpoints from 2 to 10 (out of 10) on each board, so they average 60%. The first group play 24 boards and the second group play 27 boards. If you just calculate their average without any adjustment, then the winner (or joint winner -- which explains why the percentages add up to a little over 100%) comes from the first group 52.0% the second group 48.3% of the time. The difference here is the Unfairness of Variance. But if you apply Steve's adjustment, the winner comes from the first group 45.8% the second group 54.2% of the time. The difference here is the Unfairness of Mean, and is more than twice the Unfairness of Variance that you eliminated. Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 21 18:40:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7L8eCi13528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:40:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout06.sul.t-online.com (mailout06.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7L8e6K13524 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:40:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd04.sul.t-online.de by mailout06.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17hR1d-0004Fw-01; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:39:37 +0200 Received: from jurgenr (520085598528-0001@[217.89.5.234]) by fwd04.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17hR1a-1UjbbUC; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:39:34 +0200 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) To: "Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] one board too many Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:39:33 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200208201810.OAA26218@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Sender: 520085598528-0001@t-dialin.net 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 Steve Willner > Sent: Dienstag, 20. August 2002 20:11 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many > > > There have been several comments on the MIT list (and one from John P. > here) that the effect is too small to worry about, even if it is > correctable. Certainly it is much smaller than many other random > effects: field imbalance to name just one. This is true, but the margin of victory in practically all Bridge competitions is also small, often negligible, relative to the random factors. People have so much difficulty thinking straight in the presence of random effects that the appearance of fairness, which is best achieved by objective fairness, is definitely desirable, in order to remove sources of dissatisfaction. - You cannot, on the one hand, slop the numbers together on the grounds that they don't mean much and, on the other hand, present awards to those who achieve the highest such numbers, without making the procdure appear ridiculous. Jürgen > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 21 19:32:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7L9WHm13584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 19:32:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (rd-ir.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7L9WBK13580 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 19:32:12 +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 LAA10071; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 11:29:26 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id LAA16698; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 11:31:40 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020821113606.00a81340@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 11:41:18 +0200 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray 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 19:54 19/08/2002 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: > > e.g. If a TD says "do not psyche for the remainder of the session", > > then I may protest but, whether the instruction is legal or not, I will > > comply. > >But here we differ. I would make no special effort to psych but would do >so if an appropriate hand came along. I guess that you class this one as >"probably wrong but might be legitimate" while I class it as "obviously >outwith his powers/illegal" hence the different choices. AG : I would class your psyche as 'legitimate passive resistance to the use of force by authorities', a right which is given to every citizen. Also note that, in many countries, there exists a right, for members of the Police forces, to disobey an order that their ethics disallows them to obey. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 21 19:56:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7L9tsR13602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 19:55:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (brussels2000.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7L9tmK13598 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 19:55:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id LAA14377; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 11:53:04 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id LAA08916; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 11:55:18 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020821114702.00a2e190@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 12:04:56 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , "Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: <002c01c247a4$3b43c160$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020819131951.00a83af0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g7L9toK13599 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:52 19/08/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > >A command of *simple* English, using plain words when fancier words aren't > > >needed. Who are they trying to impress? > > > > AG : I must be deeply struck by the virus of unwise fancy, because I would > > select (or choose) about half the words in the right column and half in the > > left one. Please tell me which one you find "plain". > > It seems more like a distinction between purely anglo-saxon words (left) > > and international words (right). > > Perhaps the fact that my primary (or main) language is French is the reason > > why I prefer 'initial', 'correct', 'exchange' etc. > >To English speakers anglo-saxon words have more punch, as they are the words >used in everyday speech when there is a choice between them and "foreign" >words. >Unnecessary use of the latter marks the speaker or writer as one who is trying >to show others how smart s/he is. > >Sometimes the use of the fancier words is necessary because plain speech >cannot >give the sense one has in mind, or has no word at all for it. That is part of >the richness of the English language, which has a huge "borrowed" vocabulary >that makes our dictionaries so thick. Do the French even have dictionaries? AG : yes, our civilization has gone as far as that :-] >I understand they resist foreign imports, as spoiling the purity of the >language. AG : not really. Many borrowings did happen. Certainly more than in related languages like Italian or Portuguese, and as many as in Spanish. What the French in general, YT in particular (albeit not French. Remember Hercule Poirot ?) resist quite strongly is the use of words from another language when they aren't needed. Since we have the word 'ordinateur' to say 'computer', I don't see why the word 'computer' should be used in French conversation, except to make others think you can speak English (whch very few French people do, contrary to Quebecers and Belgians). Especially as 'ordinateur' was coined first. Purity has nothing to do with it. Logic and understandability have. For resistance to borrowings, look at German (which eg doesn't usually use 'television' and 'telephone', but the local words Fernseher and Fernsprecher). For integrism, look at Icelandic. > > > > AG : so either 'incorrect' or 'wrong' is 'wrong' or 'incorrect' ... Shades > > of Grelling's paradox -<:-P > > >I miss the paradox. AG : classify all qualifiers as either _homologic_ (having the quality they mention, like 'English', 'polysyllabic', 'short', 'recherché') or heterologic (not having the quality, like 'French', 'long', 'monosyllabic' ). When the quality can't apply to a word, classify them as heterologic (eg colors). Now, to which class pertains the word 'heterologic' ? This is a very resisting paradox. The Barber's Paradox may be easily discarded by saying that such a person can't exist (the existence of the paradox can be taken as a _reductio ad absurdum_ proof that it can't). However, the word 'heterologic' exists, it even made into some French dictionaries (which, remember, do exist), so the paradox can't be easily disposed of. > We make the right play or the wrong play when there is a >choice, perhaps listening to what the kibitzer has to say in the following >postmortem. AG : this is usually a bad move ;-) 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 Aug 21 20:04:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LA4Cn13620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 20:04:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7LA46K13616 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 20:04:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (100.55-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.55.100]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7LA3SI08170 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 12:03:28 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D636577.6020400@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 12:03:35 +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] one board too many References: <200208191404.KAA18915@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Interesting post, Jeremy! Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > This probably deals quite fairly with average pairs, and eliminates > the "Unfairness of Variance" whereby the score of a pair who plays > fewer boards has a greater variance, giving them a greater chance of > being lucky enough to win the event. For an average pair, it doesn't > affect their average score, which is 50%. > > However, for pairs who are not average, it introduces a new unfairness > (the "Unfairness of Mean") by changing their expected score. For > example, a good pair who play fewer boards would have their expected > score moved towards 50%. I think that in practice, the Unfairness of > Mean that you introduce is likely to be greater than the Unfairness of > Variance that you eliminate, for the better pairs. And if you're > interested in finding a *winner* in a fair way, then it's the better > pairs that are most relevant. > > To illustrate, I did the following computer experiment. > > You have two groups, each containing three "good" pairs, who score a > random number of matchpoints from 2 to 10 (out of 10) on each board, > so they average 60%. The first group play 24 boards and the second > group play 27 boards. If you just calculate their average without any > adjustment, then the winner (or joint winner -- which explains why the > percentages add up to a little over 100%) comes from > > the first group 52.0% > the second group 48.3% > this is what you would expect. It is easier to score a high percentage when playing fewer boards. No-one from the Squeeze has ever won the fifth friday, perhaps also because we play 30 boards as compared to other's 24 or even 21. > of the time. The difference here is the Unfairness of Variance. > > But if you apply Steve's adjustment, the winner comes from > > the first group 45.8% > the second group 54.2% > Now this is strange. Apparently this is too much of a correction. But I understand why. Since they are averaging at 60%, it is not fair to take them them ..% of their 10% as well. Now we might say that we take ..% of their difference with 60% away, and in Jeremy's test that ought to work, but that is of course only because we know their a-priori expectation of 60% score. For any normal pair the only approximation we have of their a-priori value is their a-posteriori result. > of the time. The difference here is the Unfairness of Mean, and is > more than twice the Unfairness of Variance that you eliminated. > > > Jeremy. > > -- 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 Aug 21 20:08:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LA8eP13632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 20:08:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7LA8YK13628 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 20:08:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (100.55-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.55.100]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7LA81I14178 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 12:08:01 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D636688.8090706@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 12:08:08 +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] Las Vegas Appeals Summary 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: <001901c2486b$b694c9a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> > Marv wrote: > > >>The ACBL requires that the CC be completed. There is no excuse for not >>doing this, even for novices. A last-minute partnership can use the SAYC >>until they have time to complete a card themselves. >> > > Even if the convention card is complete one cannot assume that the > absence of a check in a box labelled "2H non-forcing" means that an > agreement exists that 2H is forcing. If the bid is undiscussed there will > also be no check - but that will correctly reflect the agreements. > > I have not discussed what a 2N overcall of 1 spade means with Emily. Our > CC is therefore left blank in this area. > Fine, and you will probably bid 3Di next time you have a suitable minor hand, playing with Emily. But then next week you sit down with me, we don't fill in the CC in that area, you ahve a minor hand, they open 1Sp, you bid 2NT hopoing that this is "natural" enough for us, I understand and bid my best minor, and ... yes, you've guessed it ... the director will asume that we have an agreement. If I fail to alert this (provided such alert would be necessary where we are playing) I will expect to be ruled against, even if I swear to all and sundry that we did not in fact discuss this. > -- 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 Aug 21 20:28:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LARpZ13650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 20:27:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from buddy ([61.141.206.52]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7LARjK13646 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 20:27:46 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200208211027.g7LARjK13646@rgb.anu.edu.au> From: =?GB2312?B?sbG6vcflu6q/qreizcW20w==?= Subject: [BLML] =?GB2312?B?z8i3/s7xwvrS4rrzuLa/7g==?= To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain;charset="GB2312"; Reply-To: powersoftteam@hotmail.com Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:27:07 +0800 X-Priority: 1 X-Library: Indy 8.0.25 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 Èç¹û±¾Óʼþ²»ÊÇÄãËùÐèÒªµÄ£¬ÎÒÃDZíʾ±§Ç¸£¬ÇëËæÊÖɾ³ý»ò°´»Ø¸´É¾³ý ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ÒµÎñ˵Ã÷£¨ÏÈÌṩ·þÎñ£¬¿Í»§ÂúÒâºóÔÙ¸¶¿î£© ÎÒÃÇÊÇpowersoftteamÈí¼þÍŶӣ¬ÎÒÃǵijÉÔ±À´×Ô±±º½ÓëÇ廪µÄÈí¼þ¹¤³ÌµÄ˶ʿÒÔ¼°²©Ê¿£¬ÎÒÃÇÔÚ±±¾©¡¢¹ãÖÝ¡¢ÉîÛÚ¡¢ÉϺ£µÈ¶¼Óй¤×÷ÊÒ£¬ÎÒÃÇÌṩÈçÏ·þÎñ£º 1¡¢¿Í»§¹Øϵ¹ÜÀí£¨CRM£©¡¢½øÏ÷´æϵͳ¡¢ÏúÊÛ¹ÜÀíϵͳ¡¢°ì¹«×Ô¶¯»¯ÏµÍ³£¨OA£©¡¢Îĵ²¹ÜÀíϵͳ¡¢ERP¡¢MRP¡¢MISµÈ¸÷ÀàÈí¼þµÄ¶¨ÖÆ¿ª·¢£¬ÎÒÃÇ¿ÉÒÔÌá½»Ô´³ÌÐò£¬ÎÒÃÇÓÐÕâ·½Ãæ·á¸»µÄ¾­ÑéÓëÖÚ¶àµÄ³É¹¦°¸Àý£» 2¡¢¸÷ÀàÐÐÒµÐÔÈí¼þµÄ¿ª·¢ÒÔ¼°ÏµÍ³¼¯³É£¨ÀýÈ磺µçÐŵÄÍø¹ÜÈí¼þ¡¢Ò½ÔºµÄÐÅÏ¢¹ÜÀíϵͳ¡¢Ð£Ô°¹ÜÀíϵͳ¡¢¾ÆµêÐÅÏ¢¹ÜÀíϵͳ¡­¡­£©£» 3¡¢µç×ÓÕþÎñ¡¢µç×ÓÉÌÎñµÈ´óÐÍϵͳµÄ¿ª·¢£» 4¡¢×¨ÒµÎª¹úÄÚÈËÊ¿ÌṩÈí¼þÆƽâºÍ¼ÓÃÜ·þÎñ£¬ÆƽâЧ¹û¿ÉÒÔ´ïµ½Á½¸ö²ã´Î£¬Ò»¸öÊÇÃÜÂë»òʹÓÃÆÚÏÞÖƵĽâ³ý£¬ÁíÒ»¸ö²ã´ÎÊÇÔÚÒÔÉÏ»ù´¡ÉϽøÒ»²½°´¿Í»§ÐèÇóÐÞ¸ÄÈí¼þ½çÃ棬·½±ã¿Í»§°´ÕÕ×Ô¼ºµÄÏ°¹ßʹÓ᣷½±ã´ó¼ÒʹÓùúÄÚÍâ¼Û¸ñ¸ß´ï¼¸Íò¡¢¼¸Ê®ÍòµÄ´óÐÍ»òרҵÈí¼þ¡£¸ÃÏî·þÎñÐèÒª¿Í»§¼òµ¥½éÉÜÈí¼þ²¢ÌṩδÆÆÃܵÄÈí¼þµÄÏÂÔصØÖ·»ò¹âÅÌ·½Ê½£» 5¡¢×¨ÒµÎª±¾ÍÁÈí¼þÌṩ¼ÓÃܱ£»¤£»±¾¹¤×÷ÊÒ±£ÕÏÁ¼ºÃµÄÆƽâºÍ¼ÓÃÜÖÊÁ¿£¬³ä·ÖÂú×ãÓû§µÄÐèÇó£¡ 6¡¢ÎÒÃdzнÓÈ«¹ú¸÷µØµÄÒÔÉÏ·½ÃæµÄÒµÎñ£¡ ÁªÏµ·½Ê½£ºpowersoftteamÈí¼þÍÅ¶Ó powersoftteam@hotmail.com powersoftteam@hainan.net £¨ÓëÎÒÃÇÁªÏµ£¬Çë°´ÕÕÒÔÉÏÁ½¸öÓʼþµØÖ·£¬²»ÒªÖ±½Ó»Ø¸´ÄãËù½ÓÊÕµ½µÄÓʼþ£© ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ±¸×¢ 1¡¢ÎÒÃÇ¿ÉÒÔ¸ø×îÖÕÓû§¿ª·¢£¬Ò²¿ÉÒÔ¸øÈí¼þ¹«Ë¾»òÏà¹ØÆóÒµ¿ª·¢£¬¿Í»§¿ÉÒÔÔÚÎÒÃÇÈí¼þÉÏÃæÖ¸Ã÷Ϊ¿Í»§×Ô¼º¿ª·¢£¨¼ÈÈí¼þ°æȨ¿ÉÒÔ¸ø¿Í»§£© 2£ºÎÒÃDz»ÌṩÆƽ⹤¾ßºÍÅàѵ½Ì³Ì£¬¿¼Âǵ½²Ù×÷ÎÊÌ⣬ÔÝʱ²»Ìṩµ¥Æ¬»ú¡¢ICоƬºÍCPUµÄÆƽâ·þÎñ£» 3£ºµ¥¼ÛÈËÃñ±Ò5000ÔªÒÔϵÄÈí¼þ£¬½¨Ò鹺ÂòÕý°æ»òÇëÎÒÃǽøÐпª·¢£¬ÎÒÃDz»ÌṩÆƽâ·þÎñ£» 4£º²»³öÊÛ´óÖÚÈí¼þ¡¢Ô´´úÂëºÍ×¢²áºÅ£¬ÇëÎðÀ´ÐÅË÷È¡£» 5£º²»ÌṩÍøÕ¾ºÍµç×ÓÓÊÏäµÄÃÜÂëÆƽâ·þÎñ ÁªÏµ·½Ê½£ºpowersoftteamÈí¼þÍÅ¶Ó powersoftteam@hotmail.com powersoftteam@hainan.net £¨ÓëÎÒÃÇÁªÏµ£¬Çë°´ÕÕÒÔÉÏÁ½¸öÓʼþµØÖ·£¬²»ÒªÖ±½Ó»Ø¸´ÄãËù½ÓÊÕµ½µÄÓʼþ£© ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Çë±£Áô´ËÓʼþÒÔ±¸²»Ê±Ö®Ðè -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 21 21:11:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LBBFE13677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 21:11:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7LBB9K13673 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 21:11:10 +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 NAA02260; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:08:24 +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 NAA09355; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:10:39 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020821131825.00a859a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 X-Priority: 2 (High) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:20:16 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] transmission problem Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Just recieved an ASCII-coded message with 'very high' priority from bridge-laws. It seems suspect to me. Did anyone get the same message ? And what's the explanation ? Carefully yours, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 21 21:42:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LBfwV13695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 21:41:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dc-mx12.cluster1.charter.net (dc-mx12.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.8.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7LBfrK13691 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 21:41:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.197.151.126] (HELO D2GX7R11) by dc-mx12.cluster1.charter.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.9) with SMTP id 66967794 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 07:39:39 -0400 Message-ID: <001901c24907$92eb0630$7e97c518@D2GX7R11> From: "Bill Bickford" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020821131825.00a859a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] transmission problem Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 07:40:39 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 got the same message; no idea what it might be. Cheers................./Bill Bickford ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 7:20 AM Subject: [BLML] transmission problem > Just recieved an ASCII-coded message with 'very high' priority from > bridge-laws. > It seems suspect to me. > Did anyone get the same message ? And what's the explanation ? > > Carefully yours, > > Alain. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 21 22:20:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LCJhB13812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 22:19:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout03.sul.t-online.com (mailout03.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7LCJYK13808 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 22:19:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd04.sul.t-online.de by mailout03.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17hURz-0005AM-04; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 14:19:03 +0200 Received: from jurgenr (520085598528-0001@[217.89.0.247]) by fwd04.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17hURp-0YymjQC; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 14:18:53 +0200 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?us-ascii?Q?Jurgen_Rennenkampff?=) To: "Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] transmission problem Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 14:18:51 +0200 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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020821131825.00a859a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: 520085598528-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk It's Chinese, comes from Taiwan. Most likely the address of this discussion group is on somebody's junk distribution list. If so, there will be more spam coming. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: Mittwoch, 21. August 2002 13:20 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: [BLML] transmission problem > Importance: High > > > Just recieved an ASCII-coded message with 'very high' priority from > bridge-laws. > It seems suspect to me. > Did anyone get the same message ? And what's the explanation ? > > Carefully yours, > > Alain. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 21 22:36:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LCaAN13833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 22:36:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7LCa2K13829 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 22:36:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from annescomputer ([62.255.8.211]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020821123532.ADL25423.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@annescomputer> for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:35:32 +0100 Message-ID: <000501c2490e$dedd2580$d308ff3e@annescomputer> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020821131825.00a859a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001901c24907$92eb0630$7e97c518@D2GX7R11> Subject: Re: [BLML] transmission problem Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:32:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I suspect we all did. I was invited to download Chinese characters to enable it. I didn't bother - lol Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Bickford" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 12:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] transmission problem > I got the same message; no idea what it might be. > > Cheers................./Bill Bickford > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 7:20 AM > Subject: [BLML] transmission problem > > > > Just recieved an ASCII-coded message with 'very high' priority from > > bridge-laws. > > It seems suspect to me. > > Did anyone get the same message ? And what's the explanation ? > > > > Carefully yours, > > > > Alain. > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 21 23:36:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LDZeq13864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 23:35:40 +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 g7LDZXK13860 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 23:35:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (100.55-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.55.100]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7LDZ1o03894 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:35:01 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D63970A.7080806@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:35:06 +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] Legal but unethical References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020819131951.00a83af0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020821114702.00a2e190@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > and Belgians). Especially as 'ordinateur' was coined first. I doubt if that is true. The computer section of the Paris museum of science and technology has a section on this precise issue - and a copie of the letter of the Academie Française that ordains that ordinateur be the word to use. I don't remember if the letter contains the word "computer" but it certainly was from the early sixties, when computers were already well known accross the world. > -- 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 Aug 22 02:09:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LG8b013934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 02:08:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from obelix.spase.nl (c69101.upc-c.chello.nl [212.187.69.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7LG8WK13930 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 02:08:32 +1000 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:08:43 +0200 Message-ID: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A5F8@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [BLML] transmission problem Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:08:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > Just recieved an ASCII-coded message with 'very high' priority from > bridge-laws. > It seems suspect to me. > Did anyone get the same message ? And what's the explanation ? > > Carefully yours, > > Alain. > If you refer to the message from bondcollege@sprint.ca, it seems to be a spam message targeted for the Chinese or Taiwanese market from a company called powersoftteam. Because I installed Chinese language support some time ago for some website (just to view some Latin letters :( ), I can recognise the text as something in Chinese (although I still cannot read it - the powersoftteam was the only part in Latin letters). So in my opinion, it is just a nuisance (spam), not a disaster (virus). Regards, -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 02:47:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LGlML13967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 02:47:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7LGlCK13954 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 02:47:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7LGkip11296 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:46:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003601c24932$334a6060$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3D633CF2.8090608@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:25:43 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Hello Richard, > > > > > Marv is begging the question whether the ACBL requirement is > > within its L40E1 powers. Surely even the ACBL cannot require a > > novice pair to give MI that they have an agreement, when they > > actually do not have an agreement. (Unless the ACBL is a > > convert to the De Wael School.) I would advise not using "begging the question" if you don't know what it means. > > > > The De Wael school does not apply to novices. The ACBL would not be following > > the DwS if they insist that novices always have agreements. They don't do so. Filling out the convention card, and there is a simple one for novices, does not mean that a pair has agreements on everything. By the way, I have not been talking about club games. Clubs have leeway in such matters. > > But to all other pairs, the ACBL is quite correct in saying that if > someone bids 2Cl with majors, the assumption that they have an > agreement that 2Cl show majors is to be taken as the basis of a ruling. > > After all, that's what the Laws say ! Right on. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 02:47:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LGlUS13969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 02:47:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7LGlCK13955 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 02:47:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7LGkip11319; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:46:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003701c24932$33b83d60$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:28:32 -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: "Tim West-meads" < > > I have not discussed what a 2N overcall of 1 spade means with Emily. Our > CC is therefore left blank in this area. > Maybe you can do that over there, but not in ACBL-land, where the CC must be *completed* Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 02:47:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LGlMM13968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 02:47:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7LGlDK13957 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 02:47:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7LGkip11336 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:46:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003801c24932$33d0a760$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200208191404.KAA18915@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:39:37 -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: "Jeremy Rickard" < > > However, for pairs who are not average, it introduces a new unfairness > (the "Unfairness of Mean") by changing their expected score. For > example, a good pair who play fewer boards would have their expected > score moved towards 50%. I think that in practice, the Unfairness of > Mean that you introduce is likely to be greater than the Unfairness of > Variance that you eliminate, for the better pairs. And if you're > interested in finding a *winner* in a fair way, then it's the better > pairs that are most relevant. > A good pair figures to have an easier time getting a larger score in a smaller game. Would you really let them keep their 70%? And what of the 40% pair who luckily scores 60% in a smaller game, thanks to its greater variance. Do they deserve to keep that percentage when comparing with a larger game? We have STAC multi-site games over here in which games with 7-top are equated with games that have 25-top. The big scores come mostly from the little games, and that is grossly unfair. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 03:18:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LHHJ314038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 03:17:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7LHHDK14034 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 03:17:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7LHGjp22727 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004201c24936$657f5320$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020819131951.00a83af0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020821114702.00a2e190@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3D63970A.7080806@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:52:52 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" >The computer section of the Paris museum of science and technology has a section on this precise issue - and a copie of the letter of the Academie Française that ordains that ordinateur be the word to use. I don't remember if the letter contains the word "computer" but it certainly was from the early sixties, when computers were already well known accross the world. >From a Franglais site: What authorities in France are fighting against: is the infiltration of English/American words into the French language. "Je vais aller au shopping ce weekend" and such. I read somewhere that companies have been required to market their products in France with French-language names: "Le Balladeur" rather than "Le Walkman." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 03:32:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LHWTj14054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 03:32:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7LHWOK14050 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 03:32:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from simba.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@simba.irvine.com [192.160.8.19]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA30439; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:31:51 -0700 Message-Id: <200208211731.KAA30439@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Marvin L. French" Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, adam@irvine.com Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:28:32 PDT." <003701c24932$33b83d60$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:31:55 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: > From: "Tim West-meads" < > > > > I have not discussed what a 2N overcall of 1 spade means with Emily. > Our > > CC is therefore left blank in this area. > > > Maybe you can do that over there, but not in ACBL-land, where the CC must > be *completed* > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California Not to sound like a certain former president, but doesn't it depend on what the meaning of "completed" is? To me, "completed" could mean that every section on the CC is filled out; or it could mean that every section on the CC for which the partnership has a relevant agreement is filled out---i.e. this would be complete in that it completely describes a partnerhip's actual agreements (i.e. those agreements for which there's a space on the card at all). Either one seems to me to be an acceptable meaning of the English word "completed". How are the ACBL regulations worded, and do they give enough information to indicate which definition is intended? -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 03:56:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LHtwk14072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 03:55:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg3.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg3.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.173]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7LHtqK14068 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 03:55:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.92.67.23] (helo=mail18.svr.pol.co.uk) by cmailg3.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17hZhR-0007Qy-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:55:21 +0100 Received: from modem-39.golden-cleaner.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.137.19.39] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17hZhN-0008B4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:55:18 +0100 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA21382; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:56:37 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many References: <200208191404.KAA18915@cfa183.harvard.edu> <003801c24932$33d0a760$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 21 Aug 2002 18:52:23 +0100 In-Reply-To: "Marvin L. French"'s message of "Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:39:37 -0700" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 56 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" writes: > From: "Jeremy Rickard" < > > > > However, for pairs who are not average, it introduces a new unfairness > > (the "Unfairness of Mean") by changing their expected score. For > > example, a good pair who play fewer boards would have their expected > > score moved towards 50%. I think that in practice, the Unfairness of > > Mean that you introduce is likely to be greater than the Unfairness of > > Variance that you eliminate, for the better pairs. And if you're > > interested in finding a *winner* in a fair way, then it's the better > > pairs that are most relevant. > > > A good pair figures to have an easier time getting a larger score in a > smaller game. Would you really let them keep their 70%? Well, my experiment was not about "smaller" and "larger" games (by which I presume you mean games with fewer/more pairs); it was about games (or more precisely, subsets of a single game) with fewer/more *boards played*, which was what Steve's suggested adjustment was meant to compensate for. Using Neuberg to adjust for smaller/larger games is somewhat analogous, in that the only genuine justification is to compensate for the larger variance of scores in the smaller game. Again, in that case, Neuberg adjusts for the "Unfairness of Variance" at the expense of introducing an "Unfairness of Mean". It may be (I just don't know) that the adjustment in that case is small enough that it increases the overall "fairness". If, in my experiment, you adjusted the scores by a fraction of what Steve's scheme suggested (a third, or so?), then in practice it probably would produce a "fairer" winner. Maybe even better would be to apply Steve's scheme by adjusting scores towards 60% (say) instead of 50%. But the "ideal" adjustment depends on all sorts of factors that it's impossible to know, such as the distribution of abilities in the two games and probably also the variance of scores expected by individual pairs in those games. > And what of the 40% pair who luckily scores 60% in a smaller game, thanks > to its greater variance. Do they deserve to keep that percentage when > comparing with a larger game? > > We have STAC multi-site games over here in which games with 7-top are > equated with games that have 25-top. The big scores come mostly from the > little games, and that is grossly unfair. I agree that there is an unfairness coming from the difference in variance (as the first half of my experiment illustrated). All I'm saying is that you should be careful not to overcompensate and introduce an even greater unfairness in the other direction. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 04:39:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LIcLZ14098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 04:38:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from grunt2.ihug.co.nz (grunt2.ihug.co.nz [203.109.254.42]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7LIcHK14094 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 04:38:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from p41-max1.oam.ihug.co.nz (es.co.nz) [203.173.238.233] by grunt2.ihug.co.nz with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17haMW-0000hK-00; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 06:37:49 +1200 Message-ID: <3D63DCD9.5050704@es.co.nz> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 06:32:57 +1200 From: B Kelly User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020513 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] ascii? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I recieved one written in "chinese" type characters.can someone translate?pls. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 05:35:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LJZ9M14137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 05:35:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7LJZ4K14133 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 05:35:04 +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 MAA31736; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 12:34:31 -0700 Message-Id: <200208211934.MAA31736@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] ascii? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 22 Aug 2002 06:32:57 +1200." <3D63DCD9.5050704@es.co.nz> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 12:34:36 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > I recieved one written in "chinese" type characters.can someone > translate?pls. I don't speak a word of Chinese, but I think I can translate it anyway. It means Mortgage Rates...Lowest in Years!! or maybe Free Cable Descrambler or maybe An Urgent Message Pretending To Be From Some High-Ranking Nigerian Official or maybe Make $50,000 Per Year While Doing Nothing But Sitting On Your Couch Watching Baseball And Drinking Beer or maybe Teenage Cheerleaders ... ... uh, never mind ... -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 05:47:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LJlBT14154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 05:47:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7LJl6K14150 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 05:47:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from annescomputer ([62.255.17.66]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020821194636.VMUS28874.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@annescomputer> for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 20:46:36 +0100 Message-ID: <001901c2494b$76a07fc0$4211ff3e@annescomputer> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: <3D63DCD9.5050704@es.co.nz> Subject: Re: [BLML] ascii? Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 20:46:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Askii Bill Gates Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "B Kelly" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 7:32 PM Subject: [BLML] ascii? > I recieved one written in "chinese" type characters.can someone > translate?pls. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 05:48:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LJlxm14166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 05:47:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7LJlsK14162 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 05:47:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7LJlNp00733; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 12:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005c01c2494b$708f2780$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200208211731.KAA30439@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 12:46:12 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Adam Beneschan" > Not to sound like a certain former president, but doesn't it depend on > what the meaning of "completed" is? To me, "completed" could mean > that every section on the CC is filled out; or it could mean that > every section on the CC for which the partnership has a relevant > agreement is filled out---i.e. this would be complete in that it > completely describes a partnerhip's actual agreements (i.e. those > agreements for which there's a space on the card at all). Either one > seems to me to be an acceptable meaning of the English word > "completed". How are the ACBL regulations worded, and do they give > enough information to indicate which definition is intended? > It means that when the CC asks about something, you answer the question. In addition you have to put down some things that are not the subject of a question. I don't have the time to type out the entire 13-page document entitled "How to Fill Out The New Convention Card" (updated for March 1 changes? I don't know). It says on this line do this, on that line do that, for every part of the CC. For instance, there are three boxes for opening preempts, labeled Sound, Light, and Very Light. To suppose that you don't have to check one of those boxes in order to fill out a CC, because it is undiscussed, is a strange interpretation. Okay, here is the regulation: 1. Each player is required to have a convention card legibly filled out.... 2. If a director determines that neither player has a substantially completed card, the partnership may only play conventions on the Limited Convention Chart and may only use standard carding. To this one must add the ACBL's instructions for filling out a CC, provided in that 13-page document I cited above. A very well-done document, by the way. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 06:18:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LKHxf14188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 06:17:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7LKHsK14184 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 06:17:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7LKHPp11494; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:17:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006c01c2494f$a2baf280$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Jeremy Rickard" References: <200208191404.KAA18915@cfa183.harvard.edu> <003801c24932$33d0a760$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:00:34 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Jeremy Rickard" > "Marvin L. French" writes: > > > From: "Jeremy Rickard" < > > > > > > However, for pairs who are not average, it introduces a new unfairness > > > (the "Unfairness of Mean") by changing their expected score. For > > > example, a good pair who play fewer boards would have their expected > > > score moved towards 50%. I think that in practice, the Unfairness of > > > Mean that you introduce is likely to be greater than the Unfairness of > > > Variance that you eliminate, for the better pairs. And if you're > > > interested in finding a *winner* in a fair way, then it's the better > > > pairs that are most relevant. > > > > > A good pair figures to have an easier time getting a larger score in a > > smaller game. Would you really let them keep their 70%? > > Well, my experiment was not about "smaller" and "larger" games (by > which I presume you mean games with fewer/more pairs); it was about > games (or more precisely, subsets of a single game) with fewer/more > *boards played*, which was what Steve's suggested adjustment was meant > to compensate for. Sorry, I mix up the two themes sometimes, as I'm working on both right now. Rewording that: A good pair figures to have an easier time getting a large score on 24 boards than on 27 boards. If you doubt that, try it with 3 boards vs 27 boards. The fewer the boards played, the greater the variance and the easier it is to get a score than is better than a pair's "true" ability. That is why 2-session events are a better test than single-session events. We should do something about this unfair situation, not just ignore it. Large percentages should be reduced and small percentages increased when those playing fewer boards are compared with those playing more. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 06:20:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LKKAq14200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 06:20:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7LKK5K14196 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 06:20:05 +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 g7LKN4524020 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 12:23:04 -0800 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 12:16:18 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many 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 There is a basic question we need to answer before we can say what type of correction, if any, for playing fewer boards is needed: What are we trying to measure, when we rank the scores? In the usual scoring method where we calculate a percentage, we take "# of matchpoints earned / # of matchpoints available" as our measure of how well a pair is playing today. Straight factoring seems appropriate to such a system, since you have laid out at the beginning which matchpoints are available to whom. A player who scores 170 matchpoints on 26 boards has earned a smaller percentage of the available points than one who scores 157 matchpoints on 24 boards - or one who scores 8 matchpoints on 1 board. We have regulations, of course, to prevent people who substitute for only 1 or 2 boards and score tops from winning events. If, on the other hand, you are trying to measure *your degree of certainty that such-and-such player is the best in the room*, a sqrt(#boards)-type adjustment might be appropriate. Someone mentioned a "number of sigmas above average" ranking. Such an event does indeed have an "unfairness of mean", in the sense that playing very well for a few boards in not as strong an indication of being a good player as playing reasonably well for many boards. I've experimented with a rating system based on 'sigmas' but I know of no real-life bridge contest scored that way. There is no way to make the score distributions line up exactly for two sections that play different numbers of boards. Straight factoring makes the expected values coincide; sqrt(n) comes close, at least, to making the variances coincide; some other, considerably more complicated, adjustment could make it so that the winning pair was equally likely to come from either section. If you're interested in other schemes to identify the most skillful pairs in the room, you may note that 4 strong pairs playing each other are more likely to produce tied boards than weak or various strength pairs are. Awarding one matchpoint for every pair you *beat or tie*, or even 1 matchpoint for every pair you tie and only 1/2 matchpoint for every pair you beat, has a lot more to be said for it than you would think. (It does produce some interesting complications: MPs are no longer a zero-sum thing, and total # of MPs awarded can be taken as a measure of field strength.) On 21 Aug 2002, either Jeremy Rickard or Marvin L. French" writes: (I am missing a second level of ">>" marks): > Using Neuberg to adjust for smaller/larger games is somewhat > analogous, in that the only genuine justification is to compensate for > the larger variance of scores in the smaller game. Again, in that > case, Neuberg adjusts for the "Unfairness of Variance" at the expense > of introducing an "Unfairness of Mean". It may be (I just don't know) > that the adjustment in that case is small enough that it increases the > overall "fairness". This argument, however, is incorrect. Neuberg exists to *correct* an unfairness of mean. Ascherman is an unbiased estimator of what MP result you deserve. Standard ACBL matchpoints are biased toward the extremes, and standard Neuberg equalizes the amount of bias present in the factored and unfactored boards. Before factoring, the board with fewer plays has too high a variance AND an 'unfairness of mean' by making it too easy to get scores far from average; after factoring, the variance remains higher than on an unfactored board - because there is less information about that board! - but the unfairness of mean has been removed. (Old-fashioned factoring, awarding 1/2 matchpoint for every missed play, was an overcorrection, making variance too small and dragging everything closer to average.) Take the simple example of getting a top on a board. To award 100% is to claim that it is impossible, anywhere else in the world, that someone else could achieve the score you did. 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 Aug 22 06:57:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LKuxO14221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 06:56:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imailg2.svr.pol.co.uk (imailg2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.180]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7LKusK14217 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 06:56:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-103.draugluin.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.158.103] helo=pc) by imailg2.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17hcWd-0005q2-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 21:56:24 +0100 Message-ID: <000001c24954$f3bb15c0$679e883e@pc> From: "LarryBennett" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020819131951.00a83af0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020821114702.00a2e190@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3D63970A.7080806@skynet.be> <004201c24936$657f5320$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 19:44:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Try that one on French golfers ;-) What authorities in France are fighting against: is the infiltration of English/American words into the French language. "Je vais aller au shopping ce weekend" and such. I read somewhere that companies have been required to market their products in France with French-language names: "Le Balladeur" rather than "Le Walkman." -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 08:01:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LM0Of14260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:00:24 +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 g7LM0JK14256 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:00:19 +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 RAA22615 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:59:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA03037 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:59:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:59:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208212159.RAA03037@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Since we have the word 'ordinateur' to > say 'computer', I don't see why the word 'computer' should be used in > French conversation, except to make others think you can speak English > (whch very few French people do, contrary to Quebecers and Belgians). > Especially as 'ordinateur' was coined first. Someone should check the OED, but I am sure 'computer' in English goes back before 1900 and possibly earlier than 1850. Of course computers were human rather than electronic in those days, but their function was to perform arithmetic calculations. I think the earliest uses of computers may have been astronomical calculations for navigational purposes. The first really large-scale application was probably preparing ordnance tables, i.e., how far an artillery shell would travel under various conditions. Do we have an age estimate for 'ordinateur'? Also, is there an obvious etymology? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 08:11:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LMB4914277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:11:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7LMAxK14269 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:10:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id SAA24705 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:10:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA03053 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:10:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:10:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208212210.SAA03053@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] penalty card, or is it? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Here's one I've never seen before, but it happened last night. Dummy, North, wins a trick. South is holding his played card face up and says -- or mumbles, depending on whom you believe -- "Cards?" East hears "Heart," and puts a heart spot card face up on the table. Major penalty card? Minor? Not at all? Or does the TD need more information? In practice, the ruling doesn't matter; declarer's next play from dummy is a heart, and East plays the exposed card. But what should the ruling have been? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 08:16:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LMGae14289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:16:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg5.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg5.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.175]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7LMGUK14285 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:16:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.92.67.23] (helo=mail18.svr.pol.co.uk) by cmailg5.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17hdlf-0008PN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 23:15:59 +0100 Received: from modem-254.fire-goby.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.137.11.254] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17hdld-0000Gb-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 23:15:58 +0100 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA21985; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 23:17:17 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many References: From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 21 Aug 2002 23:11:07 +0100 In-Reply-To: Gordon Bower's message of "Wed, 21 Aug 2002 12:16:18 -0800 (AKDT)" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 46 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower writes: > On 21 Aug 2002, either Jeremy Rickard or Marvin > L. French" writes: (I am missing a second level of > ">>" marks): It was me. > > Using Neuberg to adjust for smaller/larger games is somewhat > > analogous, in that the only genuine justification is to compensate for > > the larger variance of scores in the smaller game. Again, in that > > case, Neuberg adjusts for the "Unfairness of Variance" at the expense > > of introducing an "Unfairness of Mean". It may be (I just don't know) > > that the adjustment in that case is small enough that it increases the > > overall "fairness". > > This argument, however, is incorrect. Neuberg exists to *correct* an > unfairness of mean. Ascherman is an unbiased estimator of what MP result > you deserve. Not true. Factoring without Ascherman/Neuberg gives an unbiased estimator. Ascherman biases towards 50%. > Take the simple example of getting a top on a board. To award 100% is to > claim that it is impossible, anywhere else in the world, that someone else > could achieve the score you did. No. Suppose one in ten people in the world would get the result that I got, so it deserves a 95% score. Playing in a 10-table movement, Ascherman gives me that 95% *if nobody else in the movement gets that result*, but sometimes gives me a lower score (when somebody else in the movement does get the result). So on average, Ascherman gives me less than the 95% that I deserve. On the other hand, without factoring I'll get 50% from each table where they do get the result (1/10 of them on average) and 100% from each table that doesn't (9/10 of them on average), so on average I get the 95% = (1/10 * 50%) + (9/10 * 100%) that I deserve. Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 08:30:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LMToT14304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:29:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7LMTkK14300 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:29:46 +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 IAA08413 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:45:14 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:24:06 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:29:02 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 22/08/2002 08:23:40 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The ACBL regulated: >2. If a director determines that neither player has a >substantially completed card, the partnership may only [snip] >use standard carding. Part two of the definition of "convention" in Chapter 1 of the Laws is: ++Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference.++ And L40D allows the ACBL to regulate the use of play conventions. *But* Does L40D give the ACBL the power to *require* a partnership to adopt the convention of "standard carding"? Does L40D give the ACBL the power to *prohibit* a partnership from false-carding? 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 Aug 22 08:53:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LMrIi14324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:53:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7LMrEK14320 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:53:14 +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 JAA14588 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:08:42 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:47:34 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:52:20 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 22/08/2002 08:47:08 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: [snip] >For instance, there are three boxes for opening >preempts, labeled Sound, Light, and Very Light. To >suppose that you don't have to check one of those >boxes in order to fill out a CC, because it is >undiscussed, is a strange interpretation. [snip] Suppose that you are playing a system, which was popular in the 1930s, where an opening bid of three-of-a-suit is natural and game-forcing? How can you check one of the three boxes on the ACBL system card then? The ABF system card resolves this paradox, since following any set of checkboxes on the ABF system card, there is also the word "other", followed by a blank space for specification. 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 Aug 22 09:06:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LN62g14341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:06:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7LN5vK14337 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:05:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from pavilion ([12.91.171.251]) by mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020821230521.FFFO28921.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@pavilion> for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 23:05:21 +0000 From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: Subject: Computers (Was: [BLML] Legal but unethical) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 19:05:36 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <200208212159.RAA03037@cfa183.harvard.edu> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Willner > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 6:00 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical > > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > > Since we have the word 'ordinateur' to > > say 'computer', I don't see why the word 'computer' > should be used in > > French conversation, except to make others think you > can speak English > > (whch very few French people do, contrary to > Quebecers and Belgians). > > Especially as 'ordinateur' was coined first. > > Someone should check the OED, but I am sure 'computer' > in English goes back before 1900 and possibly earlier > than 1850. 1646, though its current, modern usage doesn't go back that far. I see no reason to believe that the English word for the concept should be borrowed by any other languages, especially since they're as likely to already have words for the concept. In addition to French, some non-cognates are ordenadora (Spanish), tietokone (Finnish), and dya'n nau (Chinese). > Do we have an age estimate for 'ordinateur'? Also, is > there an obvious etymology? I don't know about obvious, but I'd assume it comes from ordonner or ordonnateur. -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 Thu Aug 22 09:12:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LNC8W14358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:12:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout10.sul.t-online.com (mailout10.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7LNC2K14354 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:12:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd05.sul.t-online.de by mailout10.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17hedP-0008TS-02; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:11:31 +0200 Received: from jurgenr (520085598528-0001@[217.229.3.163]) by fwd05.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17hedL-0CWY76C; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:11:27 +0200 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) To: "Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:11:24 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <200208212159.RAA03037@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal X-Sender: 520085598528-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----------quoted The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition (OED2) dates use of the word to refer to a mechanical calculating device as 1897, in the January 22 issue of the journal Engineering. The earliest reference in the OED2 to electronic computer is in 1946. However, from the context of the citation, it is obvious that the term was in use prior to 1946. Citations for the term digital computer are somewhat older than 1946. The OED2 lists one citation, referring to ENIAC, from a 1945 Applied Mathematics Panel Report, 171.2R, by J. Eckert, et al. From the context, it is clear that the term was in general use among engineers already. The retronym analog computer arose around the same time, with the earliest citation in the OED2 as 1946. (A retronym is a term that previously did not need to exist, but is coined because of changes in technology or culture.) Prior to the digital age, no one referred to analog computers because all computers were analog. ------------ Ordinateur : En 1954, IBM voulait trouver un nom français pour ses machines, et éviter le mot " calculateur " (traduction littérale de " computer ") qui lui semblait mauvais pour son image de marque. Le linguiste Jacques Perret a proposé, dans sa lettre du 16 avril 1955, d’utiliser le terme " ordinateur ", mot dont l’usage ancien signifiait " celui qui met en ordre " ; en liturgie il désigne celui qui confère un ordre sacré. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Steve Willner > Sent: Donnerstag, 22. August 2002 00:00 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical > > > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > > Since we have the word 'ordinateur' to > > say 'computer', I don't see why the word 'computer' should be used in > > French conversation, except to make others think you can speak English > > (whch very few French people do, contrary to Quebecers and Belgians). > > Especially as 'ordinateur' was coined first. > > Someone should check the OED, but I am sure 'computer' in English goes > back before 1900 and possibly earlier than 1850. Of course computers > were human rather than electronic in those days, but their function was > to perform arithmetic calculations. I think the earliest uses of > computers may have been astronomical calculations for navigational > purposes. The first really large-scale application was probably > preparing ordnance tables, i.e., how far an artillery shell would > travel under various conditions. > > Do we have an age estimate for 'ordinateur'? Also, is there an obvious > etymology? > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 09:23:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LNNde14370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:23:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7LNNZK14366 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:23:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA23647 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:39:03 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:17:55 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] penalty card, or is it? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:22:39 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 22/08/2002 09:17:30 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >Here's one I've never seen before, but it happened last night. > >Dummy, North, wins a trick. South is holding his played card >face up and says -- or mumbles, depending on whom you believe >-- "Cards?" East hears "Heart," and puts a heart spot card >face up on the table. > >Major penalty card? Minor? Not at all? Or does the TD need >more information? [snip] 1. As TD, my determination of the facts, under the balance of probabilities, is that South mumbled "cards". 2. I rule that South's mumbling is not an infraction of L73D2. 3. Since South was not calling for a card from dummy, I rule that there has been no violation of the "clearly state" provision of L46A. 3. For the same reason, I rule that L47E1 does not apply. 4. Therefore, I would apply L53. If South does not accept the lead out of turn, then East's heart spot card becomes a major penalty card under L50. 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 Aug 22 09:28:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LNRqq14383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:27:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7LNRlK14379 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:27:47 +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 g7LNUl529668 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:30:47 -0800 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:24:01 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many 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 21 Aug 2002, Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > No. Suppose one in ten people in the world would get the result that I > got, so it deserves a 95% score. Playing in a 10-table movement, > Ascherman gives me that 95% *if nobody else in the movement gets that > result*, but sometimes gives me a lower score (when somebody else in > the movement does get the result). So on average, Ascherman gives me > less than the 95% that I deserve. If you are the only pair in a 10-table game to achieve that result, 10% of the pairs in the room achieved that result and 95% is exactly what you deserve. As you compare your club's results with those of other clubs in the world, you will find some clubs where this result appears twice or more, dragging you down below 95%, and other clubs where no-one at all achieved this result, pushing you back up above 95%. > On the other hand, without factoring I'll get 50% from each table > where they do get the result (1/10 of them on average) and 100% from > each table that doesn't (9/10 of them on average), so on average I get > the 95% = (1/10 * 50%) + (9/10 * 100%) that I deserve. I see your point. Which one of us is right depends on what you think is supposed to happen in the clubs where no-one at all achieves this top score only 10% of tables worldwide will reach. Your approach is "I already have my score written down on the scoresheet; let's see how it will matchpoint out as the rest of the scores come in." As all the other scores from around the world get tallied, your ties or wins will come in. The local result for the top score is E [ percentage | how nine other tables played this board] if your score occurs, and, if not, undefined: if the top score occurs at your club, it gets given 100, 94.4%, 88.9%, etc.; if not, the idea that someone, somewhere, might have gotten such a score is inconceivable. Ascherman doesn't treat you as any different than anyone else in the world. In clubs where the result is achieved once, twice, etc, it's valued at 95%, 90%, 85%, etc; in clubs where everyone achieves a lower result, it's theoretically worth 100%. That is, the local estimate for what percentage to give is E [ percentage | what 10 tables did ], defined for all possible scores including the ones that didn't happen in your particular club but might have somewhere else. Traditional matchpointing is the unbiased answer to the question "Now that I have obtained score X at my table, how much do I deserve for it?" Ascherman is the unbaised answer to the question "Suppose someone comes along and picks up these cards sometime; how much do they deserve if they achieve score X?" There seems to be a difference of opinion about which question we should be asking. :) 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 Aug 22 09:29:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LNSuN14395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:28:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (adsl-66-126-103-122.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [66.126.103.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7LNSpK14391 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:28:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from simba.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@simba.irvine.com [192.160.8.19]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA01577; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:28:16 -0700 Message-Id: <200208212328.QAA01577@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:52:20 +1000." Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:28:23 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard wrote: > Marv wrote: > > [snip] > > >For instance, there are three boxes for opening > >preempts, labeled Sound, Light, and Very Light. To > >suppose that you don't have to check one of those > >boxes in order to fill out a CC, because it is > >undiscussed, is a strange interpretation. > > [snip] > > Suppose that you are playing a system, which was > popular in the 1930s, where an opening bid of > three-of-a-suit is natural and game-forcing? > > How can you check one of the three boxes on the > ACBL system card then? On the ACBL card, there's also a line below the three boxes labeled "Conv./Resp.", for information about conventional openings (such as transfer preempts) or conventional responses. Technically, the 3 bid you describe isn't a convention, but you could write it on that line anyway. There's no rule (or there had better not be a rule) saying you can't write something there that doesn't match the label; the CC is there to inform the opponents, and if it does that job, fine. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 09:35:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LNZdT14407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:35:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout11.sul.t-online.com (mailout11.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7LNZXK14403 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:35:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd00.sul.t-online.de by mailout11.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17hf0C-0001oS-03; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:35:04 +0200 Received: from vwalther.de (320051711875-0001@[217.226.209.21]) by fmrl00.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 17hf05-0D61QGC; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:34:57 +0200 Message-ID: <3D64223E.5020607@vwalther.de> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:29:02 +0200 From: "Volker R. Walther" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many References: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.62.3.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 320051711875-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Give it up, you will never know. Factoring will be the best you can reach. You may feel that the result you achieve does not represent the truth, but there is no 'better' approximation to the truth. Every contestant (pair) in a tournament has 'strength' (the average result) and 'distribution' (variances around the average result). The more boards you play, the less is the influence of the distribution. But you should not change the average result when scaling up. Unfortunately most of the bridge events are to small to give good results. 'Good' means that the result is representing the strength of the players. Just make a small experiment: Suppose there are exactly two good pairs in the field. Pair A usually gets 7 points of 10 in 90% of the games and 8 points in 10%. So their average is 71% Pair B plays 7 in 80% and 8 in 20% for an average of 72% (That's more!) We divide the field in 2 groups. Group one plays 10 boards, group two plays 10000 boards. In group one the best pair played 9 boards with 7 points and 1 board with 8 points. In group two the best pair got 7 points on 9000 boards and 8 points on 1000 boards. Two questions: Is pair B the winner of group one or the winner of group two? Do you really think the result will become 'fairer' by _decreasing_ the results of group one? The best approximation we can give for the average result a pair will get on 'all' boards is the average result they achieved on the boards already played. The only way two improve the quality of the result is: Play more boards! ( Sometimes it is difficult to count the points of the winner, especially when his name is Bush ;-) ) Greeings, Volker Walther > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- Adressen meiner Homepage: http://www.vwalther.de oder (schlechter zu merken, aber ohne Werbung) http://home.t-online.de/home/volker.r.walther -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 09:48:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7LNlnI14424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:47:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7LNliK14420 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:47:44 +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 QAA01775; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:47:10 -0700 Message-Id: <200208212347.QAA01775@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 21 Aug 2002 12:46:12 PDT." <005c01c2494b$708f2780$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:47:17 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > Not to sound like a certain former president, but doesn't it depend on > > what the meaning of "completed" is? To me, "completed" could mean > > that every section on the CC is filled out; or it could mean that > > every section on the CC for which the partnership has a relevant > > agreement is filled out---i.e. this would be complete in that it > > completely describes a partnerhip's actual agreements (i.e. those > > agreements for which there's a space on the card at all). Either one > > seems to me to be an acceptable meaning of the English word > > "completed". How are the ACBL regulations worded, and do they give > > enough information to indicate which definition is intended? > > > It means that when the CC asks about something, you answer the question. > In addition you have to put down some things that are not the subject of a > question. I don't have the time to type out the entire 13-page document > entitled "How to Fill Out The New Convention Card" (updated for March 1 > changes? I don't know). It says on this line do this, on that line do > that, for every part of the CC. > > For instance, there are three boxes for opening preempts, labeled Sound, > Light, and Very Light. To suppose that you don't have to check one of > those boxes in order to fill out a CC, because it is undiscussed, is a > strange interpretation. I don't think it's strange. I don't think it's any stranger than, say, calling a form "completed" if an unemployed or retired person fills out the form and leaves blank the line marked "Business Address" but fills in all the other pertinent information. Maybe others see it differently. I suppose you could write "undiscussed" everywhere where there was something the CC asks for that hasn't been discussed. Or, more simply, write a question mark. I don't know, and it doesn't affect me, since it's been ages since I played with a pickup and will probably be a very long time before I do so again. > Okay, here is the regulation: > > 1. Each player is required to have a convention card legibly filled > out.... > > 2. If a director determines that neither player has a substantially > completed card, the partnership may only play conventions on the Limited > Convention Chart and may only use standard carding. Ah, so the ACBL doesn't require the card to be completed. It only requires it to be "substantially completed", which indicates that you can leave a few sections unfilled without penalty. So Tim wouldn't be doing anything illegal in the ACBL if the only section he didn't fill out was jumps to 2NT. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 10:11:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M0B2r14446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:11:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout08.sul.t-online.com (mailout08.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7M0AuK14438 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:10:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd00.sul.t-online.de by mailout08.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17hfYP-0004wf-03; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 02:10:25 +0200 Received: from vwalther.de (320051711875-0001@[217.226.209.21]) by fmrl00.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 17hfYN-0Pd7dQC; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 02:10:23 +0200 Message-ID: <3D642A8D.7070502@vwalther.de> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 02:04:29 +0200 From: "Volker R. Walther" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many References: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.62.3.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 320051711875-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > No. Suppose one in ten people in the world would get the result that I > got, so it deserves a 95% score. Playing in a 10-table movement, > Ascherman gives me that 95% *if nobody else in the movement gets that > result*, but sometimes gives me a lower score (when somebody else in > the movement does get the result). So on average, Ascherman gives me > less than the 95% that I deserve. > > On the other hand, without factoring I'll get 50% from each table > where they do get the result (1/10 of them on average) and 100% from > each table that doesn't (9/10 of them on average), so on average I get > the 95% = (1/10 * 50%) + (9/10 * 100%) that I deserve. > > Jeremy. > Wrong. The problem is already in the assumption. How will you know, that one of 10 people in the world will get the same result, if not everybody has played the board? Ascherman/Neuberg are trying to solve this problem by the assumption that the probability of any score world-wide is the same as it is on the actual board sheet. Lets have a look from another side: You talked about playing a ten table movemement. You had a result that happened one out of ten times. Then you complained that Ascherman will not give you 95% when someone else gets the same result. But is this really possible? If someone else (at the ten tables) sometimes gets your result and you keep your result then the probability of getting your result has to be greater than 1/10. So you do not deserve 95%. If the probability of getting your result really is 10% then nobody will ever get the same result because you have occupied those ten percents. If you want to give free spaces for other pairs that should get the same result, you will have to get a different result... But the Neuberg-Formula ignores the fact, that ther always may be a greater fool. If I made a bid of 7S with S:KDB.... - - C:A (Down one, thought I had all spades) Neuberg ignores the fact that there may be someone in the world who bids 7NTXX .... Greetings, Volker -- Adressen meiner Homepage: http://www.vwalther.de oder (schlechter zu merken, aber ohne Werbung) http://home.t-online.de/home/volker.r.walther -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 10:57:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M0uOe14503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:56:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7M0u3K14463 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:56:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17hgG3-000HhF-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:55:33 +0100 Message-ID: <4AzwAyASe7Y9Ew67@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:53:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play References: <6736400.1028830906727.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <002301c23f76$e958d8c0$ea16e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002301c23f76$e958d8c0$ea16e150@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 say that by and large, most directors are >> fairly sensible people who do not often tell you to >> do ridiculous things, and that by and large, it is a >> better idea to follow a director's instruction than >> to disobey it. >+=+ I am reminded of the Tredinnick (?) who passed >because he was bound to get a favourable ruling, >RHO having 'obviously' psyched as the regulations >did not allow (a near game forcing conventional opening >bid), only to find his RHO had not wittingly violated any >regulation but had merely forgotten system and misbid +=+ To be fair to one or both Tredinnicks, it was Malcolm Pryor, who was a member of the L&EC at the time. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 10:57:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M0uUo14507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:56:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7M0u6K14467 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:56:07 +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 17hgG4-000HhD-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:55:37 +0100 Message-ID: <6wewcJAlS7Y9Ew4m@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:41:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 References: <009f01c23f18$91bd6a30$7f9468d5@SCRAP> In-Reply-To: <009f01c23f18$91bd6a30$7f9468d5@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 >Robert E Harris: > I find in Goren's New Contract Bridge Complete the following hand, given >as > a third seat opening bid: > S: Qxx; H: AKJxx; D: xx; C: xxx. > >Nigel Guthrie: > Another example might be S:xxx H:AKQJ D:xxx C:xxx > Can David Stevenson and other lions in the EBU legal jungle tell us > whether it is breaking the law to open sub rule of 19 hands, > regularly, as a matter of course, in "Level 3" events, with a > long-standing partner, in third position, without barring subsequent > conventional bids? If you have an agreement, explicit or implicit, to open sub Ro19 hands then you are not playing a legal method. The position does not affect it. Incidentally, with a general review just coming [new OB due in 2003] why does someone not apply to play 3rd in hand light by agreement? There has never been such an application in my time. > My interpretation is that is illegal; but at a congress, when I quoted > the orange book on this, the panel of experts laughed; one said he had > never read the orange book; all said that nobody should take such > rules seriously; and the entire audience applauded their approval. > For past several years, in eschewing such bids, have I been playing > under a spurious self-imposed handicap? Of course there are some fairly rude self-styled experts around. Thye tend not to be as good as they think. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 10:57:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M0uYY14508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:56:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7M0u9K14475 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:56:09 +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 17hgGA-000HhE-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:55:39 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:17:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] absence at Brighton 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 >DWS and I will be at Brighton for 10 days. Not sure what acess we'll >have. None, apparently! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 10:57:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M0uQv14506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:56:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7M0u3K14462 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:56:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17hgG3-000HhE-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:55:32 +0100 Message-ID: <4g4w4kA8b7Y9EwYv@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:51:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play References: <002301c241be$f4d5f710$6400a8c0@WINXP> In-Reply-To: <002301c241be$f4d5f710$6400a8c0@WINXP> 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: >..... >> Sven replied: >> >> >I do not think much of an instruction like that, but if the >> >Director issues it I assume it is for a reason, and the >> >player(s) addressed are most certainly supposed to obey. >> >However they are free to complain afterwards if they feel >> >that way. >> >> I agree with Tim and disagree with Sven. One has an >> *obligation* to disobey an illegal order from a TD. ("I was >> only following orders" was ruled an invalid excuse at the >> Nuremburg Trials.) > >So your opinion is that any player who THINKS that the TD >has given an illegal order is obliged to disobey that order if he >so prefers. And if it afterwards would appear that the order >given was indeed justified and correct ????? > >(And believe me, I have yet as TD to issue an order that >might be in conflict with human rights etc. ) I believe that the ruling at Nuremberg was that obeying orders was not an acceptable defence to gross violations of human conduct. When a table is running late it is difficult how you can claim that a TD giving an obviously sensible instruction [even if not the one you or I might give] is a gross violation of human conduct. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 10:57:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M0ueR14510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:56:40 +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 g7M0uDK14489 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:56:13 +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 17hgGA-000HhD-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:55:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:33:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play 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 >Probst wrote: >> I agree. ... and it's nothing to do with the cult of director. When a >> player decides to play in an event of any sort he implicitly agrees to >> be bound by the laws of bridge. By implication he also agrees to be >> governed by the tournament Director. >Up to a point my lord copper. We have heard in the past of TDs issuing >instructions like "you must not psyche again this session". We would not >expect players to obey that particular instruction. I received that instruction from Mike Green [now deceased] at the New Acol BC about 30 years ago. I was incensed, and complained to absolutely everyone I could find. But it never occurred to me to disobey it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 10:57:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M0ubM14509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:56:38 +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-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 g7M0uAK14481 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:56:11 +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 17hgGA-000HhF-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:55:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:21:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Rule of 19,18,15 etc 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 writes >In the thread "EBU Appeals 2001", Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >>Another example might be S:xxx H:AKQJ D:xxx C:xxx >> >>Can David Stevenson and other lions in the EBU legal jungle tell us >>whether it is breaking the law to open sub rule of 19 hands, >>regularly, as a matter of course, in "Level 3" events, with a >>long-standing partner, in third position, without barring subsequent >>conventional bids? >> >>My interpretation is that is illegal; but at a congress, when I quoted >>the orange book on this, the panel of experts laughed; one said he had >>never read the orange book; all said that nobody should take such >>rules seriously; and the entire audience applauded their approval. >> >>For past several years, in eschewing such bids, have I been playing >>under a spurious self-imposed handicap? > >Australian regulations classify systems according to the rule >of 18 (for one-level opening bids) and the rule of 15 (for two- >level opening bids). > >Systems which do not abide by the twin rule of 18 and 15 are >theoretically classified as Yellow Systems (the ABF equivalent >of Highly Unusual Methods). Use of Yellow Systems is restricted >to very few ABF events. > >However, like Nigel, I have noticed that many expert Australian >players are unaware of the ABF regulation. In his bridge >column, the respected authority Ron Klinger advocated ultra- >light ferdinand one-level openings. And many Oz players >illegally perpetrate manic two-level preempts. > >This raises an important philosophical point. Should an NBO >create a regulation which: > >a) The NBO does not publicise >b) Members of the NBO do not wish to abide by, and >c) The NBO does not enforce? When I was in Australia I was given the lovely job of explaining to a pretty good player that: [1] what he was playing was illegal [2] he had been told before [3] therefore we were taking his good score away The problem was that he was putting me up, so if he did not like the explanation I would be looking for a bed for the night! He played a 1C opening as 9+, balanced or clubs. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 11:09:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M0uj714512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:56:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g7M0uIK14498 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:56:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17hgGG-000HhE-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:55:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:34:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play References: <060802218.23953@webbox.com> <009701c23d6d$69999e40$4d053dd4@b0e7g1> <3tHjLPFzOHU9EwYK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00b001c23edf$b6cccf20$ef053dd4@b0e7g1> In-Reply-To: <00b001c23edf$b6cccf20$ef053dd4@b0e7g1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ben Schelen writes >The original question was: >"Is it acceptable that the board is played later despite being two bids into >the auction." >So the pairs neither at fault were instructed during play! >And my first reaction was: Is it not better (or best) to postpone the next >round? >(Instead of playing later, the players have seen the hands, or a Law12C1 >decision) Sorry, I was answering the second question, not the first, which was ridiculous. I just find the idea of a TD stopping a board part way through to be completed later so incredible I ignored it as a fantasy! Now I read other posts, I am not sure whether it was the first: I think what you wrote above was not the first. It does not matter: the point is I was not answering anything about stopping a board part-way through to play later, which is an obvious no-no. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 11:24:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M0vVf14547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:57:31 +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 g7M0ulK14519 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:56:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17hgGg-000HhE-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:56:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:53:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C3 headache 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 Adam Wildavsky writes >At 5:23 PM +0200 8/12/02, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >>What percentages would you assume for the various contracts in >>computing a 12C3 score? > >Why would one compute a 12C3 score? > >12C2 gives EW -420 and in my judgement leads to NS +420. Is this >unjust? Inequitable? Why go further? > >To my mind every use of 12C3 must lead to headaches -- that's only >one reason I'm opposed to it. Even when it's in force, though, as I >understand things there's no requirement to use it unless the 12C2 >adjustment is found wanting. The trouble with this answer is that you "know" that if there had been no infraction then N/S would not have got +420 all the time. That is what is wrong with L12C2. Furthermore, L12C2 leads to headaches: you have to get it *right* or one side has been unfairly treated, often very unfairly treated. In this case giving N/S +420 is so far away from equity as to be laughable. L12C3 rulings are quick, easy, and considerably less error-prone. In this case South would probably not double very much, and 4H would go off a lot, so how about: 30% NS +420 + 20% NS -50 + 50% NS -140 -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 11:32:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M1Wj314597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:32:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7M1WdK14593 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:32:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from annescomputer ([62.255.8.103]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020822013208.IXZK28874.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@annescomputer> for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 02:32:08 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01c2497b$b8448ae0$6708ff3e@annescomputer> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] absence at Brighton Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 02:32:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] absence at Brighton > John (MadDog) Probst writes > >DWS and I will be at Brighton for 10 days. Not sure what acess we'll > >have. > > None, apparently! > There was an "ebuonline" computer in the main hall connected to the internet the whole of both weekends. The purpose was to encourage the involvement of players to try http://www.bridgeclublive.com Cheers Anne > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 11:39:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M0ven14555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:57:40 +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 g7M0ulK14518 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:56:48 +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 17hgGg-000HhD-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:56:16 +0100 Message-ID: <6qWQafJDHDZ9EwR+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:35:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem References: <200208121439.KAA00023@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200208121439.KAA00023@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: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" >> Score this session with the fouled-board formula a.k.a. Neuberg. > >It took me a while (and reading some other replies) to catch on here. >In case anyone else is as slow as I am... > >You have two options for the first session, where one section played >different boards from the other three: score each section separately, >or score the first three sections "across the field" and the fourth >section by itself. If you do the latter, you have to use some formula >to "factor up" from, say, 14 tables to, say, 42. Neuberg is the >approved formula in the ACBL (and most other jurisdictions). I am unhappy at the suggestion made frequently to change the CoC. if you have to, fine - but why should we change the CoC when we do not have to? So I would score ATF with Neuberg. Now I know that this is somewhat skewed. But nothing is going to be unskewed once the wrong boards have been used in an ATF event. But the next session is going to be ATF. >> Deal a new set of hands for session #2. Tell the players we're really >> sorry about this. > >I think these two actions were unanimous. Yes, and this should be ATF. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 11:40:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M0vXj14548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:57:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7M0unK14522 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:56:51 +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 17hgGg-000HhG-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:56:16 +0100 Message-ID: <8q7RKQJ3CDZ9EwwE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:30:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk writes > >Roger Pewick wrote: > >>Yesterday a friend told me an interesting story. She had >>just played a tournament, not that it matters but it was >>an ACBL sectional. The event was a two session play >>through by four sections. After the first session it was >>discovered that three sections played hands different from >>the fourth section. Apparently the fourth section was >>given hands to duplicate that were slated for the second >>session. >> >>Anyone have experience in such things? Nah, I'm not going >>to tell just yet what did happen. Anyway, how would you >>deal with this mess? >> >>I would think that your reasons might be interesting. > >To prevent a recurrence of this and similar fouled-board >situations, I suggest a culture change in the ACBL. Instead >of players duplicating boards for the rest of their section >from hand records, the ACBL could invest in dealing machines. > >In the actual case, there should be an emergency clause in >the CoC allowing the TD to vary the format. If I was TD, I >would now abandon across-the-field scoring for the first >session, and score each of the four sections separately in >the first session. For the second session I would provide >a third set of hand records, and resume across-the-field >scoring. > >If the CoC lacked an emergency clause, then technically all >players in the fourth section should be given Ave+ for >every board in the first session, as technically every board >was fouled. Oooh, no, no, no!!!! Yes, they are fouled: no, that does not mean Ave+! You just score them separately using Neuberg. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 11:51:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M0uii14511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:56:44 +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-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 g7M0uCK14486 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:56:13 +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 17hgGA-000HhC-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:55:42 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:32:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error (thank God) 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 Petrus Schuster OSB writes >We had to decide the following in an AC: >East / both vul > > x E S W N > AJxxxxx 1S P 2C 2H > xx x ?P 3D P > xxx 4D P 5C AP. > >x KTxxx >Q K >KQxx AJxx >AQxxxxx KJx > > AQJxxx > T9xx > xxx > --- > >?P.... before passing, S asked the meaning of E's double and >was told "shows hearts". >Before the opening lead, E said that in his opinion it does >not show hearts. >EW have not played together for some years and have not >discussed the sequence before the tournament. >The good thing: The TD was convinced that this double shows >hearts because "everyone plays it that way" and did not >offer S the L21-option of withdrawing the final pass. The AC >could therefore invoke 82C and give NS +650, EW keeping >their score. How can they invoke L82C? There is no TD error here. The TD has made a judgement that there was no MI and was thus correct not to reopen. If the AC disagree with the judgement, fine, they can assign a score, but L82C is inoperative. Added to which if it had applied I do not see why you would assign what you suggest anyway! >But: What should we have decided without that back-door? >There was an opinion in the AC that S's 2nd-round pass was a >double-shot. What do you think? Maybe it was. I think you should forget TD error and just treat this as a bog-standard MI decision. Was there MI? I could not say, I think you needed to be there, but quite probably since we usually rule there is when players cannot sort it out afterwards. If so, what would we assign to? Without L12C3 I suppose NS+650 is not too bad, though a weighted score including some other things looks fair. How about South's pass of 2H*? Yes, he knows it does not show hearts really, and he clearly has a raise. OK, let E/W get NS+650 or a weighted score, let N/S keep their table score. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 11:54:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M0uoe14517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:56:50 +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-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 g7M0u9K14478 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:56:10 +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 17hgGA-000HhG-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:55:39 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:10:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play References: <00ea01c241ee$0c3c1040$6400a8c0@WINXP> <00cc01c24244$e7b67920$d30858db@laptop> In-Reply-To: <00cc01c24244$e7b67920$d30858db@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows writes >Director's making stupid instructions is no option. > >Saying you may not psyche is equivalent to 20minutes into the world cup >telling David Beckham that he may not shoot for goal; or that Tiger Woods >may not use his putter. I don't think those players would continue to play >under those rulings and neither would i have any respect for a ruling that >disallowed me using a legitimate tatic. I never see the point on this mailing list of arguing things by quoting completely incomparable things from other sports. You want a comparison that makes sense? OK, suppose the referee tells Beckham he may not play because the regs say something or other, and he just tells the referee he is a tosspot and carries on. Machester United get fined 200,000 GBP and deducted 6 points for fielding an ineligible player. How do you think Sir Alex would take this when he returned from his scouting? Do you really think that Sir Alex will accept when Beckham says "*I* decided it was a stupid instruction from the referee."? You want an equivalent one from golf? OK, I am not up on the rules, but I _think_ this one works. Tiger Woods gets annoyed, and bangs his putter on a tree, breaking it. Someone gives him a new one. The referee/umpire/whatever says that he is only allowed a maximum of so many clubs [that's correct, is it not?] and this would be one over, so he is not allowed to use it. Tiger assumes the r/u/w is a tosspot, ignores the instruction, and wins his fourth major of the year, which is naturally stripped from him by the golf authorities. First, the fact that players think a rule stupid does not make it so. Second, except in extreme situations, disobeying a TD's instructions is not acceptable conduct, because it demeans and eventually ruins the game. Third, the fact that a few members of BLML think something should not be done is sufficient to go argue with a sponsoring organisation, or its representatives, and try to get things changed, or appeal such things. But it is a totally inadequate excuse for civil disobedience. I think that if a TD gives a stupid instruction it is nice to tell him so, politely and quietly. But if he sticks with it, why get hot under the collar? Just obey it, and then go and tell your wife/husband/gay partner/kitten**/RGB/BLML/drinking cronies. They will be charmed to listen to you as you tell them - repeatedly and interminably. ** Minke has a new collar: let's see how long before he gets rid of it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 11:56:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M0vPJ14546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:57:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7M0ujK14514 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:56:46 +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 17hgGg-000HhF-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:56:14 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:22:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity vs L12C2, and another timing problem References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020808160711.00a78910@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020808160711.00a78910@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 >We all know what "the most favorable likely result" means, or at least we >all have our ideas about this, as numerous posts have proven in the recent >past. We also know you can't let partner's timing influence you, but what >are the limits of the argument 'he helped you' ? > >Here are two cases that I encountered as an AC member. I'm aware that the >decision we took in the first one didn't conform with the letter of the Law >; however, equity perhaps has to be considered. > >NS vul, W dealer, competent players all around. > >W N E S > >1NT* 2S** X XX@ >p 3C p p >p > >* 12-15 >** 2-suited (5S and 4+m) and not alerted as such. It should have been. >@ SOS > >East calls the TD because she wouldn't (or at least could have avoided to) >double, had she known North had a backup suit. >South, when asked by the TD what he would have done, had East passed, >answers 'I don't know ; perhaps I would have taken it out (3C, P/C), >perhaps not'. > >Here are the possibilities, assuming the correct information had been given >early enough : > >1) East doubles ; then, as we have seen, NS wil play 3C, which results in +110. >2) East passes ; then > 1.1) South takes out ; the final contract is 3C, same score. > 1.2) South lets 2S in ; then 2S might go down (-100), but it is quite >probable that 2S will > make (+110 once again). > >Each of the unfavorable (to NS) occurrences (East's pass, South's pass, bad >play) is quite likely, but it needs all three to get them a minus score. It >is thus quite difficult to assess whether -100 is a "likely result" (say, >30% of 40% of 40% is 4.8 %, not enough). >Thus, there are three questions : >1) must the "likeky continuations" be taken one by one (giving a net result >of -100) or globally (giving a net result of +110, a result which would >have happened more than 90% of the time) ? Globally, I suppose, but you must not get too %age oriented. After all, if you have 20 equally likely possibilities and consider a likely possibility as more than 8% then none of your possibilities is likely, which is gibberish. If the player had not been misinformed do we really believe that there is a sensible chance of -100? If so, give it, if not don't. >2) What should one do when one doesn't know if a result is likely ? As with any other judgement decision, you have to decide one way or another. Only King Solomon is allowed to do otherwise. >3) since no response to question 1) could be found anywhere, and since the >results at other tables aren't conclusive (EW are one of the few pairs in >the field to play weak NT), the AC decided to award a weighted score of 0. >Yes, we know that we should be hung for this, but, you see, admitting we >didn't know what to do and having to live with it would be a more dreadful >punishment still. Does anyone sympathize ? Not at all. First of all, since you were talking about L12C2 I assumed that L12C3 was not enabled. If it was, why not give 12% of -100, 88% of +110, and get on with it? L12C3 rulings are faster and easier than L12C2 rulings. Second, we know the recommended approach for L12C3, and giving 0 is not the way! Third, why are you looking at other tables' results? Surely you don't in making such 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 Thu Aug 22 12:01:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M20vZ14639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:00:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7M20hK14635 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:00:48 +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 MAA07016 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:16:06 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:54:58 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:59:55 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 22/08/2002 11:54:32 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk CASE FORTY Subject (MI): The Music Goes Round And Round Event: Reisinger, 26 Nov 01, First Semi-Final Session Bd: 13 Peter Weichsel Dlr: North K1075 Vul: Both 4 \ QJ1084 \ 874 Jurek Czyzowicz \ Darren Wolpert AQ64 \ 932 A2 \ 8753 7532 \ A6 KQ5 \ J632 Alan Sontag\ J8 \ KQJ1096 \ K9 A109 West North East South Pass Pass 1H Dbl 2C(1) Pass 3H Pass Pass Pass (1) Explained: by N to E as a transfer to diamonds; by S to W as a good heart raise The Facts: 3H made three, +140 for N/S. The opening lead was the diamond 3. The Director was called after the *following* round was completed and told that the 2C bid had been described differently on each side of the screen. West did not mention his concern with the dummy until well after the round had ended. The Director determined that North's explanation was correct (2C showed diamonds); it was South who had given West MI. * * * The AC uncovered more facts about the EW defence to 3H which made their decision clearcut. However, given the limited facts above, how would you have ruled if you had been the TD? Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 13:20:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M3Jne14678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:19:49 +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 g7M3JjK14674 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:19:45 +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 NAA24576 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:35:11 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:14:05 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:19:05 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 22/08/2002 01:13:39 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard wrote: [snip] >>If the CoC lacked an emergency clause, then technically all >>players in the fourth section should be given Ave+ for >>every board in the first session, as technically every board >>was fouled. David S replied: > Oooh, no, no, no!!!! Yes, they are fouled: no, that does not >mean Ave+! > > You just score them separately using Neuberg. *If* the CoC *required* across-the-field scoring, *then* Neuberg is illegal under the CoC. However, David S is correctly contradicting me, since such a rigid CoC would itself be illegal, as the CoC would contravene L87B. 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 Aug 22 13:49:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M3nQs14696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:49:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7M3nLK14692 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:49:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7M3mpp16052 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 20:48:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00b901c2498e$b38337a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 20:43:16 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Jeremy Rickard" > Not true. Factoring without Ascherman/Neuberg gives an unbiased > estimator. Ascherman biases towards 50%. > It happens that a biased estimator may work better than an unbiased one. This is known as Stein's Paradox. My example is the estimate of a player's batting average at the end of the year, given his average at mid-season. I believe Stein *proved* that the best estimate is not the current average, but, rather, an average that is lower for those with a high current average, and higher for those with a low one. Any baseball fan knows this to be true. The .400 hitter at midseason is likely to be below that by the end of the season, and not just because of tiring. Proving that is the .200 hitter, whose average will probably rise by season's end. The phenonemon is well-known to statisticians, who have a name for it: the "shrinking factor." Perhaps some statistician familiar with Stein's Paradox will give us a lesson on how to get the shrinking factor for our situation. For a discussion of Stein's Paradox go to: www.cmh.edu/stats/ask/stein.htm Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 13:50:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M3oeO14708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:50:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7M3oZK14704 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:50:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA01305 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:06:02 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:44:55 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:49:53 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 22/08/2002 01:44:29 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: [big snip] > Second, except in extreme situations, disobeying >a TD's instructions is not acceptable conduct, >because it demeans and eventually ruins the game. [snip] I agree. In the real-life case under discussion, when a TD illegally ordered me not to psyche, I obeyed without hesitation. Other, more cantankerous players, may have taken a different view of the definition of "extreme situations". Those more cantankerous players may have taken the view that an illegal instruction from a TD is also "not acceptable conduct". For me, however, when principles of bridge ethics clash, there is one over-riding tiebreaker I use to resolve any paradox. That is, the other players' "enjoyment of the game" mandated by L74. 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 Aug 22 13:58:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M3wLl14721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:58:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7M3wGK14717 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:58:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7M3vkp19609 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 20:57:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00bf01c2498f$f248bf40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 20:56:45 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: > > Marv wrote: > > [snip] > > >For instance, there are three boxes for opening > >preempts, labeled Sound, Light, and Very Light. To > >suppose that you don't have to check one of those > >boxes in order to fill out a CC, because it is > >undiscussed, is a strange interpretation. > > [snip] > > Suppose that you are playing a system, which was > popular in the 1930s, where an opening bid of > three-of-a-suit is natural and game-forcing? That was part of the Official System, concocted by a group of Culbertson's rivals. > > How can you check one of the three boxes on the > ACBL system card then? If you have no opening preempts, then of course you check no box. If you think the CC includes this sort of bid as a "preempt" (which it is), then I suppose you check ?Sound". :-)) Followed, of course, on the next line (which is red) by an Alertable disclosure statement Did I really have to say, "If you have any preemptive openings, you must check one of the boxes?" > > The ABF system card resolves this paradox, since > following any set of checkboxes on the ABF system > card, there is also the word "other", followed by a > blank space for specification. > I don't see it as a paradox. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 14:42:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M4flE14748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:41:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7M4fgK14744 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:41:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7M4esp04649 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 21:40:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <011601c24995$f87272c0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020808160711.00a78910@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity vs L12C2, and another timing problem Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 21:28:38 -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 > Alain Gottcheiner writes > > >We all know what "the most favorable likely result" means, or at least we > >all have our ideas about this, as numerous posts have proven in the recent > >past. Alain, if you are going to quote something from the English version of the Laws, please quote it accurately. With this wording, you are changing the meaning. A result doesn't have to be likely to be the most favorable result that was likely. A probability of about 1/3 is sufficient, according to the ACBL LC (Edgar Kaplan presiding). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 15:52:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M5onJ14779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:50:49 +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 g7M5oiK14775 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:50:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA00160 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:06:11 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:45:03 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:49:50 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 22/08/2002 03:44:38 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >The De Wael school does not apply to novices. The ACBL would not >be following the DwS if they insist that novices always have >agreements. > >But to all other pairs, the ACBL is quite correct in saying that >if someone bids 2Cl with majors, the assumption that they have an >agreement that 2Cl show majors is to be taken as the basis of a >ruling. > >After all, that's what the Laws say! > >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium I cannot find the term "novice" defined in Chapter 1 of the Laws. I cannot find the Law which states that only non-novices are deemed to always have 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 Thu Aug 22 16:46:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M6kLD14817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 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 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 g7M6kGK14813 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:46:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7M6jig15259 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 07:45:44 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 07:45 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary 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: <005c01c2494b$708f2780$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > How are the ACBL regulations worded, and do they give > > enough information to indicate which definition is intended? > > > It means that when the CC asks about something, you answer the > question. which rather begs the question what is the question? If the question is "Do you play suit bids over a weak two as non-forcing by agreement" and I have neither discussed it, nor wish to discuss it, then what is the answer? > For instance, there are three boxes for opening preempts, labeled Sound, > Light, and Very Light. To suppose that you don't have to check one of > those boxes in order to fill out a CC, because it is undiscussed, is a > strange interpretation. It sounds a perfectly sensible interpretation to me. The alternative is to assume that I am obliged to discuss such things with my partner. While some people might regard it as wise for me to do so I do not believe I should be forced to. If I do choose to discuss it then I will have to tick all 3 boxes depending on vul and position (while partner may tick different ones). Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 17:38:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M7apq14846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:36:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7M7ajK14842 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:36:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (71.167-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.167.71]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7M7aBo02551 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:36:11 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D649473.9030801@skynet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:36:19 +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] one board too many References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jeremy, We've had this discussion before. Don't go writing things that you know are controversial. You're guilty of the crime of overemphasising the fact that you have scored that top. If 10% of the world would score a top, then on average the people scoring that score in a 10-table field will get 9.5, provided you also count the times when there are none of them and they score a perfect 10. I know that sounds strange, but it is the way to prove that the expected result in a small field is equal to the expectancy in the real world. And yes, you are right, IF you score that score, your expectancy is lower. But that is not important. Jeremy Rickard wrote: > Gordon Bower writes: > > > >>On 21 Aug 2002, either Jeremy Rickard or Marvin >>L. French" writes: (I am missing a second level of >> ">>" marks): >> > > It was me. > > >>>Using Neuberg to adjust for smaller/larger games is somewhat >>>analogous, in that the only genuine justification is to compensate for >>>the larger variance of scores in the smaller game. Again, in that >>>case, Neuberg adjusts for the "Unfairness of Variance" at the expense >>>of introducing an "Unfairness of Mean". It may be (I just don't know) >>>that the adjustment in that case is small enough that it increases the >>>overall "fairness". >>> >>This argument, however, is incorrect. Neuberg exists to *correct* an >>unfairness of mean. Ascherman is an unbiased estimator of what MP result >>you deserve. >> > > Not true. Factoring without Ascherman/Neuberg gives an unbiased > estimator. Ascherman biases towards 50%. > > >>Take the simple example of getting a top on a board. To award 100% is to >>claim that it is impossible, anywhere else in the world, that someone else >>could achieve the score you did. >> > > No. Suppose one in ten people in the world would get the result that I > got, so it deserves a 95% score. Playing in a 10-table movement, > Ascherman gives me that 95% *if nobody else in the movement gets that > result*, but sometimes gives me a lower score (when somebody else in > the movement does get the result). So on average, Ascherman gives me > less than the 95% that I deserve. > > On the other hand, without factoring I'll get 50% from each table > where they do get the result (1/10 of them on average) and 100% from > each table that doesn't (9/10 of them on average), so on average I get > the 95% = (1/10 * 50%) + (9/10 * 100%) that I deserve. > > Jeremy. > > -- 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 Aug 22 17:40:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M7dAV14859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:39:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from vador.skynet.be (vador.skynet.be [195.238.3.236]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7M7d4K14854 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:39:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (71.167-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.167.71]) by vador.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7M7cNB16157 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:38:23 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D6494F7.9080500@skynet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:38:31 +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] one board too many 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, I should have waited with my reply. Yours is far better. Gordon Bower wrote: > > On 21 Aug 2002, Jeremy Rickard wrote: > >>No. Suppose one in ten people in the world would get the result that I >>got, so it deserves a 95% score. Playing in a 10-table movement, >>Ascherman gives me that 95% *if nobody else in the movement gets that >>result*, but sometimes gives me a lower score (when somebody else in >>the movement does get the result). So on average, Ascherman gives me >>less than the 95% that I deserve. >> > > If you are the only pair in a 10-table game to achieve that result, 10% of > the pairs in the room achieved that result and 95% is exactly what you > deserve. > > As you compare your club's results with those of other clubs in the world, > you will find some clubs where this result appears twice or more, dragging > you down below 95%, and other clubs where no-one at all achieved this > result, pushing you back up above 95%. > > >>On the other hand, without factoring I'll get 50% from each table >>where they do get the result (1/10 of them on average) and 100% from >>each table that doesn't (9/10 of them on average), so on average I get >>the 95% = (1/10 * 50%) + (9/10 * 100%) that I deserve. >> > > I see your point. > > Which one of us is right depends on what you think is supposed to happen > in the clubs where no-one at all achieves this top score only 10% of > tables worldwide will reach. > > Your approach is "I already have my score written down on the > scoresheet; let's see how it will matchpoint out as the rest of the scores > come in." As all the other scores from around the world get tallied, your > ties or wins will come in. > > The local result for the top score is E [ percentage | how nine other > tables played this board] if your score occurs, and, if not, > undefined: if the top score occurs at your club, it gets given 100, > 94.4%, 88.9%, etc.; if not, the idea that someone, somewhere, might have > gotten such a score is inconceivable. > > Ascherman doesn't treat you as any different than anyone else in the > world. In clubs where the result is achieved once, twice, etc, it's valued > at 95%, 90%, 85%, etc; in clubs where everyone achieves a lower result, > it's theoretically worth 100%. That is, the local estimate for what > percentage to give is E [ percentage | what 10 tables did ], defined for > all possible scores including the ones that didn't happen in your > particular club but might have somewhere else. > > Traditional matchpointing is the unbiased answer to the question "Now that > I have obtained score X at my table, how much do I deserve for > it?" Ascherman is the unbaised answer to the question "Suppose someone > comes along and picks up these cards sometime; how much do they deserve if > they achieve score X?" > > There seems to be a difference of opinion about which question we should > be asking. :) > exactly. Which is why the discussion with Jeremy is worthless. We are answering different questions. > 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/ > > > -- 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 Aug 22 18:10:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M89bR14881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:09:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7M89WK14877 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:09:33 +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 g7M88xC03848 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 04:09:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 04:08:01 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <005c01c2494b$708f2780$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 8/21/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >For instance, there are three boxes for opening preempts, labeled >Sound, Light, and Very Light. To suppose that you don't have to check >one of those boxes in order to fill out a CC, because it is >undiscussed, is a strange interpretation. Maybe so. What do those three terms mean? I'll overcall at the one level on 8 points, and at the two level on 10. Are my overcalls "light" or "very light"? *I* don't think so, but as I've never seen a definitive answer to the question, I dunno. I play with probably a dozen different people, two or three of them fairly regularly. No two of the set of cards I have are alike, and none of them are "complete", because we have not discussed everything in every place on the card (most of my partners aren't interested in discussing system, they just want to play bridge). I suppose I'm now going to have to tell them that either we complete all these cards, or I can't play with them any more. That ought to go over well. 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 Aug 22 18:16:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M8GZl14903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:16:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7M8GRK14895 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:16:27 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7M8Fsb00505 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:15:55 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:15 +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: <6wewcJAlS7Y9Ew4m@blakjak.demon.co.uk> DWS wrote: > Nigel Guthrie writes > >Robert E Harris: > > I find in Goren's New Contract Bridge Complete the following hand, > > given > >as > > a third seat opening bid: > > S: Qxx; H: AKJxx; D: xx; C: xxx. > > > >Nigel Guthrie: > > Another example might be S:xxx H:AKQJ D:xxx C:xxx > > Can David Stevenson and other lions in the EBU legal jungle tell us > > whether it is breaking the law to open sub rule of 19 hands, > > regularly, as a matter of course, in "Level 3" events, with a > > long-standing partner, in third position, without barring subsequent > > conventional bids? > > If you have an agreement, explicit or implicit, to open sub Ro19 hands > then you are not playing a legal method. The position does not affect > it. And how is it determined that these openings are being made "by agreement" or as a result of "common sense and judgement". If the examples given by Robert and Nigel are deemed "common sense" openings then surely the OB regulation can be better phrased. > Incidentally, with a general review just coming [new OB due in 2003] > why does someone not apply to play 3rd in hand light by agreement? > There has never been such an application in my time. An application to play a natural bid that has been part of normal Acol for generations - wow! Even worse what is actually needed given the way the system operates is multiple applications (one each for Blackwood, fsf, splinters, shortage cues, GSF). Instead I would ask that the EBU drop the Ro19/18 regulation, or at least restrict it to conventions that are fundamentally supportive of the light opening approach (such as Drury). 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 Aug 22 18:16:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M8GZJ14904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:16:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7M8GRK14896 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:16:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7M8Fuw00518 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:15:56 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:15 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary 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 > Does L40D give the ACBL the power to *require* a > partnership to adopt the convention of "standard > carding"? > > Does L40D give the ACBL the power to *prohibit* a > partnership from false-carding? Powers granted under L40D are currently unrestricted. The answer to both questions is yes. If your SO wants to make the wearing of a pirate hat and eyepatch a prerequisite for using Stayman it can do that too. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 18:37:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M8b5x14929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:37:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com (syr-24-92-226-169.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7M8awK14921 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:36:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g7M8aRW05239 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 04:36:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 04:17:05 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <200208212328.QAA01577@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 8/21/02, Adam Beneschan wrote: >On the ACBL card, there's also a line below the three boxes labeled >"Conv./Resp.", for information about conventional openings (such as >transfer preempts) or conventional responses. Technically, the 3 bid >you describe isn't a convention, but you could write it on that line >anyway. There's no rule (or there had better not be a rule) saying >you can't write something there that doesn't match the label; the CC >is there to inform the opponents, and if it does that job, fine. I note that the regulation requires that the card be legibly filled out. A while back, I tried to fit in the meaning of and response structure to the Dynamic NT on a card, using the ACBL's editor. Even after erasing all the pre-printed stuff in the 1NT box, I didn't have room to fit it all in unless I made the type so small it was unreadable. Dynamic NT is legal under the GCC. Don't even *try* to tell me that doesn't matter, that if I can't fit all the responses in I can't use it. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 18:37:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M8b4I14928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:37:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com (syr-24-92-226-122.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7M8avK14920 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:36:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g7M8aPW05216 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 04:36:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 04:22:34 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary 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 8/22/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >I cannot find the term "novice" defined in Chapter 1 of the Laws. > >I cannot find the Law which states that only non-novices are deemed >to always have agreements. I'd like to know at what point one becomes whatever the next step up from novice is. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp 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 Aug 22 18:38:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M8cB314947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:38:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7M8c6K14943 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:38:06 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7M8bZQ13688 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:37:35 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:37 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play 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: > You want a comparison that makes sense? OK, suppose the referee tells > Beckham he may not play because the regs say something or other, OK, got that. > and he just tells the referee he is a tosspot This is a severe disciplinary offence (he is permitted to think it, but not to say it). Let us suppose instead that he politely informs the referee that, contrary to the referee's opinion, having a bad haircut is not against the regulations. > and carries on. He refuses to leave the field (despite the obviously appalling mullet) the ref declares the match abandoned. > Manchester Utd get fined 200,000 GBP and deducted 6 points for fielding > an ineligible player. I rather doubt it. Man U receive a full apology from the FA, compensation for the lost gate receipts, and the referee is fired. There is no way the FA is going to fine a club for fielding an ineligible player if that player is, in fact, eligible. 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 Aug 22 18:47:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M8lOL14964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:47:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7M8lIK14960 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:47:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id KAA08590; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:44:31 +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 KAA10799; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:46:45 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020822104056.00a915b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:56:23 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: <3D63970A.7080806@skynet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020819131951.00a83af0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020821114702.00a2e190@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g7M8lKK14961 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:35 21/08/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>and Belgians). Especially as 'ordinateur' was coined first. > > >I doubt if that is true. >The computer section of the Paris museum of science and technology has a >section on this precise issue - and a copie of the letter of the Academie >Française that ordains that ordinateur be the word to use. >I don't remember if the letter contains the word "computer" but it >certainly was from the early sixties, when computers were already well >known accross the world. AG : sorry, Herman, you're wrong on this one. The word "ordinateur" was coined around 1954, when the English version was still "analytical calculator". When the word "computer" was coined, in the late 50s, it spread rapidly, including into France, which was very much tagging on US vocabulary at this time. This prompted the Académie Française to react to avoid "ordinateur" being replaced and lost. This is the objet of the letter you mention, from 1962 IIRC. To be fair, it must be said that computing specialists use many americanisms when (if) they speak French. Several authorities, including the University of Brussels, to which YT belongs, endeavour reversing the tendency. Why, indeed, say "je vais te forwarder ce mail" when you can say "je vais te transmettre (ou : faire passer) ce courriel" ? Quebecers are very hot on this attitude, and they coined many translations of computer-science or -use terms. The above "courriel" is one of these (short form for courrier électronique), as is "ludiciel" (game software). I wonder whether the new and bizarre "clavardage" (for "chat") will be integrated as easily. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 18:56:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M8uBK14981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:56:11 +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 (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7M8u6K14977 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:56:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id KAA10418; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:53:19 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id KAA18843; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:55:34 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020822105932.00a95e40@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:05:13 +0200 To: "Todd Zimnoch" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: Computers (Was: [BLML] Legal but unethical) In-Reply-To: References: <200208212159.RAA03037@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 19:05 21/08/2002 -0400, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > Someone should check the OED, but I am sure 'computer' > > in English goes back before 1900 and possibly earlier > > than 1850. > > 1646, though its current, modern usage doesn't go back that far. AG : thise things were long called analytical machines, a word referring to Babbage's work, or analytical calculators. The use of "computer" (which meant something else in the XVII century, as well as "digital" meant "related to fingers" before 1950), began to spread in the late 50s. Before this date, a "digital computer" was somebody able to count on one's fingers :-) > I see no reason to believe that the English word for the concept >should be borrowed by any other languages, especially since >they're as likely to already have words for the concept. In >addition to French, some non-cognates are ordenadora (Spanish), >tietokone (Finnish), and dya'n nau (Chinese). > > > Do we have an age estimate for 'ordinateur'? Also, is > > there an obvious etymology? > > I don't know about obvious, but I'd assume it comes from ordonner >or ordonnateur. AG : it does. The French saw it first as a device to order (same etymology) data, rather than as an arithmetical device. The time is about 1954. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 19:00:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M90Br14997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:00:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7M905K14993 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:00:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id KAA23003; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:57:03 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id KAA22074; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:59:17 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020822110651.00a943a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:08:55 +0200 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error (thank God) 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 17:32 21/08/2002 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > How about South's pass of 2H*? Yes, he knows it does not show hearts >really, and he clearly has a raise. AG : IBTD. If partner tried an overcall on AQxxxx and some tricks (or none) on the side, and if RHO holds KJx (which is what he says), why should I bid 3H and go down one, when I sould be scoring 2HX= ? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 19:06:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M95uk15009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:05:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7M95oK15005 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:05:50 +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 LAA12538; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:03:03 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id LAA27920; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:05:18 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020822110923.00a85e60@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:14:57 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: <004201c24936$657f5320$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020819131951.00a83af0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020821114702.00a2e190@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3D63970A.7080806@skynet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g7M95qK15006 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:52 21/08/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >From: "Herman De Wael" > > >The computer section of the Paris museum of science and technology has >a section on this precise issue - and a copie of the letter of the >Academie Française that ordains that ordinateur be the word to use. >I don't remember if the letter contains the word "computer" but it >certainly was from the early sixties, when computers were already well >known accross the world. > > >From a Franglais site: > >What authorities in France are fighting against: is the infiltration of >English/American words into the French language. "Je vais aller au >shopping ce weekend" and such. I read somewhere that companies have been >required to market their products in France with French-language names: >"Le Balladeur" rather than "Le Walkman." AG : 'baladeur' for 'walkman' (with single L) is now widespread. Just another Canadian coinage. With regard to "weekend", IBTD. The weekend is a typically English notion, which no translation would render properly. Words that describe English (American, Aussie, ...) realities or English-born things need to be expressed in English. Do you really want to translate "cricket" (or "bridge", for that matter ) ? However, words that describe plain non-specific realities should be words from the language you speak. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 19:07:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M97qg15021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:07:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7M97kK15017 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:07:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id LAA24476; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:04:54 +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 LAA29706; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:07:09 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020822111512.00a82160@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:16:48 +0200 To: "LarryBennett" , "Bridge Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: <000001c24954$f3bb15c0$679e883e@pc> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020819131951.00a83af0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020821114702.00a2e190@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3D63970A.7080806@skynet.be> <004201c24936$657f5320$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 19:44 21/08/2002 +0100, LarryBennett wrote: >Try that one on French golfers ;-) AG : it is quite normal that, as a British-born pastime, golf be tainted of English words. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 19:16:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M9GbT15038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:16:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (Comix-files.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7M9GVK15034 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:16:32 +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 LAA26167; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:13:45 +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 LAA08799; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:16:00 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020822112433.00a853c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:25:38 +0200 To: jurgenr@t-online.de ( =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen?= Rennenkampff), "Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: References: <200208212159.RAA03037@cfa183.harvard.edu> 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 g7M9GXK15035 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:11 22/08/2002 +0200, Jürgen Rennenkampff wrote: >Ordinateur : En 1954, IBM voulait trouver un nom français pour ses machines, >et éviter le mot " calculateur " (traduction littérale de " computer ") qui >lui semblait mauvais pour son image de marque. Le linguiste Jacques Perret a >proposé, dans sa lettre du 16 avril 1955, d’utiliser le terme " ordinateur >", mot dont l’usage ancien signifiait " celui qui met en ordre " ; en >liturgie il désigne celui qui confère un ordre sacré. AG : sorry, this last use is wrong (according to the Grand Larrousse). This person is called an 'ordinant'. The one who receives it is an 'ordinand'. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 19:43:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M9h6k15056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:43:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7M9h0K15052 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:43:01 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7M9gTu28921 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:42:29 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:42 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: Ed Reppert wrote: > I'd like to know at what point one becomes whatever the next step up > from novice is. According to the psyching regulations of at least one ACBL affiliated club the next step up from novice (inexperienced player) is Life Master. hope this helps. 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 Aug 22 19:47:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M9lQS15073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:47:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7M9lIK15065 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:47:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.92.67.23] (helo=mail18.svr.pol.co.uk) by cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17hoYA-0002T7-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:46:46 +0100 Received: from modem-119.coral-beauty.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.252.119] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17hoY6-0001Lp-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:46:43 +0100 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA27707; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:48:09 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many References: <3D642A8D.7070502@vwalther.de> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 22 Aug 2002 08:54:29 +0100 In-Reply-To: "Volker R. Walther"'s message of "Thu, 22 Aug 2002 02:04:29 +0200" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 63 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Volker R. Walther" writes: > Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > > > No. Suppose one in ten people in the world would get the result that I > > got, so it deserves a 95% score. Playing in a 10-table movement, > > Ascherman gives me that 95% *if nobody else in the movement gets that > > result*, but sometimes gives me a lower score (when somebody else in > > the movement does get the result). So on average, Ascherman gives me > > less than the 95% that I deserve. > > > > On the other hand, without factoring I'll get 50% from each table > > where they do get the result (1/10 of them on average) and 100% from > > each table that doesn't (9/10 of them on average), so on average I get > > the 95% = (1/10 * 50%) + (9/10 * 100%) that I deserve. > > > > Jeremy. > > > > Wrong. > The problem is already in the assumption. How will you know, that one > of 10 people in the world will get the same result, if not everybody > has played the board? Ascherman/Neuberg are trying to solve this > problem by the assumption that the probability of any score > world-wide is the same as it is on the actual board sheet. The assumption I made ("Suppose one in ten people in the world would get the result that I got") was just that assumption that Ascherman/Neuberg make. And I showed that, *if that assumption is true*, then Ascherman/Neuberg will on average give me a lower score than I deserve. > Lets have a look from another side: > You talked about playing a ten table movemement. You had a result that > happened one out of ten times. Then you complained that Ascherman will > not give you 95% when someone else gets the same result. But is this > really possible? If someone else (at the ten tables) sometimes gets > your result and you keep your result then the probability of getting > your result has to be greater than 1/10. So you do not deserve 95%. If the probability is 1/10, then you're saying that it's not *possible* that somebody else (at the ten tables) will get that result if I do? No, it will happen about 39% of the time. > > If the probability of getting your result really is 10% then nobody > will ever get the same result because you have occupied those ten > percents. If you want to give free spaces for other pairs that should > get the same result, you will have to get a different result... If the probability of something happening is 10%, then in 10 trials it may sometimes never happen, sometimes once, sometimes more. If it happens in one of the 10 trials, that doesn't stop it from happening in the other nine by "occupying the 10%". Regards, Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 19:47:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7M9lZH15076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:47:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg5.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg5.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.175]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7M9lJK15066 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:47:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.92.67.23] (helo=mail18.svr.pol.co.uk) by cmailg5.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17hoYB-0003h8-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:46:47 +0100 Received: from modem-119.coral-beauty.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.252.119] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17hoY6-0001Lo-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:46:42 +0100 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA27708; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:48:09 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many References: From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 22 Aug 2002 10:46:38 +0100 In-Reply-To: Gordon Bower's message of "Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:24:01 -0800 (AKDT)" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 106 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower writes: > On 21 Aug 2002, Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > > > No. Suppose one in ten people in the world would get the result that I > > got, so it deserves a 95% score. Playing in a 10-table movement, > > Ascherman gives me that 95% *if nobody else in the movement gets that > > result*, but sometimes gives me a lower score (when somebody else in > > the movement does get the result). So on average, Ascherman gives me > > less than the 95% that I deserve. > > If you are the only pair in a 10-table game to achieve that result, 10% of > the pairs in the room achieved that result and 95% is exactly what you > deserve. > > As you compare your club's results with those of other clubs in the world, > you will find some clubs where this result appears twice or more, dragging > you down below 95%, and other clubs where no-one at all achieved this > result, pushing you back up above 95%. > > > On the other hand, without factoring I'll get 50% from each table > > where they do get the result (1/10 of them on average) and 100% from > > each table that doesn't (9/10 of them on average), so on average I get > > the 95% = (1/10 * 50%) + (9/10 * 100%) that I deserve. > > I see your point. > > Which one of us is right depends on what you think is supposed to happen > in the clubs where no-one at all achieves this top score only 10% of > tables worldwide will reach. > > Your approach is "I already have my score written down on the > scoresheet; let's see how it will matchpoint out as the rest of the scores > come in." As all the other scores from around the world get tallied, your > ties or wins will come in. > > The local result for the top score is E [ percentage | how nine other > tables played this board] if your score occurs, and, if not, > undefined: if the top score occurs at your club, it gets given 100, > 94.4%, 88.9%, etc.; if not, the idea that someone, somewhere, might have > gotten such a score is inconceivable. I agree with the mathematics, but I think that "the idea ... is inconceivable" is a slightly unfair way of putting it. Of course it's conceivable; it's just that it's not relevant for my method of calculating the matchpoint scores. > > Ascherman doesn't treat you as any different than anyone else in the > world. In clubs where the result is achieved once, twice, etc, it's valued > at 95%, 90%, 85%, etc; in clubs where everyone achieves a lower result, > it's theoretically worth 100%. That is, the local estimate for what > percentage to give is E [ percentage | what 10 tables did ], defined for > all possible scores including the ones that didn't happen in your > particular club but might have somewhere else. > > Traditional matchpointing is the unbiased answer to the question "Now that > I have obtained score X at my table, how much do I deserve for > it?" Yes. > Ascherman is the unbaised answer to the question "Suppose someone > comes along and picks up these cards sometime; how much do they deserve if > they achieve score X?" I'm not sure whether I understand what you're saying here. Let me put it a different way. For traditional matchpointing, if you ask each player who scores X what MP score they got, then on average the answer will be the same as the MP score that score X deserves. For Ascherman, if you ask each TD what MP score was assigned to score X in his section [and if he says that nobody got score X, you ask him to assign a MP score in the "obvious" way that Ascherman scoring allows], then on average the answer will be the same as the MP score that score X deserves. > > There seems to be a difference of opinion about which question we should > be asking. :) Maybe. But if you think about it, the second question is of no real interest to anybody. Suppose I'm a 60% player. Then traditional matchpointing will give me a score of 60% on average, whatever the size of the field. Ascherman will give me an average score of less than 60%, and how much less depends on the size of the field. Correct? Or consider "Crazy Ascherman" scoring. It's the same as Ascherman scoring, except you assign a MP score of 1000000000% to any score that doesn't actually occur. The results will be *exactly* the same as with Ascherman scoring, of course, but you really screw up the quantity that is supposed to be the unbiased estimator of what score X deserves. Doesn't this indicate that it's silly to insist that this quantity should be an unbiased estimator? Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 20:36:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MAZaT15111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:35:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from vador.skynet.be (vador.skynet.be [195.238.3.236]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7MAZUK15107 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:35:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (71.167-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.167.71]) by vador.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7MAYsB08690 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:34:54 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D64BE56.50004@skynet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:35:02 +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] one board too many References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jeremy, > > I'm not sure whether I understand what you're saying here. > I think you do, as you show down here: > Let me put it a different way. > > For traditional matchpointing, if you ask each player who scores X > what MP score they got, then on average the answer will be the same as > the MP score that score X deserves. > > For Ascherman, if you ask each TD what MP score was assigned > to score X in his section [and if he says that nobody got score X, you > ask him to assign a MP score in the "obvious" way that Ascherman > scoring allows], then on average the answer will be the same as the MP > score that score X deserves. > you are correct, but you are using a word here "deserves", that is not defined !!! > >>There seems to be a difference of opinion about which question we should >>be asking. :) >> > > Maybe. But if you think about it, the second question is of no > real interest to anybody. > > Suppose I'm a 60% player. Then traditional matchpointing will give me > a score of 60% on average, whatever the size of the field. Ascherman > will give me an average score of less than 60%, and how much less > depends on the size of the field. Correct? > NO, because again you are starting with something undefined. What is a 60% player ? In my opinion, a 60% player is one who would average 60% over all his boards in his career - in an infinite field !!! (or using Ascherman scoring). That player will not score less than 60% in a small field using traditional scoring - he will score more than that !!!!!!! > Or consider "Crazy Ascherman" scoring. It's the same as Ascherman > scoring, except you assign a MP score of 1000000000% to any score that > doesn't actually occur. The results will be *exactly* the same as with > Ascherman scoring, of course, but you really screw up the quantity > that is supposed to be the unbiased estimator of what score X > deserves. Doesn't this indicate that it's silly to insist that this > quantity should be an unbiased estimator? > Ascherman scoring is an unbiased estimator of Ascherman values. But of course if you don't ascribe to Ascherman values the same worth as I do, then it is just an unbiased estimator of something you don't want etimated. And yes, I agree that Ascherman is NOT an unbiased estimator of that quantity that you want estimated - but then that does not concern me, because that quantity is unestimable anyway. > Jeremy. > > -- 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 Aug 22 20:43:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MAhEb15128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:43:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7MAh8K15124 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:43:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (71.167-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.167.71]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7MAgWo05828 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:42:32 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D64C020.1090605@skynet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:42:40 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many References: <3D642A8D.7070502@vwalther.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jeremy, please. Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > The assumption I made ("Suppose one in ten people in the world would > get the result that I got") was just that assumption that > Ascherman/Neuberg make. And I showed that, *if that assumption is > true*, then Ascherman/Neuberg will on average give me a lower score > than I deserve. > no it is not. The true assumption is "one in ten people will score X - and no-one conceivably will score more than X (*)", In that assumption, the expected score for X is 95%, using Ascherman. That expectancy is true if one counts all series of 10 tables, and assigns a (fictitious) score of 100% to all occurences of no score X. I realize that this is difficult to fathom, but if we change it a little, you will see what I mean: (*) something usually forgotten and actually impossible but OK, we understand we are estimating. The assumption changes to : "one in ten people will score X - and two in ten will score more". Now the expected score (Ascherman) for X will be 75%. In that one must include the (fictitious) score halfway between X+something and X-something in those series were no X was actually scored. > >>Lets have a look from another side: >>You talked about playing a ten table movemement. You had a result that >>happened one out of ten times. Then you complained that Ascherman will >>not give you 95% when someone else gets the same result. But is this >>really possible? If someone else (at the ten tables) sometimes gets >>your result and you keep your result then the probability of getting >>your result has to be greater than 1/10. So you do not deserve 95%. >> > > If the probability is 1/10, then you're saying that it's not *possible* > that somebody else (at the ten tables) will get that result if I do? > No, it will happen about 39% of the time. > Indeed. > >>If the probability of getting your result really is 10% then nobody >>will ever get the same result because you have occupied those ten >>percents. If you want to give free spaces for other pairs that should >>get the same result, you will have to get a different result... >> > > If the probability of something happening is 10%, then in 10 trials it > may sometimes never happen, sometimes once, sometimes more. If it > happens in one of the 10 trials, that doesn't stop it from happening > in the other nine by "occupying the 10%". > But you are starting from another assumption. Your assumption is "one in ten will score X _AND_ I have scored X". That is not the same assumption, so our results will of course differ. > Regards, > > Jeremy. > > -- 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 Aug 22 22:20:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MCInc15256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:18:49 +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 g7MCIiK15252 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:18:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #6) id 17hquj-0003hQ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:18:13 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020822081406.00aa6b10@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:21:33 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error (thank God) 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 12:32 PM 8/21/02, David wrote: >Petrus Schuster OSB writes > > > x E S W N > > AJxxxxx 1S P 2C 2H > > xx x ?P 3D P > > xxx 4D P 5C AP. > > > >x KTxxx > >Q K > >KQxx AJxx > >AQxxxxx KJx > > > > AQJxxx > > T9xx > > xxx > > --- > > How about South's pass of 2H*? Yes, he knows it does not show hearts >really, and he clearly has a raise. OK, let E/W get NS+650 or a >weighted score, let N/S keep their table score. South's pass of 2HX looks perfectly reasonable to me. He presumably knows that E doesn't have hearts, but he doesn't know that E's double doesn't *show* hearts, and he does know that, in any case, W thinks that E has hearts. If he raises 2HX, he will give the show away. I like the tactical approach here of staying silent for at least one round to see how E-W will sort out their misunderstanding before he decides whether and how to act. You may disagree with that tactical decision, but to call S's pass "wild, irrational or gambling" or "an egregious error" -- which is what you must do if you are to let N-S keep their table score -- seems way out of line. 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 Aug 22 22:32:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MCWEf15269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:32:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7MCW4K15265 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:32:05 +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 OAA00142; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:29:17 +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 OAA01548; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:31:32 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020822143250.00a8cde0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:41:11 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many In-Reply-To: <3D64BE56.50004@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 12:35 22/08/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >NO, because again you are starting with something undefined. What is a >60% player ? In my opinion, a 60% player is one who would average 60% >over all his boards in his career - in an infinite field !!! >(or using Ascherman scoring). That player will not score less than 60% in >a small field using traditional scoring - he will score more than that !!!!!!! > > >>Or consider "Crazy Ascherman" scoring. It's the same as Ascherman >>scoring, except you assign a MP score of 1000000000% to any score that >>doesn't actually occur. The results will be *exactly* the same as with >>Ascherman scoring, of course, but you really screw up the quantity >>that is supposed to be the unbiased estimator of what score X >>deserves. Doesn't this indicate that it's silly to insist that this >>quantity should be an unbiased estimator? > AG : we're into Stein's paradox waters here. It is not easy to describe in short, but it goes more or less as this : the average is not the best estimator of the expectancy when dealing with a non-independent series of non-independent series (like the scores of several pairs on several deals). The scores of the pairs are non-independent because they have fixed sum. the scores of one pair on several deals are non-independent because some pairs are better than others. The description that was given of Ascherman seems to imply that Stein's correction was taken into account. Can some specialist of statistics confirm this ? Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 23:04:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MD34s15291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:03:04 +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 (www.DSS.Brussels-2002.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7MD2QK15287 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:02:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id OAA05218; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:59:34 +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 PAA28901; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:01:47 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020822150443.00a8c0a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:11:26 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error (thank God) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020822081406.00aa6b10@pop.starpower.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:21 22/08/2002 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 12:32 PM 8/21/02, David wrote: > >>Petrus Schuster OSB writes >> >> > x E S W N >> > AJxxxxx 1S P 2C 2H >> > xx x ?P 3D P >> > xxx 4D P 5C AP. >> > >> >x KTxxx >> >Q K >> >KQxx AJxx >> >AQxxxxx KJx >> > >> > AQJxxx >> > T9xx >> > xxx >> > --- >> >> How about South's pass of 2H*? Yes, he knows it does not show hearts >>really, and he clearly has a raise. OK, let E/W get NS+650 or a >>weighted score, let N/S keep their table score. > >South's pass of 2HX looks perfectly reasonable to me. He presumably knows >that E doesn't have hearts, but he doesn't know that E's double doesn't >*show* hearts, and he does know that, in any case, W thinks that E has >hearts. If he raises 2HX, he will give the show away. I like the >tactical approach here of staying silent for at least one round to see how >E-W will sort out their misunderstanding before he decides whether and how >to act. > >You may disagree with that tactical decision, but to call S's pass "wild, >irrational or gambling" or "an egregious error" -- which is what you must >do if you are to let N-S keep their table score -- seems way out of line. AG : yes, deciding E/W don't know what they are doing, when you have some evidence that they don't, can hardly be qualified as irrational. It is not even inferior, since if West doesn't realise (and why should he ?), N/S are in for a big gain. It is merely unucky for South that West had such a shapely hand that he took out the penalty double (and even that action is dubious, with HQ and short spades. I wonder whether West did suspect his partner had something else than explained). Apparently, nobody thought of asking West "why did you take the double out ?". Construct East's hand as AKJxx - KJxx - xxx - x and ask yourself whether you want to defend 2HX or to play 5C. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 22 23:09:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MD70315303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:07:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7MD6gK15299 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:06:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #6) id 17hrf9-0004IR-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:06:11 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020822085448.00b0fa90@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:09:32 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary 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 04:22 AM 8/22/02, Ed wrote: >I'd like to know at what point one becomes whatever the next step up >from novice is. I don't think the law supports a viable legal concept of a "novice player", but it certainly does support the concept of a "novice event", and most SOs have such things. When we talk about applying the laws differently for "novices", what we should mean, IMO, is applying the law differently in events which are restricted to novices. Where the line is drawn (the maximum masterpoint limit allowed in a game designated as a "novice event") is perforce up to the SO at whatever level defines masterpoint awards and rankings. I don't believe the law allows us to, or that we should want to, apply the laws differently to different contestants *in the same event*. But relaxing the rules in restricted "novice" events is (arguably) reasonable, and routinely done in practice, even though typically not explicitly so. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 00:17:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MEFd015336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:15:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (mta07-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7MEFXK15332 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:15:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.156.97]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020822141459.FJIR13709.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:14:59 +0100 Message-ID: <008101c249e6$4c8a8f50$619c68d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Rule of 19,18,15 etc Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:14:56 +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 Nigel: >>Can David Stevenson and other lions in the EBU legal jungle tell us >>whether it is breaking the law to open sub rule of 19 hands, >>regularly, as a matter of course, in "Level 3" events, with a >>long-standing partner, in third position, without barring subsequent >>conventional bids? Richard: >Australian regulations classify systems according to the rule >of 18 (for one-level opening bids) and the rule of 15 (for two- >level opening bids). >Systems which do not abide by the twin rule of 18 and 15 are >theoretically classified as Yellow Systems (the ABF equivalent >of Highly Unusual Methods). Use of Yellow Systems is restricted >to very few ABF events. >However, like Nigel, I have noticed that many expert Australian >players are unaware of the ABF regulation. In his bridge >column, the respected authority Ron Klinger advocated ultra- >light ferdinand one-level openings. And many Oz players >illegally perpetrate manic two-level preempts. >This raises an important philosophical point. Should an NBO >create a regulation which: >a) The NBO does not publicise >b) Members of the NBO do not wish to abide by, and >c) The NBO does not enforce? David Stevenson: When I was in Australia I was given the lovely job of explaining to a pretty good player that: [1] what he was playing was illegal [2] he had been told before [3] therefore we were taking his good score away The problem was that he was putting me up, so if he did not like the explanation I would be looking for a bed for the night! He played a 1C opening as 9+, balanced or clubs. Nigel: David's example is the first that I have heard of where a "Rule of N" has been enforced. In another thread, David suggests that we apply to the Laws committee for relaxation to the rule in third seat. Why not just scrap the rule altogether, as Richard suggests. For example 1N showing 9-11 flat is a natural bid: -- it describes your values... -- it is playable opposite an average hand, and... -- if all pass and you are left to play, you are usually quite happy. Contrast authority's ban on this completely natural bid with their promotion of artificialities like Lebensohl, Ghestem, and so on. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 -- ======================================================================== (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 Aug 23 01:11:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MFAiO15366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 01:10:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7MFAaK15362 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 01:10:39 +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 g7MFA2vu098522 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:10:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA16509 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:11:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200208221511.LAA16509@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:11:47 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Tim West-meads" at Aug 22, 2002 09:37:00 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 Tim West-meads writes: > > In-Reply-To: > DWS wrote: > > You want a comparison that makes sense? OK, suppose the referee tells > > Beckham he may not play because the regs say something or other, > > OK, got that. > > > and he just tells the referee he is a tosspot > > This is a severe disciplinary offence (he is permitted to think it, but > not to say it). Let us suppose instead that he politely informs the > referee that, contrary to the referee's opinion, having a bad haircut is > not against the regulations. > > > and carries on. > > He refuses to leave the field (despite the obviously appalling mullet) the > ref declares the match abandoned. > > > Manchester Utd get fined 200,000 GBP and deducted 6 points for fielding > > an ineligible player. > > I rather doubt it. Man U receive a full apology from the FA, compensation > for the lost gate receipts, and the referee is fired. > > There is no way the FA is going to fine a club for fielding an ineligible > player if that player is, in fact, eligible. Want to bet Tim? My experience isn't at the FA level, but I've been involved in some truly surreal experiences in top level touch football competitions. It's unlikely that the referee would be fired for an honest mistake. Possible in your scenario where a major match has to be abandoned, but very unlikely. (And I suspect grounds for a wrongful dismissal action in a lot of places) I've been involved in discipline situations when the initial ruling was in clear error and the team refused to obey instructions to continue (including one case where an officicial mistakenly refused to allow a player to play) What happened in all of those cases is that the team got an apology for the initial incorrect ruling and heavy sanctions (player sunspensions and in one case refusal of entry to subsequent tournaments) for failing to obey the instructions. Even though those instructions were a consequence of the clearly incorrect ruling. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 02:10:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MG7jQ15402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 02:07:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7MG7ZK15398 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 02:07:36 +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 MAA25794 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:07:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA08921 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:07:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:07:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208221607.MAA08921@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > I don't believe the law allows us to, or that we should want to, apply > the laws differently to different contestants *in the same event*. But > relaxing the rules in restricted "novice" events is (arguably) > reasonable, and routinely done in practice, even though typically not > explicitly so. I don't think we need to "apply the laws differently" or "relax the rules," depending on what Eric means by those terms. However, our bridge judgments should reflect the skills of the players at the table, insofar as we know them. As just one example, in a novice event, most hesitations won't suggest one logical alternative over another, and hence L16A will seldom matter. The _appearance_ is that we are not applying the law, but the underlying reality _should be_ merely a different bridge judgment about what hesitations mean with different players at the table. Perhaps a more familiar example would be two skilled players, one of whom always acts slowly and the other of whom is (nearly) always lightning fast. Clearly a brief hesitation by the second is a problem, while the identical hesitation by the first suggests nothing. Of course _explaining_ all this to the novices, when there finally is a situation where L16 matters, may not be easy. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 02:10:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MG9oH15409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 02:09:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7MG9jK15405 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 02:09:45 +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 JAA09998; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:09:11 -0700 Message-Id: <200208221609.JAA09998@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:42:00 BST." Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:09:13 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote: > In-Reply-To: > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > I'd like to know at what point one becomes whatever the next step up > > from novice is. > > According to the psyching regulations of at least one ACBL affiliated club > the next step up from novice (inexperienced player) is Life Master. That can't be right. From what I've seen, Life Master is too often just another phase of novicehood. :) -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 02:37:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MGbJM15432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 02:37:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailm4.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailm4.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.211]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7MGbDK15428 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 02:37:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.92.67.23] (helo=mail18.svr.pol.co.uk) by cmailm4.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17huwg-0008Tj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:36:30 +0100 Received: from modem-104.domino-damsel.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.255.104] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17huwY-0004HA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:36:24 +0100 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA28236; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:36:59 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020822143250.00a8cde0@pop.ulb.ac.be> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 22 Aug 2002 15:38:34 +0100 In-Reply-To: Alain Gottcheiner's message of "Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:41:11 +0200" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 61 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner writes: > At 12:35 22/08/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >NO, because again you are starting with something undefined. What is a > >60% player ? In my opinion, a 60% player is one who would average 60% > >over all his boards in his career - in an infinite field !!! > >(or using Ascherman scoring). That player will not score less than 60% in > >a small field using traditional scoring - he will score more than that !!!!!!! > > > > > >>Or consider "Crazy Ascherman" scoring. It's the same as Ascherman > >>scoring, except you assign a MP score of 1000000000% to any score that > >>doesn't actually occur. The results will be *exactly* the same as with > >>Ascherman scoring, of course, but you really screw up the quantity > >>that is supposed to be the unbiased estimator of what score X > >>deserves. Doesn't this indicate that it's silly to insist that this > >>quantity should be an unbiased estimator? > > > > AG : we're into Stein's paradox waters here. > It is not easy to describe in short, but it goes more or less as this : the > average is not the best estimator of the expectancy when dealing with a > non-independent series of non-independent series (like the scores of > several pairs on several deals). Actually, Stein's paradox is about *independent* variables [it's not a "paradox" that if variables are dependent then you can get information about the distribution of one of them from the others]. The original form of the paradox shows that if you have at least three independent random variables (each normally distributed with different and unknown means but the same known variance), then there is a "better" way (in terms of reducing the total mean square error) of estimating the three means simultaneously than the obvious way of just estimating each one independently in the usual way. > The scores of the pairs are non-independent because they have fixed > sum. the scores of one pair on several deals are non-independent > because some pairs are better than others. The description that was > given of Ascherman seems to imply that Stein's correction was taken > into account. Can some specialist of statistics confirm this ? I don't think Ascherman has anything to do with Stein's paradox, no. The "Stein shrinking factor" depends on the variance (the smaller the variance, the smaller the shrinking factor), but the "Ascherman shrinking factor" is independent of the variance (an average score of 60% will be "shrunk" towards 50% by the same factor -- depending only on the number of scores on the traveller -- whether it's the average over 2 boards or 20). [I'm not a specialist of statistics, although I am a mathematician. But I did once get interested in Stein's paradox and talked about it with some of my statistical colleagues.] Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 03:03:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MGwr015456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 02:58:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7MGwgK15447 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 02:58:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7MGw6A20583; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:58:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003301c249fc$f44760e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:54:33 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > On 8/21/02, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >For instance, there are three boxes for opening preempts, labeled > >Sound, Light, and Very Light. To suppose that you don't have to check > >one of those boxes in order to fill out a CC, because it is > >undiscussed, is a strange interpretation. > > Maybe so. What do those three terms mean? I'll overcall at the one level > on 8 points, and at the two level on 10. Are my overcalls "light" or > "very light"? *I* don't think so, but as I've never seen a definitive > answer to the question, I dunno. What do they mean? They are explained on page 10 of 15, How to Fill Out the New Convention Card. You of all people should know that, Ed. > > I play with probably a dozen different people, two or three of them > fairly regularly. No two of the set of cards I have are alike, and none > of them are "complete", because we have not discussed everything in > every place on the card (most of my partners aren't interested in > discussing system, they just want to play bridge). I suppose I'm now > going to have to tell them that either we complete all these cards, or I > can't play with them any more. That ought to go over well. > I assume this is in a club game, where club regs govern disclosure requirements. In a sectional or higher-rated game, the TD should tell them that, and if it doesn't go over well they don't have to play. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 03:04:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MGwoE15455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 02:58:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7MGwiK15448 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 02:58:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7MGw6A20571 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:58:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003101c249fc$f3db0a80$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:33:33 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > On 8/20/02, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >The ACBL requires that the CC be completed. There is no excuse for not > >doing this, even for novices. A last-minute partnership can use the > >SAYC until they have time to complete a card themselves. > > Yeah. And the card is so simple, and what needs to be on it so obvious, > that Marty Bergen didn't write a whole book on how to fill it out. > > SAYC cards may or may not be available. > The ACBL actually says, not that SAYC must be used (error on my part) but that players can only play conventions on the Limited Conventions Chart until they have a properly-completed CC. The Convention Charts are usually posted on the wall, and the TD will point it out, or supply one, to a pair who is restricted to the LCC. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 03:29:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MHShU15516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 03:28:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7MHScK15512 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 03:28:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7MHS7A06405 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:28:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006301c24a01$265ac1e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:00:44 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > On 8/21/02, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >On the ACBL card, there's also a line below the three boxes labeled > >"Conv./Resp.", for information about conventional openings (such as > >transfer preempts) or conventional responses. Technically, the 3 bid > >you describe isn't a convention, but you could write it on that line > >anyway. There's no rule (or there had better not be a rule) saying > >you can't write something there that doesn't match the label; the CC > >is there to inform the opponents, and if it does that job, fine. > > I note that the regulation requires that the card be legibly filled out. > A while back, I tried to fit in the meaning of and response structure to > the Dynamic NT on a card, using the ACBL's editor. Even after erasing > all the pre-printed stuff in the 1NT box, I didn't have room to fit it > all in unless I made the type so small it was unreadable. > > Dynamic NT is legal under the GCC. Don't even *try* to tell me that > doesn't matter, that if I can't fit all the responses in I can't use it. > The CC is designed to provide "a comprehensive overview of your system." (from How to Fill Out the New ACBL Convention Card) Not every detail, as you seem to think. The Alert Procedure is designed to provide details that are not easily shown on the CC. The CCs that I see which contain a volume of illegible microscopic-sized system details are neither required nor desirable. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 04:21:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MILC415550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 04:21:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7MIL7K15546 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 04:21:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.156.95]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020822182034.TJUM290.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:20:34 +0100 Message-ID: <001301c24a08$9b88c1e0$5f9c68d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <200208221511.LAA16509@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:20:31 +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 David: You want a comparison that makes sense? OK, suppose the referee tells Beckham he may not play because the regs say something or other, Tim: OK, got that. David: and he just tells the referee he is a tosspot Tim: This is a severe disciplinary offence (he is permitted to think it, but not to say it). Let us suppose instead that he politely informs the referee that, contrary to the referee's opinion, having a bad haircut is not against the regulations. David: and carries on. He refuses to leave the field (despite the obviously appalling mullet) the ref declares the match abandoned. Manchester Utd get fined 200,000 GBP and deducted 6 points for fielding an ineligible player. Tim: I rather doubt it. Man U receive a full apology from the FA, compensation for the lost gate receipts, and the referee is fired. There is no way the FA is going to fine a club for fielding an ineligible player if that player is, in fact, eligible. Ron Johnson: Want to bet Tim? My experience isn't at the FA level, but I've been involved in some truly surreal experiences in top level touch football competitions. It's unlikely that the referee would be fired for an honest mistake. Possible in your scenario where a major match has to be abandoned, but very unlikely. (And I suspect grounds for a wrongful dismissal action in a lot of places) I've been involved in discipline situations when the initial ruling was in clear error and the team refused to obey instructions to continue (including one case where an officicial mistakenly refused to allow a player to play) What happened in all of those cases is that the team got an apology for the initial incorrect ruling and heavy sanctions (player sunspensions and in one case refusal of entry to subsequent tournaments) for failing to obey the instructions. Even though those instructions were a consequence of the clearly incorrect ruling. Nigel: I agree with Ron that an authority must publicly support its representative official even when he makes an honest mistake in an area within his jurisdiction. Unlike Tim, I feel that civil-disobedience is gross overkill. IMO, it is justified only on a serious issue, when other avenues of protest are blocked. e.g. freedom of speech or democratic recourse is curtailed. For something as trivial as a game, it is a self-indulgence, disrupting the game and spoiling the pleasure spectators and others. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 -- ======================================================================== (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 Aug 23 05:26:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MJQ9D15614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 05:26:09 +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 g7MJPrK15599 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 05:25:54 +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 17hxa4-0008ho-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:25:22 +0100 Message-ID: <6raAasEybRZ9EwxT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:53:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical References: <010001c2435a$090d9d40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <010001c2435a$090d9d40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >From: "Ed Reppert" < >> I may be mistaken, but I don't remember an ACBL regulation requiring >> that both players must play the same conventions. Aside from that, the >> range of a natural NT bid is not a convention. If the cards both say >> "Joe opens 1NT on 12-14 and Bill opens 1NT on 15-17" then the >> partnership has matching cards. So I don't think this one flies. :-) >It's a matter of law, Ed, not regulation. > >ACBL Election to L40E: Both members of a partnership must employ the same >system that shows on the convention card. That makes it a matter of regulation, not Law. It is a regulation made under L40E. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 05:27:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MJQEC15616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 05:26:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7MJPkK15581 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 05:25:47 +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 17hxZw-0008hp-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:25:14 +0100 Message-ID: <6LbACAE0QRZ9EwTA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:41:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical References: <003501c244c3$f0e5d1e0$6501a8c0@irv> <4.3.2.7.0.20020816083746.00aa5250@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020816154130.00a814f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020816154130.00a814f0@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 >Having said that, it is illusory to think that the Pro and the Client will >play the same number of boards. What is disallowed is for them to have >conventional means to insure this. I played four consecutive BAM sessions with Alan LeBendig in Las Vegas. It intrigued me that he played at least 50% more hands than I did in each session! I also could not see how he did it! > This is simply fairness to other pairs, >according to the principle that bridge is a partnership game. If one >player's weaknesses don't affect the result of the pair, other than by >accident, then the ranking of the pair is unfair. In other words, if you play football, you should be required to rotate who plays in goal amongst all eleven players? I don't think so. Nah, it's just another strange bridge arbitrary rule. I do not mind it, but I have never heard a logical or reasonable defence of it. Bridge is a team game, and that generally means allowing a team to maximise their available resources. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 05:27:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MJQKq15618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 05:26:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g7MJPlK15583 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 05:25:47 +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 17hxZw-0008hr-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:25:15 +0100 Message-ID: <67aAeYEzWRZ9EwQk@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:47:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020815173900.00aa5920@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020816085729.00b02bb0@pop.starpower.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020816085729.00b02bb0@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'm not talking precise definitions here. But "method" and "system" >are words used by bridge players all the time, and there is a general, >if ill-defined, consensus as to what they mean. I merely submit that >the consensual usage of the word "method" comes a lot closer to what >the ACBL is talking about than the consensual usage of the word >"system". That the latter creates unnecessary problems of >interpretation has been amply demonstrated by some of the posts in this >thread. I don't think so. Not only is it obvious what system means, it does not excuse clearly constructed attempts to avoid the obvious meaning of a reg. OK, some people on BLML think it fun to try and make up meanings they know are untenable. Fine, carry on, don't mind me. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 05:27:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MJQ6b15612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 05:26:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7MJPkK15580 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 05:25:47 +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 17hxZw-0008hq-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:25:15 +0100 Message-ID: <6LdAiNEsTRZ9Ewzt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:44:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical References: <20020814133817.60B662FD5F@server3.fastmail.fm> <004f01c243a8$61b035e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <00e601c243d5$216075e0$069568d5@SCRAP> In-Reply-To: <00e601c243d5$216075e0$069568d5@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 >David Kent: >> When partner, who likes to open a >> strong NT, is in first or 2nd, we show the cc that has "strong NT in >> 1st/2nd and weak NT in 3rd/4th". Likewise when I am in 1st or 2nd >> seat, we show the cc that has "weak NT in 1st/2nd and strong NT in >> 3rd/4th". Anything wrong with this? > >Marvin L French > Yes. You are not playing the same system, as your 1st/2nd seat > openings have different ranges depending on who is sitting there. > >Nigel Guthrie > Although it may not suit some mixed partnerships (pro-am or m-f), the > laws seem to insist that both partners use the same methods. The Laws don't. They permit SOs to make such regs, and most do. > But are you allowed to agree that one partner will make more aggressive > bids or psyches than the other? Aggressive bids, yes, because the Laws do not permit SOs to restrict style. Psyches are not permitted to be a subject of agreement. > Can both agree that > 1N is weak but that > only one partner may, in practice, bid it. That does not sound to me like a style difference, so no. But it would depend how the reg is worded, of course. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 05:27:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MJQAU15615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 05:26:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7MJPtK15603 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 05:25:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17hxa5-0008hp-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:25:24 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:57:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Director is going astray References: <150802227.7802@webbox.com> In-Reply-To: <150802227.7802@webbox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >Now, the players know perfectly well that as well as being a >waste of time, all this can be heard clearly on the other side >of the screen, and thus that partner will know you have alerted, >eliminating one of the major advantages of screens in that they >prevent the transmission of unauthorised information. The TD's >instruction is therefore a stupid one, and the players simply >don't follow it. The other side can be seen in the other instruction given with screens: explanations should only be asked for and given in writing. In practice the players ignore this one as well, and there are always a few rulings because this can be heard the other side of the screen, and there is MI based on misunderstandings. If you asked the players, they would probably think that both regs are not worth following. Are you sure they should ignore them both? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 05:27:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MJQFX15617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 05:26:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7MJPsK15600 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 05:25:55 +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 17hxa4-0008hq-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:25:23 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:02:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020623223605.00c79888@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624180417.00ac2480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020625170223.00b19ad0@pop.starpower.net> <005c01c21cdc$67d91ce0$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> <004a01c21cf0$414cdbc0$763f23d5@cornelis> <3QMz09FVCaG9Ewb$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006401c21d29$89c30800$643f23d5@cornelis> <002101c21db2$6338db90$6f3f23d5@cornelis> <+xwu9rCGrvG9Ewp7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000e01c21dd8$93ffee00$3b01a8c0@presens.nl.no> <000a01c24279$39565370$6401a8c0@hare> In-Reply-To: <000a01c24279$39565370$6401a8c0@hare> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nancy T Dressing writes >Try law 74C1, Law 40, and ACBL requires that each partnerships has matching >convention cards on the table and that both players must play the same >conventions hence your 1NT bid that is different depending on which partner >bids is illegal! Exactly: there is no Law that forbids it. Regulations by most sponsoring organisations forbid it, true, but Laws do not, so we cannot say that it is automatically forbidden in all bridge events to play different conventions on different sides of the table. >> > But if a player plays 1NT by South is 12-14, and by North is 15-17, >> > find me a Law forbidding it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 05:27:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MJQ6815613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 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 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 g7MJPmK15584 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 05:25:48 +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 17hxZw-0008hs-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:25:16 +0100 Message-ID: <479AulEvbRZ9Ewxq@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:53:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical 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 Robert E. Harris writes >This will be a good antidote >to the depression of losing six Swiss matches in a row in St. Louis >yesterday. (We won the first match, against the worst team we met, by 4 >imps.) Aha! So now you know what to do next time, don't you? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 06:22:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MKMI315690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 06:22:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7MKMBK15686 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 06:22:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g7LKkoA11395 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 21:46:51 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:05:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many 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 , Jeremy Rickard writes >Gordon Bower writes: > >> On 21 Aug 2002, Jeremy Rickard wrote: >> > >> > No. Suppose one in ten people in the world would get the result that I >> > got, so it deserves a 95% score. Playing in a 10-table movement, >> > Ascherman gives me that 95% *if nobody else in the movement gets that >> > result*, but sometimes gives me a lower score (when somebody else in >> > the movement does get the result). So on average, Ascherman gives me >> > less than the 95% that I deserve. >> >> If you are the only pair in a 10-table game to achieve that result, 10% of >> the pairs in the room achieved that result and 95% is exactly what you >> deserve. >> >> As you compare your club's results with those of other clubs in the world, >> you will find some clubs where this result appears twice or more, dragging >> you down below 95%, and other clubs where no-one at all achieved this >> result, pushing you back up above 95%. >> >> > On the other hand, without factoring I'll get 50% from each table >> > where they do get the result (1/10 of them on average) and 100% from >> > each table that doesn't (9/10 of them on average), so on average I get >> > the 95% = (1/10 * 50%) + (9/10 * 100%) that I deserve. >> >> I see your point. >> >> Which one of us is right depends on what you think is supposed to happen >> in the clubs where no-one at all achieves this top score only 10% of >> tables worldwide will reach. >> >> Your approach is "I already have my score written down on the >> scoresheet; let's see how it will matchpoint out as the rest of the scores >> come in." As all the other scores from around the world get tallied, your >> ties or wins will come in. >> >> The local result for the top score is E [ percentage | how nine other >> tables played this board] if your score occurs, and, if not, >> undefined: if the top score occurs at your club, it gets given 100, >> 94.4%, 88.9%, etc.; if not, the idea that someone, somewhere, might have >> gotten such a score is inconceivable. > >I agree with the mathematics, but I think that "the idea ... is >inconceivable" is a slightly unfair way of putting it. Of course it's >conceivable; it's just that it's not relevant for my method of >calculating the matchpoint scores. > >> >> Ascherman doesn't treat you as any different than anyone else in the >> world. In clubs where the result is achieved once, twice, etc, it's valued >> at 95%, 90%, 85%, etc; in clubs where everyone achieves a lower result, >> it's theoretically worth 100%. That is, the local estimate for what >> percentage to give is E [ percentage | what 10 tables did ], defined for >> all possible scores including the ones that didn't happen in your >> particular club but might have somewhere else. >> >> Traditional matchpointing is the unbiased answer to the question "Now that >> I have obtained score X at my table, how much do I deserve for >> it?" > >Yes. > >> Ascherman is the unbaised answer to the question "Suppose someone >> comes along and picks up these cards sometime; how much do they deserve if >> they achieve score X?" > >I'm not sure whether I understand what you're saying here. > >Let me put it a different way. > >For traditional matchpointing, if you ask each player who scores X >what MP score they got, then on average the answer will be the same as >the MP score that score X deserves. > >For Ascherman, if you ask each TD what MP score was assigned >to score X in his section [and if he says that nobody got score X, you >ask him to assign a MP score in the "obvious" way that Ascherman >scoring allows], then on average the answer will be the same as the MP >score that score X deserves. > >> >> There seems to be a difference of opinion about which question we should >> be asking. :) > >Maybe. But if you think about it, the second question is of no >real interest to anybody. > >Suppose I'm a 60% player. Then traditional matchpointing will give me >a score of 60% on average, whatever the size of the field. This is NOT true. You will do better in smaller fields. That's WHY we use Ascherman. cheers John > Ascherman >will give me an average score of less than 60%, and how much less >depends on the size of the field. Correct? > >Or consider "Crazy Ascherman" scoring. It's the same as Ascherman >scoring, except you assign a MP score of 1000000000% to any score that >doesn't actually occur. The results will be *exactly* the same as with >Ascherman scoring, of course, but you really screw up the quantity >that is supposed to be the unbiased estimator of what score X >deserves. Doesn't this indicate that it's silly to insist that this >quantity should be an unbiased estimator? > > Jeremy. > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 06:28:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MKSEs15703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 06:28:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7MKS9K15699 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 06:28:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id QAA20357 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:27:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA09131 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:27:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:27:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208222027.QAA09131@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Jeremy Rickard > Actually, Stein's paradox is about *independent* variables [it's not a > "paradox" that if variables are dependent then you can get information > about the distribution of one of them from the others]. The original > form of the paradox shows that if you have at least three independent > random variables (each normally distributed with different and unknown > means but the same known variance), then there is a "better" way (in > terms of reducing the total mean square error) of estimating the three > means simultaneously than the obvious way of just estimating each one > independently in the usual way. This sounds like the sort of thing we are looking for. Is there a good source for an explanation of Stein's paradox? Something beyond the brief description that Marv cited but not so complex that only a specialist can understand it. "Malmquist bias" in astronomy seems to be a very similar situation. As applied to bridge, it says if someone achieves a 60% game, it is more likely to be a "55% player" who was lucky than a "65% player" who was unlucky simply because there are vastly more 55% players than 65% players. Statistical corrections can be applied for this effect, but the problem before us is to do something about single scores. I think ideally what one would want is a correction so that one's expected ranking is independent of the number of boards played. This sounds as though it is related to the biased but optimal estimator in the Stein's paradox problem. However, I am not sure any single estimator will be satisfactory for all rankings. Maybe it is good enough just to have an approximate correction for only the top few places. I think we should be willing to assume that all contestants show the same standard deviation of scores (and that the distribution is Gaussian if that matters), but of course the mean scores for different contestants will differ. Probably the real answer is that the effect is too small to worry about. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 06:39:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MKd1B15715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 06:39:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7MKctK15711 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 06:38:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id QAA20878 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:38:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA09164 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:38:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:38:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208222038.QAA09164@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > In article , Jeremy Rickard > writes > >Suppose I'm a 60% player. Then traditional matchpointing will give me > >a score of 60% on average, whatever the size of the field. > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > This is NOT true. Sorry, John. Jeremy is quite correct. David desJardins has a web page that explains why: http://www.desjardins.org/david/factor.txt > You will do better in smaller fields. This is correct, but it's because the *variance* is higher, not because the mean is. You are more likely to win from the smaller field but also more likely to come last. *On average* your score (in matchpoints) will be the same with factoring; this is NOT true with Aschermann. Nevertheless, I believe Aschermann is a good method. It is a "rough and ready" correction for the increased variance, despite its lack of obvious mathematical justification. (Perhaps there is such a justification, though, along the lines of the Stein's-paradox estimator we have been discussing.) What started this thread was Marv's request for a similar sort of correction for when part of the field plays fewer boards than the rest. My first attempt was clearly wrong (as Jeremy showed), but that doesn't mean the task is impossible. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 07:00:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MKxxM15733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 06:59:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7MKxsK15729 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 06:59:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7MKxNA10256 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:59:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00ad01c24a1e$aa062940$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <010001c2435a$090d9d40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <6raAasEybRZ9EwxT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:36:22 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > Marvin L. French writes > > >It's a matter of law, Ed, not regulation. > > > >ACBL Election to L40E: Both members of a partnership must employ the same > >system that shows on the convention card. > > That makes it a matter of regulation, not Law. It is a regulation > made under L40E. > I have been under the impression that the ACBL "Elections" in the back of the Laws are to be considered an integral part of the ACBL version of the Laws, not merely regulations. For instance, the election that L12C3 does not apply in ACBL-land becomes a matter of law, not a regulation. If I'm wrong, shoot me. Whatever, my point is that the Election to L40E is in our version of the Laws, and you don't have to look for it among the ACBL regulations. The difference may seem insignificant, but by putting it in the Laws the election must be followed by clubs, who are required to follow the Laws even though they are granted leeway in regard to most regulations. Someone may now point out that I wrote about clubs having leeway in regard to CC requirements. It's true, but not in regard to this requirement. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 07:48:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MLmCi15760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 07:48:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7MLm7K15756 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 07:48:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7MLlZA04197; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:47:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00ca01c24a25$651956c0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200208222038.QAA09164@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:30:30 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" > > What started this thread was Marv's request for a similar sort of > correction for when part of the field plays fewer boards than the > rest. My first attempt was clearly wrong (as Jeremy showed), but > that doesn't mean the task is impossible. > Yes, but I'm interested in both situations, which look to be of a similar nature. Pairs who play fewer boards, or compare with fewer, have an unfair advantage. Actually there are three possibilities: 1. Fields with different tops, but playing the same boards (fouled board, etc.) Neuberg/Ascherman is used now, but there may be something better. Factoring is still seen (multi-site games) 2. Fields with different number of boards played (24 in one section 26 in the other, this thread) Factoring is used now, not a good solution. Steve, keep looking. 3. A combination of both. The discussions in regard to 1. should become a separate thread ("Different Tops") Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 08:04:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MM4NN15828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:04:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7MM48K15801 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:04:08 +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 17i03A-000Kmq-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:03:35 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:49:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] directing problem References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk writes > >Richard wrote: > >[snip] > >>>If the CoC lacked an emergency clause, then technically all >>>players in the fourth section should be given Ave+ for >>>every board in the first session, as technically every board >>>was fouled. > >David S replied: > >> Oooh, no, no, no!!!! Yes, they are fouled: no, that does not >>mean Ave+! >> >> You just score them separately using Neuberg. > >*If* the CoC *required* across-the-field scoring, *then* Neuberg >is illegal under the CoC. If the CoC *required* across-the-field scoring [as is normal in much of the world] *then* Neuberg is required by the CoC, because how else can you do ATF scoring? >However, David S is correctly contradicting me, since such a >rigid CoC would itself be illegal, as the CoC would contravene >L87B. That's silly: ATF scoring is subject to L87B: furthermore, it is extremely common with ATF scoring. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 08:04:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MM4Te15831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:04:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7MM49K15804 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:04:10 +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 17i03A-000Kmr-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:03:38 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:45:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play 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: >> You want a comparison that makes sense? OK, suppose the referee tells >> Beckham he may not play because the regs say something or other, > >OK, got that. > >> and he just tells the referee he is a tosspot > >This is a severe disciplinary offence (he is permitted to think it, but >not to say it). Let us suppose instead that he politely informs the >referee that, contrary to the referee's opinion, having a bad haircut is >not against the regulations. > >> and carries on. > >He refuses to leave the field (despite the obviously appalling mullet) the >ref declares the match abandoned. > >> Manchester Utd get fined 200,000 GBP and deducted 6 points for fielding >> an ineligible player. > >I rather doubt it. Man U receive a full apology from the FA, compensation >for the lost gate receipts, and the referee is fired. > >There is no way the FA is going to fine a club for fielding an ineligible >player if that player is, in fact, eligible. Of course not. But why do we suppose he is eligible? The thing that I find so strange about this thread is that, despite about 100 million bits of evidence the other way, you and others are assuming that when a player thinks an official has got it wrong it is the official who has got it wrong. Of course, on some rare occasions, it is the official. But in the vast majority of cases it is not: it is the player. There have been a number of cases of football authorities deducting points for fielding ineligible players. Do oyu think it was the authorities who were wrong every time? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 08:04:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MM4RR15830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:04:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7MM49K15803 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:04:09 +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 17i03A-000Kms-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:03:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:52:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error (thank God) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020822110651.00a943a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020822110651.00a943a0@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 17:32 21/08/2002 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > >> How about South's pass of 2H*? Yes, he knows it does not show hearts >>really, and he clearly has a raise. > >AG : IBTD. If partner tried an overcall on AQxxxx and some tricks (or none) >on the side, and if RHO holds KJx (which is what he says), why should I bid >3H and go down one, when I sould be scoring 2HX= ? You do have some very nice dreams! However, in real life, if RHO has hearts, LHO is about to pull the double. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 08:04:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MM4Vb15833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:04:31 +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 g7MM4DK15818 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:04:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17i03C-000Kmu-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:03:41 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:00:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Rule of 19,18,15 etc References: <008101c249e6$4c8a8f50$619c68d5@SCRAP> In-Reply-To: <008101c249e6$4c8a8f50$619c68d5@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 >Nigel: > David's example is the first that I have heard of where a "Rule of N" > has been enforced. In another thread, David suggests that we apply > to the Laws committee for relaxation to the rule in third seat. > Why not just scrap the rule altogether, as Richard suggests. > For example 1N showing 9-11 flat is a natural bid: > -- it describes your values... > -- it is playable opposite an average hand, and... > -- if all pass and you are left to play, you are usually quite happy. > Contrast authority's ban on this completely natural bid with their > promotion of artificialities like Lebensohl, Ghestem, and so on. What is the contrast for? Why compare this way? The aim of the authority is to do our best for the membership, not to make up and follow parrot cries. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 08:04:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MM4bl15834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:04:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7MM4IK15825 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:04:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17i03L-000Kmq-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:03:46 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:01:52 +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: <6wewcJAlS7Y9Ew4m@blakjak.demon.co.uk> >DWS wrote: > >> Nigel Guthrie writes >> >Robert E Harris: >> > I find in Goren's New Contract Bridge Complete the following hand, >> > given >> >as >> > a third seat opening bid: >> > S: Qxx; H: AKJxx; D: xx; C: xxx. >> > >> >Nigel Guthrie: >> > Another example might be S:xxx H:AKQJ D:xxx C:xxx >> > Can David Stevenson and other lions in the EBU legal jungle tell us >> > whether it is breaking the law to open sub rule of 19 hands, >> > regularly, as a matter of course, in "Level 3" events, with a >> > long-standing partner, in third position, without barring subsequent >> > conventional bids? >> >> If you have an agreement, explicit or implicit, to open sub Ro19 hands >> then you are not playing a legal method. The position does not affect >> it. > >And how is it determined that these openings are being made "by agreement" >or as a result of "common sense and judgement". If the examples given by >Robert and Nigel are deemed "common sense" openings then surely the OB >regulation can be better phrased. > >> Incidentally, with a general review just coming [new OB due in 2003] >> why does someone not apply to play 3rd in hand light by agreement? >> There has never been such an application in my time. > >An application to play a natural bid that has been part of normal Acol for >generations - wow! Even worse what is actually needed given the way the >system operates is multiple applications (one each for Blackwood, fsf, >splinters, shortage cues, GSF). You do like to be annoying, don't you? If anyone does not realise, Tim is not telling the truth, and I suspect he knows it, by talking about multiple applications. >Instead I would ask that the EBU drop the Ro19/18 regulation, or at least >restrict it to conventions that are fundamentally supportive of the light >opening approach (such as Drury). You are all talk, aren't you? Moan, moan, grizzle. Why not put in such an application? Simple: because it might succeed, and you would have less to complain about. I no longer believe that you actually want the game to improve in England: you are beginning to sound like someone who just likes to tease. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 08:04:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MM4Vl15832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:04:31 +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 g7MM4BK15811 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:04:12 +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 17i03D-000Kmt-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:03:39 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:58:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] absence at Brighton References: <001d01c2497b$b8448ae0$6708ff3e@annescomputer> In-Reply-To: <001d01c2497b$b8448ae0$6708ff3e@annescomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anne Jones writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> John (MadDog) Probst writes >> >DWS and I will be at Brighton for 10 days. Not sure what acess we'll >> >have. >> >> None, apparently! >There was an "ebuonline" computer in the main hall connected to the >internet the whole of both weekends. > >The purpose was to encourage the involvement of players to try > > http://www.bridgeclublive.com I don't think that it was available to me to read to BLML. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 08:35:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MMYoV15884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:34:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from websnail.mit.edu (WEBSNAIL.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.99]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7MMYiK15880 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:34:45 +1000 (EST) Received: (from www@localhost) by websnail.mit.edu (8.9.3) id SAA22822; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:34:13 -0400 (EDT) From: rwilley@mit.edu Received: from dsc08.bsg-ma-5-198.rasserver.net ( [dsc08.bsg-ma-5-198.rasserver.net]) as user rwilley@MIT.EDU by webmail.mit.edu with HTTPS; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:34:12 -0400 Message-ID: <1030055652.3d6566e4e9b3c@webmail.mit.edu> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:34:12 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Completely off topic References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.1-cvs X-Originating-IP: 206.216.118.198 X-Originating-Host: dsc08.bsg-ma-5-198.rasserver.net X-MIT-WebMail-Sender: X-MIT-WebMail-User-Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; MSN 6.1; MSNbDELL; MSNmen-us; MSNc11) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi All I am scheduled to take a business trip to Britain in early January. I was considering flying over early and potentially playing a bit of bridge. Does anyone have any information regarding any special games that might take place in/arround London in late December / early January? Ideally, I would love to get to play in the 24 hour marathon at the Young Chelsea, however, I fear that the even is held in November. Thanks -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 08:48:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MMlqX15901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:47:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7MMllK15897 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:47:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7MMlGA29272; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:47:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00ee01c24a2d$bbd9ebc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020822143250.00a8cde0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: [BLML] Lower Tops Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:46:16 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > AG : we're into Stein's paradox waters here. > It is not easy to describe in short, but it goes more or less as this : the > average is not the best estimator of the expectancy when dealing with a > non-independent series of non-independent series (like the scores of > several pairs on several deals). The scores of the pairs are > non-independent because they have fixed sum. the scores of one pair on > several deals are non-independent because some pairs are better than others. > The description that was given of Ascherman seems to imply that Stein's > correction was taken into account. Can some specialist of statistics > confirm this ? > It was not taken into account, because it assumed that the variance of the smaller field would be mirrored in a larger field. The Ascherman/Neuberg shrinkage factor is less than that of the Stein Paradox approach. I am no specialist of statistics, nor a math type for that mater, but I can offer this: The September 1977 issue of Scientific American had an article on the subject, which I saved for years but can't find now. It was flawed in a way that made it useless to me. Here is the equation from the article that I copied into my notebook, solving for the best prediction of a season's final batting average for a baseball player, given (1) his current average and (2) the current averages of all "observed" players. z = ybar + c (y - ybar), where y-ybar is the amount by which the player's batting average differs from the grand average ybar, and z is the answer you're looking for. The constant "c" is the shrinking factor, which is determined by the collection of all the observed averages, and which is always less than 1. [In bridge, of course, the ybar is always 50%] [It has been proven that the best estimate is not y] The equation for c is c = 1 - [(k -3) sigma-squared / sum of (y - ybar) squared] k is the number of unknown means, sigma-squared is the variance of (I don't know what - it was not the variance of the data provided in the article, and there was no instructions about how to obtain it.) I don't understand the k-3, but I think that was explained. Trying to figure how he got the sigma (no value shown), I solved for it by working backwards from his sample solution. Then I calculated a sigma for the data he provided, and it didn't come close to matching. Henry Bethe has come up with an approach that has a similar shrinking factor, one that is a bit greater than that which Neuberg provides. He or I will be posting that soon. I can say now that his method assumes that a larger field would have the smaller fields' scores randomly distributed, or, to put it another way, that the scores in a smaller field have come from the random selection of a larger field's scores. Henry intends to subscribe to BLML, and will be a welcome addition. He serves on the NABC AC, of which he was once vice-chair. He is currently working with a subcommittee on an improved VP scale that will be presented to the full C&C committee next fall at the Phoenix NABC. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 08:55:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MMtB915917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:55:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7MMt5K15913 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:55:06 +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 g7MMw4532495 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:58:04 -0800 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:51:15 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many In-Reply-To: <200208222038.QAA09164@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Apologies to all for straying so far from the Laws content. On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Steve Willner wrote: > I think ideally what one would want is a correction so that one's > expected ranking is independent of the number of boards played. Ideally, yes. There is no such animal. > > In article , Jeremy Rickard > > writes > > >Suppose I'm a 60% player. Then traditional matchpointing will give me > > >a score of 60% on average, whatever the size of the field. > > > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > This is NOT true. > > Sorry, John. Jeremy is quite correct. Jeremy is correct in the sense he explained in his post. The fact does remain that unusually high (and low) scores occur more frequently in small fields than in large ones. David desJardins has a web > page that explains why: > http://www.desjardins.org/david/factor.txt This web page contains what some of us are tempted to call a glaring error, essentially the same question as in Jeremy Rickard's Ascherman posts earlier. If I may point out explicitly where the two paths diverge in the DesJardins argument: DesJardins considers a board played on either a 7 top or an 8 top, calling the MP result on a 7 top "Mb" and on an 8 top "Ma." He correctly shows that E[Mb] = 7/8 * E[Ma]. he correctly notes that his M2, M3, ... need not be independent. The point of divergence comes when he gets to "but our goal was an unbiased estimator, where E[Mb'] = E[Ma]." Yes, 8/7 * Mb is an unbiased estimator in the sense of Rickard, presuming we know nothing at all about what may or may not happed at the ninth table. But the "M2, M3 ... M8" are based on comparing P1 and P2, P1 and P3, etc., and the result at the table where the board didnt get played would have been based on P1 and P9. He assumes all of the P_i are i.i.d. M9 is 1 if P9P1. Some of us think our goal is not a head-in-the-sand unbiased estimator, but the best unbiased estimator we can get given the information we have at the time we make the estimate. That is, we wish Mb' such that E[Mb'] = E[Ma|Mb] = E[Mb+M9 | Mb] = Mb + E[M9|Mb] = Mb + (Mb + 1/2) / 8 = Neuberg. The fact that a given result occurred at table 1 is evidence that the result might occur again. Neuberg / Ascherman take into account all that is known about the history of a board when they estimate what will happen at the missing table, multiplying by 8/7 doesn't. > Nevertheless, I believe Aschermann is a good method. It is a "rough > and ready" correction for the increased variance, despite its lack of > obvious mathematical justification. (Perhaps there is such a > justification, though, along the lines of the Stein's-paradox estimator > we have been discussing.) Some of us find the justification of Ascherman quite obvious indeed. Either you believe the score at every table tells you something about the play of a board, or you believe that you temporarily go blind to the result at each table in turn as you assign matchpoints to each score. The "There are two things..." paragraph in the second article on desJardins's webpage sums up the two schools of thought nicely. The problem arises when he says "Neuberg's formula does not even have the second property and therefore cannot have the first property either." Neuberg is constructed to have the first property, and the two schools of thought differ on what it means to have the second property. He goes on to say "The problem is that the first property is ill-defined." I find the first problem well defined, and the second property open to two different interpretations (either "E[Ma]" or "E[Ma|Mb]") GRB, who will try now to shut up about it all for a while -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 08:58:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MMwTF15929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:58:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7MMwOK15925 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:58:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7MMvrA03433; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:57:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <010f01c24a2f$378cfc20$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: Subject: [BLML] Re: Lower Tops Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:56:53 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I seem to have mixed two threads in my last post, just separate them please. Stein's Paradox applies to too few boards, not lower tops. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 09:41:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MNf2L15956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:41:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7MNevK15948 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:40:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from rota.alumni.princeton.edu (pcp01782626pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net [68.32.52.241]) by mtaout04.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H1900KBIR35V9@mtaout04.icomcast.net> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:40:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:40:20 -0400 From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many In-reply-to: <3D64BE56.50004@skynet.be> X-Sender: davidgrabiner@mail.comcast.net To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.1.1.6.0.20020822193159.01ba6ea8@mail.comcast.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:35 AM 8/22/2002, Herman de Wael wrote: >Jeremy wrote: >>Maybe. But if you think about it, the second question is of no >>real interest to anybody. >>Suppose I'm a 60% player. Then traditional matchpointing will give me >>a score of 60% on average, whatever the size of the field. Ascherman >>will give me an average score of less than 60%, and how much less >>depends on the size of the field. Correct > > >NO, because again you are starting with something undefined. What is a >60% player ? In my opinion, a 60% player is one who would average 60% >over all his boards in his career - in an infinite field !!! >(or using Ascherman scoring). That player will not score less than 60% in >a small field using traditional scoring - he will score more than that !!!!!!! This is not correct; he will expect to get a 60% score in any field. For simplicity, assume that there are no ties and every board is scored uniformly on scale of 0-1. The 60% player will average 0.6 per board, and a score of 0.6 will beat 60% of all random pairs. However, he is more likely to score 65% with conventional scoring in a small field than in a large field, and *that* is what Ascherman compensates for. A score of 0.6 on a board has a 1/60 chance of being a 100% board if there are eight comparisons, but it will almost never be even a 70% board in a huge field. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 09:51:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7MNpe515968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:51:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout05.sul.t-online.com (mailout05.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.82]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7MNpZK15964 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:51:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd04.sul.t-online.de by mailout05.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17i1jD-00039x-00; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 01:51:03 +0200 Received: from jurgenr (520085598528-0001@[80.128.52.243]) by fwd04.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17i1j3-1c1g0WC; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 01:50:53 +0200 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) To: "Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Rule of 19,18,15 etc Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 01:50:48 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal X-Sender: 520085598528-0001@t-dialin.net 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 David Stevenson > Sent: Donnerstag, 22. August 2002 22:00 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] Rule of 19,18,15 etc > > > Nigel Guthrie writes > > >Nigel: > > David's example is the first that I have heard of where a "Rule of N" > > has been enforced. In another thread, David suggests that we apply > > to the Laws committee for relaxation to the rule in third seat. > > Why not just scrap the rule altogether, as Richard suggests. > > For example 1N showing 9-11 flat is a natural bid: > > -- it describes your values... > > -- it is playable opposite an average hand, and... > > -- if all pass and you are left to play, you are usually quite happy. > > Contrast authority's ban on this completely natural bid with their > > promotion of artificialities like Lebensohl, Ghestem, and so on. > > What is the contrast for? Why compare this way? > > The aim of the authority is to do our best for the membership, not to > make up and follow parrot cries. Sure - that's probably the case; but what is missing is some kind of principle being followed. Jürgen > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 10:19:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7N0Iuo15993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:18:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7N0IoK15989 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:18:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g7M0hUA12072 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:43:30 +0100 Message-ID: <0KPsujAqsXZ9Ewyl@asimere.com> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 01:00:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many References: <200208222038.QAA09164@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200208222038.QAA09164@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200208222038.QAA09164@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> In article , Jeremy Rickard >> writes >> >Suppose I'm a 60% player. Then traditional matchpointing will give me >> >a score of 60% on average, whatever the size of the field. > >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> This is NOT true. > >Sorry, John. Jeremy is quite correct. David desJardins has a web >page that explains why: >http://www.desjardins.org/david/factor.txt > >> You will do better in smaller fields. In a two table 1 board event. The winning pair will score 100%. In a larger field he is less likely to so. David has argued well but, the flaw is that, a top which is a top across 13 tables is worth more than a top across three tables. If you score 60% in a 13 table field (187.2/156 ave) then you would score 61.53% (64/52) in a 3 table field, just because of the whole spread thing. At Ascherman you'd say you were a 59.23% player and that would be true independent of the size of field you play in. > >This is correct, but it's because the *variance* is higher, not >because the mean is. You are more likely to win from the smaller >field but also more likely to come last. *On average* your score >(in matchpoints) will be the same with factoring; this is NOT >true with Aschermann. > >Nevertheless, I believe Aschermann is a good method. It is a "rough >and ready" correction for the increased variance, despite its lack of >obvious mathematical justification. (Perhaps there is such a >justification, though, along the lines of the Stein's-paradox estimator >we have been discussing.) > >What started this thread was Marv's request for a similar sort of >correction for when part of the field plays fewer boards than the >rest. My first attempt was clearly wrong (as Jeremy showed), but >that doesn't mean the task is impossible. >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Aug 23 10:23:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7N0Mvi16005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:22:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7N0MqK16001 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:22:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g7M0lWA12098 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:47:32 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 01:05:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Completely off topic References: <1030055652.3d6566e4e9b3c@webmail.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <1030055652.3d6566e4e9b3c@webmail.mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <1030055652.3d6566e4e9b3c@webmail.mit.edu>, rwilley@mit.edu writes >Hi All > >I am scheduled to take a business trip to Britain in early January. >I was considering flying over early and potentially playing a bit of bridge. >Does anyone have any information regarding any special games that might take >place in/arround London in late December / early January? > >Ideally, I would love to get to play in the 24 hour marathon at the Young >Chelsea, however, I fear that the even is held in November. > The Marathon is out. The Year End congress takes place from 27th-30th Dec in London every Year. www.ebu.co.uk cheers john >Thanks >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Aug 23 10:57:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7N0uF316024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:56:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7N0uBK16020 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:56:11 +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 LAA14597 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:11:37 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:50:27 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:55:26 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 23/08/2002 10:50:02 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson wrote: [snip] >What happened in all of those cases is that the >team got an apology for the initial incorrect >ruling and heavy sanctions (player suspensions and >in one case refusal of entry to subsequent >tournaments) for failing to obey the instructions. >Even though those instructions were a consequence of >the clearly incorrect ruling. OK, let's look at a real-life extreme case which occurred at an Australian bridge club. The playing-TD ruled that Player A could never claim. The playing-TD ruled that she could forfeit the boards that she was due to play in her round against Player A, and then scored all those boards as Ave+ for herself. Who should receive the heavy sanctions, Player A or the playing-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 Aug 23 11:01:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7N11in16040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:01:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from websnail.mit.edu (WEBSNAIL.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.99]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7N11dK16036 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:01:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (from www@localhost) by websnail.mit.edu (8.9.3) id VAA07085; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:01:07 -0400 (EDT) From: rwilley@mit.edu Received: from dsc08.bsg-ma-4-198.rasserver.net ( [dsc08.bsg-ma-4-198.rasserver.net]) as user rwilley@MIT.EDU by webmail.mit.edu with HTTPS; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:01:07 -0400 Message-ID: <1030064467.3d658953a3279@webmail.mit.edu> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:01:07 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Completely off topic References: <1030055652.3d6566e4e9b3c@webmail.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.1-cvs X-Originating-IP: 206.216.118.198 X-Originating-Host: dsc08.bsg-ma-4-198.rasserver.net X-MIT-WebMail-Sender: X-MIT-WebMail-User-Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; MSN 6.1; MSNbDELL; MSNmen-us; MSNc11) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thanks very much for all the information regarding the Year End Congress On a related topic, would the following system be legal in either pairs or teams events? MOSCITO 1C = strong, artificial and forcing, ~ 15+ HCP 1D = ~ 9 - 14 HCP, 4+ Hearts, might have longer minor 1H = ~ 9 - 14 HCP, 4+ Spades, might have longer minor 1S = ~ 9 - 14 HCP, 4+ Diamonds, might have longer clubs 1N = Natural, ~ 12-14 HCP Might have 4 card major 2C = Natural, ~ 9 - 14 HCP, 6+ Clubs Might have 4 card major 2D = 4+ Diamonds, 4+ cards in either minor Preemptive (too weak for constructive opening) Could be 4432, denies 4441 or 5440 shape 2H = 4+ Hearts, 4+ Spades or 5+ Clubs Preemptive (too weak for constructive opening) Could be 4432, denies 4441 or 5440 shape 2S = 6+ Spades, single suited OR 4+ Spades and 5+ Clubs Preemptive (too weak for constructive opening) Denies 5440 shape 2N = Bad 3 level preempt in either minor 3m = Constructive, promises 2 of the top 3 honors -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 11:09:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7N19Eu16056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:09:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7N198K16052 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:09:09 +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 17i2wD-0004At-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 02:08:35 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 01:50:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical References: <010001c2435a$090d9d40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <6raAasEybRZ9EwxT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00ad01c24a1e$aa062940$1c981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00ad01c24a1e$aa062940$1c981e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> Marvin L. French writes >> >> >It's a matter of law, Ed, not regulation. >> > >> >ACBL Election to L40E: Both members of a partnership must employ the >same >> >system that shows on the convention card. >> >> That makes it a matter of regulation, not Law. It is a regulation >> made under L40E. >> >I have been under the impression that the ACBL "Elections" in the back of >the Laws are to be considered an integral part of the ACBL version of the >Laws, not merely regulations. > >For instance, the election that L12C3 does not apply in ACBL-land becomes >a matter of law, not a regulation. If I'm wrong, shoot me. You are wrong, but as you make clear it probably matters little. But ACBL elections are not the basic Laws. For example, the basic Law 12C3 makes it a Zonal option: the ACBL election is their method of exercising that Zonal option. >Whatever, my point is that the Election to L40E is in our version of the >Laws, and you don't have to look for it among the ACBL regulations. The >difference may seem insignificant, but by putting it in the Laws the >election must be followed by clubs, who are required to follow the Laws >even though they are granted leeway in regard to most regulations. > >Someone may now point out that I wrote about clubs having leeway in regard >to CC requirements. It's true, but not in regard to this requirement. Sure. But put it this way: suppose in 2003 the ACBL decided to [a] enable L12C3 and [b] permit partners to play different systems. Would this require a Law change? No, the ACBL can just change them, because [a] is a Zonal option and [b] is a regulation under L40E. If they want to change the Laws they need WBFLC approval. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 11:34:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7N1XtS16076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:33:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7N1XoK16072 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:33:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA24898 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:49:15 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:28:06 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:33:06 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 23/08/2002 11:27:40 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >I don't think the law supports a viable legal concept >of a "novice player", but it certainly does support the >concept of a "novice event", and most SOs have such >things. When we talk about applying the laws differently >for "novices", what we should mean, IMO, is applying the >law differently in events which are restricted to novices. [snip] I disagree. In Australia we have "No Fear" events. However, in these events the Laws still apply. The CoC merely prohibits most conventions, and also prohibits non-novices from entering. In Australia we also have "Supervised Play" events for recruits who have just completed beginners' classes. A beginner raises their hand when unsure of what to bid or play, and an expert supervisor advises them what to do and why to do it. But since the CoC of these "Supervised Play" events deliberately violates L16, by definition a "Supervised Play" event is *not* Duplicate Contract Bridge as defined in the Scope of the Laws. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 13:25:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7N3Ob716143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:24:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7N3OWK16139 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:24:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from user-33qtnl6.dialup.mindspring.com ([199.174.222.166] helo=mindspring.com) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17i53G-0006WS-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:23:58 -0400 Message-ID: <3D65AB25.8010402@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:25:25 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Conflicting AI and UI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I received the below from a correspondent; slight edits have been made. I offered to forward it to BLML; such offer was accepted. IMPS, MiniSpingolds (0-1500), All vul. (ACBL) Bidding goes: 1C - 1H - 2C - 2H P - P - 3C - P (a) P (b) - ? At point (a), there was a noticeable hesitation (around 20s. before passing). At point (b), player quickly asks "Can we agree there is a hesitation?" A hesitation is agreed by (a)'s partner. (b) quickly passes, looking relieved. Here's the question. Can (a)'s partner X based upon (b)'s table manner? At the table, I was (a)'s partner. I had a pass. I would have surely passed over partner's hesitation (though without the hesitation, I had an arguable double). However, based upon (b)'s nervousness, then obvious relief once partner had passed, I knew that (b) thought that they were going down. I did, in fact, pass. Suppose I had doubled, and they had gone down. What should the ruling be? [End correspondent's question] --JRM -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 14:33:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7N4Wj716180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:32:45 +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 g7N4WeK16176 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:32:41 +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 OAA06945 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:48:07 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:26:57 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:31:53 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 23/08/2002 02:26:30 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim wrote: >Powers granted under L40D are currently unrestricted. [snip] >If your SO wants to make the wearing of a pirate hat >and eyepatch a prerequisite for using Stayman it can >do that too. I agree that requiring a player to say, "Yo-ho-ho and a bottle of rum," before using Stayman is within an SO's powers. But I do not agree that the L40D powers are unrestricted. Surely an SO cannot *prohibit* the use of a non- conventional, natural, 2C response to 1NT. Therefore, an SO cannot *require* its members to adopt the Stayman convention. The limit of an SO's L40D powers vis-a-vis compulsory Stayman would be to regulate that *if* 2C is a conventional response to 1NT, *then* the convention must be 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 Fri Aug 23 15:56:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7N5snD16238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:54:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7N5siK16234 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:54:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA26477 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:10:11 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:49:01 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Conflicting AI and UI To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:53:56 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 23/08/2002 03:48:33 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] >At point (a), there was a noticeable hesitation (around 20s. >before passing). > >At point (b), player quickly asks "Can we agree there is a >hesitation?" A hesitation is agreed by (a)'s partner. (b) >quickly passes, looking relieved. > >Here's the question. Can (a)'s partner X based upon (b)'s >table manner? > >At the table, I was (a)'s partner. I had a pass. I would >have surely passed over partner's hesitation (though without >the hesitation, I had an arguable double). However, based >upon (b)'s nervousness, then obvious relief once partner had >passed, I knew that (b) thought that they were going down. I >did, in fact, pass. > >Suppose I had doubled, and they had gone down. What should >the ruling be? > >[End correspondent's question] > >--JRM L16 describes "mannerisms of opponents" as AI. Therefore, an opponent's nervousness can be used when choosing between legal calls. _However_, partner's UI has made Double an illegal call. Any subsequent AI does not change the illegal status of Double. So the opponent's look of relief is Lawfully justified. 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 Aug 23 16:56:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7N6tSL16292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:55:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7N6tNK16288 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:55:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id IAA25641; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:52:33 +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 IAA23373; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:54:48 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020823090140.00a64880@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:04:28 +0200 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical In-Reply-To: References: <00ad01c24a1e$aa062940$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <010001c2435a$090d9d40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <6raAasEybRZ9EwxT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00ad01c24a1e$aa062940$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:50 23/08/2002 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > You are wrong, but as you make clear it probably matters little. But >ACBL elections are not the basic Laws. > > For example, the basic Law 12C3 makes it a Zonal option: the ACBL >election is their method of exercising that Zonal option. AG : I would find it a good idea, if it was written in the Laws that any such option by any League has the same strength as any part of the Laws in the League's jurisdiction. > Sure. But put it this way: suppose in 2003 the ACBL decided to [a] >enable L12C3 and [b] permit partners to play different systems. Would >this require a Law change? > > No, the ACBL can just change them, because [a] is a Zonal option and >[b] is a regulation under L40E. If they want to change the Laws they >need WBFLC approval. AG : it would also be nice to specify that Laws that don't explicitly give an option don't. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 17:30:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7N7Tjp16318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 17:29:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7N7TdK16314 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 17:29:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7N7T6E18758 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:29:06 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:29 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play 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: <001301c24a08$9b88c1e0$5f9c68d5@SCRAP> > Nigel: I agree with Ron that an authority must publicly support its > representative official even when he makes an honest mistake in an > area within his jurisdiction. Why? Why not admit the mistake and offer an apology? Covering up official mistakes is just plain bad practice. If those mistakes are dishonest it is even worse. Even in football red/yellow cards can be withdrawn/awarded after the match if it is decided the referee's opinion at the time was wrong. > Unlike Tim, I feel that civil-disobedience is gross overkill. I agreed with Alain's term of passive resistance. I have no intention of rioting just because a TD gives an illegal instruction. > IMO, it is justified only on a serious issue, when other avenues of > protest are blocked. > e.g. freedom of speech or democratic recourse is curtailed. > For something as trivial as a game, it is a self-indulgence, I consider bridge slightly more important than Shankly considers football. It certainly affects my life more than the ability to cast a meaningless vote in a safe labour seat. > disrupting the game and spoiling the pleasure spectators and others. How on earth can playing normal bridge spoil the pleasure of spectators? When I let a TD impose the wrong movement on a multiple teams event it spoilt the whole thing for everyone - I think I was wrong to be obedient that time and I wouldn't let it happen again. 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 Aug 23 18:09:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7N88er16340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:08:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (syr-24-92-226-125.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7N88ZK16336 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:08:35 +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 g7N880C22633; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 04:08:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 04:04:22 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary To: "Marvin L. French" cc: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <003301c249fc$f44760e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 8/22/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >What do they mean? They are explained on page 10 of 15, How to Fill Out >the New Convention Card. You of all people should know that, Ed. I should? I didn't know I was supposed to memorize that thing. :-) >I assume this is in a club game, where club regs govern disclosure >requirements. Yeah, it's a club game. What club regs? The only regulation I know of is that when I asked the TD at one of the clubs if my partner and I were permitted to play Precision, he said "you can play anything you like." I haven't fully tested that (by, for example, trying to play a Forcing Pass system. :) >In a sectional or higher-rated game, the TD should tell them that, and >if it doesn't go over well they don't have to play. If I'm playing in a tournament I do my best to ensure both our cards are "substantially completed" and identical. 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 Aug 23 18:42:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7N8fdM16363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:41:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.172]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7N8fXK16359 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:41:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.92.198.123] (helo=mail17.svr.pol.co.uk) by cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17iA04-0005iH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:41:00 +0100 Received: from modem-57.belegaer.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.137.57] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail17.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17iA02-0007Dk-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:40:58 +0100 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA01367; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:42:32 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many References: <3D64BE56.50004@skynet.be> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 23 Aug 2002 09:39:57 +0100 In-Reply-To: Herman De Wael's message of "Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:35:02 +0200" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 136 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes: > > Let me put it a different way. > > > > For traditional matchpointing, if you ask each player who scores X > > what MP score they got, then on average the answer will be the same as > > the MP score that score X deserves. > > > > For Ascherman, if you ask each TD what MP score was assigned > > to score X in his section [and if he says that nobody got score X, you > > ask him to assign a MP score in the "obvious" way that Ascherman > > scoring allows], then on average the answer will be the same as the MP > > score that score X deserves. > > > > > you are correct, but you are using a word here "deserves", that is not > defined !!! But we both know what I mean: the percentage that score X would get in a very large field. This is not a point where we disagree. > >>There seems to be a difference of opinion about which question we should > >>be asking. :) > >> > > > > Maybe. But if you think about it, the second question is of no > > real interest to anybody. > > > > Suppose I'm a 60% player. Then traditional matchpointing will give me > > a score of 60% on average, whatever the size of the field. Ascherman > > will give me an average score of less than 60%, and how much less > > depends on the size of the field. Correct? > > > > > NO, because again you are starting with something undefined. What is > a 60% player ? In my opinion, a 60% player is one who would average > 60% over all his boards in his career - in an infinite field !!! Yes, that's what I mean too. > (or using Ascherman scoring). Not the same thing. > That player will not score less than 60% in a small field using > traditional scoring - he will score more than that !!!!!!! False for your first definition of a 60% player. True, of course, for your second. > > Or consider "Crazy Ascherman" scoring. It's the same as Ascherman > > scoring, except you assign a MP score of 1000000000% to any score that > > doesn't actually occur. The results will be *exactly* the same as with > > Ascherman scoring, of course, but you really screw up the quantity > > that is supposed to be the unbiased estimator of what score X > > deserves. Doesn't this indicate that it's silly to insist that this > > quantity should be an unbiased estimator? > > > > > Ascherman scoring is an unbiased estimator of Ascherman values. But > of course if you don't ascribe to Ascherman values the same worth as I > do, then it is just an unbiased estimator of something you don't want > etimated. And yes, I agree that Ascherman is NOT an unbiased > estimator of that quantity that you want estimated - but then that > does not concern me, because that quantity is unestimable anyway. Sorry, this is just confused. We're not trying to estimate different things; we're both (for the purpose, say, of assigning a matchpoint score to a player who scores +1430 on some board) trying to estimate what the percentage score for +1430 would be in a very large field. Where we differ is in what it is that we want to be an unbiased estimator of this quantity. Imagine a large field divided into small subfields, each scored independently. In traditional matchpointing, the score given to a player getting +1430 is an unbiased estimator. If I score +1430 then I can expect on average to get the "correct" percentage score. In Ascherman, the score given to +1430 in a subfield (unweighted by the number of players who actually get that score ... and including subfields where nobody gets that score) is an unbiased estimator. If you find out what the percentage score given to +1430 was in all the subfields and average them, then you'll get the "correct" percentage score. Suppose that making a slam for +1430 requires a level of skill that only one in a hundred declarers possess. So in a large field it would score 99.5%. (Ignoring just for simplicity the occasional larger score.) One of these skillful declarers is a little disappointed with his (Ascherman) score of 95%, in a field of 10 tables: "I thought +1430 deserved more than that." "Yes, you're right. It deserved 99.5%." "So why did I only get 95%?" "Well, in a small field there are bound to be random fluctuations. But it all works out in the long run." "So I was just unlucky? Some of the declarers in other fields who made the slam got more than 99.5%?" "Um, no. They all got less. In fact, a few were in fields where more than one person made the slam, and they scored even worse than you." "So what do you mean by it working out in the long run?" "Well, in an average field, making the slam scored 99.5%, because we gave it 100% in all the fields where nobody made it." "Ah! So I was just unlucky to be in a field containing such a brilliant player as myself!" "Yes. Actually, you're lucky you weren't here last year. We had a rogue scorer who gave 0% in each field to all the scores that didn't occur there. That would have reduced the average score for +1430 to about 10%! Then you'd really have had a grievance! And would you believe it? Despite the fact that it made huge differences like that, giving an average of 10% instead of 99.5% to some scores, nobody even noticed until he confessed a few months later!" Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 19:45:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7N9ijo16400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:44:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from c3po.skynet.be (c3po.skynet.be [195.238.3.237]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7N9icK16396 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:44:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (145.185-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.185.145]) by c3po.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7N9hw315515 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:43:58 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D6603E5.8040708@skynet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:44:05 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many References: <3D64BE56.50004@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 Jeremy Rickard wrote: > Herman De Wael writes: > > >> >>you are correct, but you are using a word here "deserves", that is not >>defined !!! >> > > But we both know what I mean: the percentage that score X would get > in a very large field. This is not a point where we disagree. > > If you say so. >>> >> >>NO, because again you are starting with something undefined. What is >>a 60% player ? In my opinion, a 60% player is one who would average >>60% over all his boards in his career - in an infinite field !!! >> > > Yes, that's what I mean too. > OK, we agree. > >>(or using Ascherman scoring). >> > > Not the same thing. > apparently you are not completely familiar with Ascherman scoring. I maintain that this is the same thing. > >>That player will not score less than 60% in a small field using >>traditional scoring - he will score more than that !!!!!!! >> > > False for your first definition of a 60% player. True, of course, for > your second. > Wrong. If one scores 60% in an infinite field, that is translated (by Neuberg) to more than 60% in traditional scoring. >> > > Sorry, this is just confused. We're not trying to estimate different > things; we're both (for the purpose, say, of assigning a matchpoint > score to a player who scores +1430 on some board) trying to estimate > what the percentage score for +1430 would be in a very large field. > Indeed - and that is either in Ascherman or Neuberg a particular formula > Where we differ is in what it is that we want to be an unbiased > estimator of this quantity. > > Imagine a large field divided into small subfields, each scored > independently. > > In traditional matchpointing, the score given to a player getting > +1430 is an unbiased estimator. If I score +1430 then I can expect on > average to get the "correct" percentage score. > > In Ascherman, the score given to +1430 in a subfield (unweighted by > the number of players who actually get that score ... and including > subfields where nobody gets that score) is an unbiased estimator. If > you find out what the percentage score given to +1430 was in all the > subfields and average them, then you'll get the "correct" percentage > score. > > Suppose that making a slam for +1430 requires a level of skill that > only one in a hundred declarers possess. So in a large field it would > score 99.5%. (Ignoring just for simplicity the occasional larger > score.) > > One of these skillful declarers is a little disappointed with his > (Ascherman) score of 95%, in a field of 10 tables: > > "I thought +1430 deserved more than that." > > "Yes, you're right. It deserved 99.5%." > > "So why did I only get 95%?" > > "Well, in a small field there are bound to be random fluctuations. But > it all works out in the long run." > > "So I was just unlucky? Some of the declarers in other fields who made > the slam got more than 99.5%?" > > "Um, no. They all got less. In fact, a few were in fields where more > than one person made the slam, and they scored even worse than you." > > "So what do you mean by it working out in the long run?" > > "Well, in an average field, making the slam scored 99.5%, because we > gave it 100% in all the fields where nobody made it." > > "Ah! So I was just unlucky to be in a field containing such a > brilliant player as myself!" > > "Yes. Actually, you're lucky you weren't here last year. We had a > rogue scorer who gave 0% in each field to all the scores that didn't > occur there. That would have reduced the average score for +1430 to > about 10%! Then you'd really have had a grievance! And would you > believe it? Despite the fact that it made huge differences like that, > giving an average of 10% instead of 99.5% to some scores, nobody even > noticed until he confessed a few months later!" > > Jeremy. > Yes Jeremy, but you are forgetting two things. First, you keep talking about tops. I know that this is easier, but it also makes it harder to understand that there are two ways going. If you would be talking about the 75% score, it would be easier to see that sometimes it works the other way as well. And also, you keep talking about 1 board. If there are more boards, you also get the opposite effect. If on the next board, 20% of the players would score +1430, and you are alone in your subset of 10, then you score 95% instead of 80%. That is the compensation you are looking for. Believe me, I have worked it out. It is impossible to say, from one set of 10 scores, whether the top score would occur in an infinite field 10% of the time, or 1%, or 20%. But on average, it will be occuring 10%, and 95% of MP is a true unbiased estimator of the "infinite score" for this occurence. That last bit was worked out using mathematics over and above my abilities by people I trust. > -- 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 Aug 23 19:51:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7N9oxc16412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:50:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7N9orK16408 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:50:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (145.185-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.185.145]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7N9oBo05534 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:50:11 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D660554.8050900@skynet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:50:12 +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] one board too many References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020822143250.00a8cde0@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 Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > I don't think Ascherman has anything to do with Stein's paradox, no. > The "Stein shrinking factor" depends on the variance (the smaller the > variance, the smaller the shrinking factor), but the "Ascherman > shrinking factor" is independent of the variance (an average score of > 60% will be "shrunk" towards 50% by the same factor -- depending only > on the number of scores on the traveller -- whether it's the average > over 2 boards or 20). > No Jeremy, not if the 60% is the one I am talking of - and the one which you say is the same one you are talking of - the infinite field one. The Ascherman score of an infinite occurence of 60% will tend to be 60% regardless of the size of the field. What you need to do is this : Take some two values of A and B, such that A+B/2 is 40%. Say that A% of all scores will be over +420, and B% of all scores will be exactly +420. Take a random example of n scores, and make a draw using those percentages. Then calculate the score for +420 using Ascherman scoring. Average those scores. You will reach 60%. (of course is some cases you will find 0 scores of +420 in your sample) I allow you to count these (with the score equal to the middle between the other scores) or not, and to weigh or not. Still I believe you will reach 60%, regardless of the size of n. > [I'm not a specialist of statistics, although I am a > mathematician. But I did once get interested in Stein's paradox and > talked about it with some of my statistical colleagues.] > > Jeremy. > > -- 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 Aug 23 19:56:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7N9tw316425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:55:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7N9tqK16421 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:55:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (145.185-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.185.145]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7N9svf05235 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:54:57 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D660678.20907@skynet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:55:04 +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] one board too many References: <5.1.1.6.0.20020822193159.01ba6ea8@mail.comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David J. Grabiner wrote: > At 06:35 AM 8/22/2002, Herman de Wael wrote: > >> Jeremy wrote: > >> >> NO, because again you are starting with something undefined. What is >> a 60% player ? In my opinion, a 60% player is one who would average >> 60% over all his boards in his career - in an infinite field !!! >> (or using Ascherman scoring). That player will not score less than >> 60% in a small field using traditional scoring - he will score more >> than that !!!!!!! > > > This is not correct; he will expect to get a 60% score in any field. > For simplicity, assume that there are no ties and every board is scored > uniformly on scale of 0-1. The 60% player will average 0.6 per board, > and a score of 0.6 will beat 60% of all random pairs. > Sorry David, that is simply not true. Not if you define a 60% player as one who would score 60% in an infinite field. If you define a 60% player as one who would score an average of 6MP in a 6-table field (top 10MP) then that is a different definition. It is what I would call a 58.33% player (7/12). > However, he is more likely to score 65% with conventional scoring in a > small field than in a large field, and *that* is what Ascherman > compensates for. A score of 0.6 on a board has a 1/60 chance of being a > 100% board if there are eight comparisons, but it will almost never be > even a 70% board in a huge field. > NO: Ascherman compensated for the fact that a 60% player will score on average 6.2 MP in a 6-table field - giving him actually 62%. Of course this all depends on what we define by a 60% player - but since we are using different definitions to start with - no use argueing about the statements that we make about 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/ > > -- 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 Aug 23 20:39:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7NAdFW16472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 20:39:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7NAd3K16461 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 20:39:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7NAcUP23523 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:38:30 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:38 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Conflicting AI and UI 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: > _However_, partner's UI has made Double an illegal call. Technically the UI has suggested that double would be successful and one must carefully avoid taking advantage of that UI. This will normally be judged on the basis of whether a percentage of your peers might take such an action. > Any subsequent AI does not change the illegal status of Double. The subsequent AI* (opp has basically said "you haven't doubled and you can't -thank the lord") would certainly change the percentage of my peers that would double (from say 30% to about 99%). I am pretty sure that AI may be used regardless of whether it is received before or after the UI. * I am rather less sure that the opponent reaction is AI. It seems to me that since it arises primarily from a tempo break by my own side it might be UI. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 20:39:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7NAd8G16468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 20:39:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7NAcvK16450 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 20:38:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7NAcOu23374 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:38:24 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:38 +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: > >An application to play a natural bid that has been part of normal Acol > for >generations - wow! Even worse what is actually needed given the > way the >system operates is multiple applications (one each for > Blackwood, fsf, >splinters, shortage cues, GSF). > > You do like to be annoying, don't you? If anyone does not realise, > Tim is not telling the truth, and I suspect he knows it, by talking > about multiple applications. David, the EBU website reads: If you wish to apply to the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee for approval of any convention which is not currently permitted, send one copy to the Secretary of the Committee, together with a fee of £12. This is payable for all submissions considered, whether they are approved or not. Light openers are not conventional (and are already permitted, it's the other conventions that are currently disallowed in conjunction)- so I didn't imagine I could apply to play them directly. Reading the above I assumed "one convention per application" (the use of the singular made me think so)- you may consider that terminally stupid on my part but surely it is a reasonable (and perhaps majority) interpretation. Are you telling me I can make a single application to play all conventions permitted over normal openers over light ones? > >Instead I would ask that the EBU drop the Ro19/18 regulation, or at > least >restrict it to conventions that are fundamentally supportive of > the light >opening approach (such as Drury). > > You are all talk, aren't you? Moan, moan, grizzle. Why not put in > such an application? > Simple: because it might succeed, and you would have less to complain > about. And it might fail and I have lost £12 (or as I originally thought £60+) pointlessly. Oh yes, and when I give examples of the sort of hands I want to open you tell me that "commonsense and judgement apply" and I can open them anyway. This is certainly consistent with the way many people play 3rd hand openings with apparent EBU approval. I am coming to believe that the EBU already approves both light 3rd hand openers and non Ro19 openers of sufficient playing strength and that it is just that the regulations do not reflect the opportunity to apply such judgements. I thus suspect I would not be "applying" for anything to change (except for the clarity of the regulation itself). > I no longer believe that you actually want the game to improve in > England: you are beginning to sound like someone who just likes to > tease. Your belief is wrong. 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 Aug 23 20:39:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7NAdAp16469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 20:39:10 +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 g7NAcwK16451 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 20:38:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7NAcPh23396 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:38:25 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:38 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play 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: > The thing that I find so strange about this thread is that, despite > about 100 million bits of evidence the other way, you and others are > assuming that when a player thinks an official has got it wrong it is > the official who has got it wrong. No such assumptions were made by me. I have been putting forward views on what players may choose to do when the official *has* got it wrong. > Of course, on some rare occasions, it is the official. And these are the *only* cases of interest to this argument. Do we believe that players should be punished for disobeying an official in the rare case the official was wrong. > But in the vast majority of cases it is not: it is the player. And I have never objected to a player who objects in such circumstances being subjected to further penalty. 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 Aug 23 20:39:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7NAdEs16471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 20:39:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7NAd2K16459 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 20:39:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7NAcTY23486 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:38:29 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:38 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: Richard wrote: > Tim wrote: > > >Powers granted under L40D are currently unrestricted. [snip] > But I do not agree that the L40D powers are > unrestricted. Take it with Grattan/WBFLC, that is their official policy - I merely believe that they *should* not be. > Surely an SO cannot *prohibit* the use of a non- > conventional, natural, 2C response to 1NT. > > Therefore, an SO cannot *require* its members to > adopt the Stayman convention. > > The limit of an SO's L40D powers vis-a-vis compulsory > Stayman would be to regulate that *if* 2C is a > conventional response to 1NT, *then* the convention > must be Stayman. The regulation could read "2C response to 1N, this bid must be used as Stayman - it may not be psyched". This is relatively mild use of the unrestricted power SOs have been given. 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 Aug 23 21:06:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7NB63d16514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 21:06:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7NB5vK16510 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 21:05:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7NB5OJ13790 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:05:24 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:05 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many 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: <3D6603E5.8040708@skynet.be> Herman wrote: > Wrong. If one scores 60% in an infinite field, that is translated (by > Neuberg) to more than 60% in traditional scoring. Yes but how many masterpoints will I win. I think the EBU figure is something like 75+SQRT(No. pairs-100) which should more than meet my needs. I doubt the final figure will be significantly affected by the scoring method chosen. 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 Aug 23 21:42:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7NBg8B16540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 21:42:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7NBg2K16536 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 21:42:03 +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 NAA21332; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:39:13 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA14829; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:41:28 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020823134648.00a6e520@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:51:08 +0200 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Conflicting AI and UI 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 11:38 23/08/2002 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: >Richard Hills wrote: > > > _However_, partner's UI has made Double an illegal call. > >Technically the UI has suggested that double would be successful and one >must carefully avoid taking advantage of that UI. This will normally be >judged on the basis of whether a percentage of your peers might take such >an action. > > > Any subsequent AI does not change the illegal status of Double. > >The subsequent AI* (opp has basically said "you haven't doubled and >you can't -thank the lord") would certainly change the percentage of my >peers that would double (from say 30% to about 99%). I am pretty sure >that AI may be used regardless of whether it is received before or after >the UI. AG : while it is easy to agree on this (I have always felt that table feel was more important than partner's bids and carding, let alone mannerisms), isn't it a teeny weeny bit dangerous ? Suppose North hesitates before passing, and East (wrongly) tells South he is barred, as so often happens. Now South will call the TD, get the relevant ruling, and bid on marginal values, because "East's attitudes gave me the information that he wanted me not to bid, so it was natural to bid". Too easy ... -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 23 22:20:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7NCKIx16642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 22:20:18 +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 g7NCKAK16638 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 22:20:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.18] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #6) id 17iDPe-0000bi-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:19:38 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020823081621.00b18ea0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:22:58 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:31 AM 8/23/02, richard.hills wrote: >Tim wrote: > > >Powers granted under L40D are currently unrestricted. > >[snip] > > >If your SO wants to make the wearing of a pirate hat > >and eyepatch a prerequisite for using Stayman it can > >do that too. > >I agree that requiring a player to say, "Yo-ho-ho and >a bottle of rum," before using Stayman is within an >SO's powers. > >But I do not agree that the L40D powers are >unrestricted. > >Surely an SO cannot *prohibit* the use of a non- >conventional, natural, 2C response to 1NT. > >Therefore, an SO cannot *require* its members to >adopt the Stayman convention. > >The limit of an SO's L40D powers vis-a-vis compulsory >Stayman would be to regulate that *if* 2C is a >conventional response to 1NT, *then* the convention >must be Stayman. That's far from the limit of what an SO can do under the current WBF interpretation. We know for certain that it would be legal for them to make a regulation that says that a partnership that does not play a 2C response to 1NT as Stayman may not use any conventions whatsoever in any auction. 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 Aug 23 22:44:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7NChrd16670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 22:43:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7NChiK16666 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 22:43:45 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2) id g7NCh7P18414 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:43:07 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:43 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Conflicting AI and UI 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: <5.1.0.14.0.20020823134648.00a6e520@pop.ulb.ac.be> Alain wrote: > >The subsequent AI* (opp has basically said "you haven't doubled and > >you can't -thank the lord") would certainly change the percentage of my > >peers that would double (from say 30% to about 99%). I am pretty sure > >that AI may be used regardless of whether it is received before or > after > >the UI. > > AG : while it is easy to agree on this (I have always felt that table > feel was more important than partner's bids and carding, let alone > mannerisms), isn't it a teeny weeny bit dangerous? Perhaps. But is not the case that if something an opponent does before an opponent hesitates makes a double the "stand out action" it is still a stand out action after a hesitation. Also if partner hesitates (showing extras) and later gets an opportunity and shows extras legitimately we can still use that information. > Suppose North hesitates before passing, and East (wrongly) tells South > he is barred, as so often happens. Now South will call the TD, get the > relevant ruling, and bid on marginal values, because "East's attitudes > gave me the information that he wanted me not to bid, so it was natural > to bid". Too easy ... Agreed. That's why I feel that information coming from opponents after my side has caused a problem, and directly in relation to that problem, shouldn't be AI - South is quite right in saying that East has made it completely obvious that pass is losing option, my peers are well capable of detecting such subtle inferences. Another situation is if my partner gives an inadequate explanation causing an opponent to reveal something of his hand to me when he questions it further I don't feel comfortable treating that as AI either (this is more obvious to me because partner has actually committed an infraction, unlike the tempo break situation). 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 Aug 24 00:08:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7NE85r16703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:08:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7NE80K16699 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:08:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by system.wewnetrzny9 (Mailserver) with SMTP id 1F916689A for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:07:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 2E9085DE0; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:53:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id C3DC05DAB for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:53:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <004501c24aac$9c0181d0$727e870a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Conflicting AI and UI Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:47:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 142be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" > Agreed. That's why I feel that information coming from opponents after my > side has caused a problem, and directly in relation to that problem, > shouldn't be AI - South is quite right in saying that East has made it > completely obvious that pass is losing option, my peers are well capable > of detecting such subtle inferences. So it looks that next time your partner hesitates & passes all you have to do is say that your opponents looked very much relieved or took a deep breath or whatever. I am with Alain on this one: this approach is very dangerous. I don't buy the argument that "the Laws are not for villains" or "very few people play bridge with the intention of cheating". Sure, but with this approach those who do have a tremendous edge over the rest. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mam dla Ciebie propozycje... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f163d -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 24 00:12:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7NECkp16732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:12:46 +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-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 g7NECXK16718 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:12:34 +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 17iFAM-000E9x-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:12:00 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 02:40:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Completely off topic References: <1030055652.3d6566e4e9b3c@webmail.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <1030055652.3d6566e4e9b3c@webmail.mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk writes >Hi All > >I am scheduled to take a business trip to Britain in early January. >I was considering flying over early and potentially playing a bit of bridge. >Does anyone have any information regarding any special games that might take >place in/arround London in late December / early January? The Year End Congress is held in London every year on 27th through 30th December. No idea about partners though: the EBU does not have a partnership desk for this type of event, and I am probably directing throughout. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 24 00:12:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7NECka16731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:12:46 +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-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 g7NECXK16719 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:12:34 +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 17iFAM-000E9y-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:12:00 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 02:45:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Completely off topic References: <1030055652.3d6566e4e9b3c@webmail.mit.edu> <1030064467.3d658953a3279@webmail.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <1030064467.3d658953a3279@webmail.mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk writes >Thanks very much for all the information regarding the Year End Congress > >On a related topic, would the following system be legal in either pairs or >teams events? The simple answer is No, though they would let you play it at the YC. It might not need too much tweaking to make it legal, though. If you were to play in the Year End, the Championship Pairs is Level 4, the others [Mixed Pairs, Mens Pairs, Swiss Teams] are Level 3. >MOSCITO > >1C = strong, artificial and forcing, ~ 15+ HCP You would have to make this 16+ at either L3 or L4. >1D = ~ 9 - 14 HCP, 4+ Hearts, might have longer minor > >1H = ~ 9 - 14 HCP, 4+ Spades, might have longer minor > >1S = ~ 9 - 14 HCP, 4+ Diamonds, might have longer clubs All of these are OK subject to Rule of 19 [L3] or Rule of 18 [L4]. >1N = Natural, ~ 12-14 HCP > Might have 4 card major > >2C = Natural, ~ 9 - 14 HCP, 6+ Clubs > Might have 4 card major > >2D = 4+ Diamonds, 4+ cards in either minor > Preemptive (too weak for constructive opening) > Could be 4432, denies 4441 or 5440 shape > >2H = 4+ Hearts, 4+ Spades or 5+ Clubs > Preemptive (too weak for constructive opening) > Could be 4432, denies 4441 or 5440 shape > >2S = 6+ Spades, single suited OR > 4+ Spades and 5+ Clubs > Preemptive (too weak for constructive opening) > Denies 5440 shape All of these are ok. >2N = Bad 3 level preempt in either minor This is OK at L4, but only both minors or natural is permitted at L3. >3m = Constructive, promises 2 of the top 3 honors OK. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 24 00:12:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7NECkk16730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:12:46 +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-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 g7NECXK16720 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:12:34 +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 17iFAM-000E9z-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:12:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 02:49:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Rule of 19,18,15 etc References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g7NECbK16723 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jürgen Rennenkampff writes >I wrote [goodness, I hate Outlook Express: it makes quoting so difficult and time-consuming: please everyone, get decent mail software] >> Nigel Guthrie writes >> >> >Nigel: >> > David's example is the first that I have heard of where a "Rule of N" >> > has been enforced. In another thread, David suggests that we apply >> > to the Laws committee for relaxation to the rule in third seat. >> > Why not just scrap the rule altogether, as Richard suggests. >> > For example 1N showing 9-11 flat is a natural bid: >> > -- it describes your values... >> > -- it is playable opposite an average hand, and... >> > -- if all pass and you are left to play, you are usually quite happy. >> > Contrast authority's ban on this completely natural bid with their >> > promotion of artificialities like Lebensohl, Ghestem, and so on. >> >> What is the contrast for? Why compare this way? >> >> The aim of the authority is to do our best for the membership, not to >> make up and follow parrot cries. > >Sure - that's probably the case; but what is missing is some kind of >principle being followed. Excuse me? Of course there is a principle being followed: it is more important to do what is right for the membership: that's the principle. What principle do you want us to follow, might I enquire? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 24 02:04:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7NG3cT16794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 02:03:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout11.sul.t-online.com (mailout11.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7NG3XK16790 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 02:03:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd02.sul.t-online.de by mailout11.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17iGtm-0007vJ-03; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:02:58 +0200 Received: from jurgenr (520085598528-0001@[80.128.51.42]) by fwd02.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17iGtY-10vzzkC; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:02:44 +0200 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) To: "Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Rule of 19,18,15 etc Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:02:36 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal X-Sender: 520085598528-0001@t-dialin.net 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 David Stevenson > Sent: Freitag, 23. August 2002 03:49 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] Rule of 19,18,15 etc > > > >> > >> The aim of the authority is to do our best for the membership, not to > >> make up and follow parrot cries. > > > >Sure - that's probably the case; but what is missing is some kind of > >principle being followed. > > Excuse me? > > Of course there is a principle being followed: it is more important to > do what is right for the membership: that's the principle. > > What principle do you want us to follow, might I enquire? What my personal preference is doesn't matter at all. However, it would be pleasant if the authorities, who make the rules that restrict the meaning of bids, did so in a consistent and rational manner. The principle you state doesn't allow anyone to deduce what is and what is not allowed. I am not arguing for or against any particular rule. Jürgen > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 24 03:42:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7NHfXe16865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 03:41:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7NHfSK16861 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 03:41:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7NHetI08334 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:40:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007c01c24acc$1a47eba0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <010001c2435a$090d9d40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <6raAasEybRZ9EwxT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00ad01c24a1e$aa062940$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Legal but unethical Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:18:16 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" < > Marvin L. French writes > >From: "David Stevenson" > >> Marvin L. French writes > >> > >> >It's a matter of law, Ed, not regulation. > >> > > >> >ACBL Election to L40E: Both members of a partnership must employ the > >same > >> >system that shows on the convention card. > >> > >> That makes it a matter of regulation, not Law. It is a regulation > >> made under L40E. > >> > >I have been under the impression that the ACBL "Elections" in the back of > >the Laws are to be considered an integral part of the ACBL version of the > >Laws, not merely regulations. > > > >For instance, the election that L12C3 does not apply in ACBL-land becomes > >a matter of law, not a regulation. If I'm wrong, shoot me. > > You are wrong, but as you make clear it probably matters little. But > ACBL elections are not the basic Laws. > > For example, the basic Law 12C3 makes it a Zonal option: the ACBL > election is their method of exercising that Zonal option. > > >Whatever, my point is that the Election to L40E is in our version of the > >Laws, and you don't have to look for it among the ACBL regulations. The > >difference may seem insignificant, but by putting it in the Laws the > >election must be followed by clubs, who are required to follow the Laws > >even though they are granted leeway in regard to most regulations. > > > >Someone may now point out that I wrote about clubs having leeway in regard > >to CC requirements. It's true, but not in regard to this requirement. > > Sure. But put it this way: suppose in 2003 the ACBL decided to [a] > enable L12C3 and [b] permit partners to play different systems. Would > this require a Law change? > > No, the ACBL can just change them, because [a] is a Zonal option and > [b] is a regulation under L40E. If they want to change the Laws they > need WBFLC approval. > And they have that approval, which is included in the Laws. This is quibbling, let's stop right here. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 24 05:04:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7NJ3gf16899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 05:03:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7NJ3bK16895 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 05:03:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.2]) by splat.mosquitonet.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g7NJ6Z531675 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:06:35 -0800 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:59:43 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] An online Laws question Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As most of you are aware, Law 25 is the same in the code of laws for online bridge as it is the the standard FLB. Some online sites have chosen to ignore this, and in general prohibit all changes of call. At Swan Games (partly because of my constant prodding of the management) we are attempting to follow the laws as much as we are able. Here is a puzzle for you: The bidding starts, pass, pass, pass. The person in fourth seat has been dealt a strong 2C opening, but misclicks on Pass. (Yes, on Swan this is quite an easy mistake to make: the bidding-box is laid out like this: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 C D H S NT Pass X XX Bid Bid&Alert and to bid you click on "2", "C", "Bid"; to pass you click "Pass", "Bid." If your mouse is slightly misaimed you can easily click "2", "C", "Pass"-oops, I better move the mouse a little, nothing happened-"Bid".) L25A: I am allowed an immediate correction. L17E: The auction period ends when all four players pass. In face-to-face bridge, a passout-seat misbid ought to be rare, but would also be fairly easily correctible. In online bridge, the board becomes unplayable the instant the last pass is made since all four hands are exposed and the next hand is dealt. Do you say to the holder of the 2C hand, "tough cheese", or do you assign A+/A- (he is at fault for having been sloppy), or A+/A+ (the software caused the problem and the player still has all his rights)? For that matter... if this happen in face-to-face bridge, would you say "OK, let's fix it" or "sorry, the auction period is over, can't help you"? 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 Aug 24 06:09:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7NK8eU16931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 06:08:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail50.fg.online.no (mail50-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7NK8YK16927 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 06:08:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-2130.bb.online.no [80.212.216.82]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA01043 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 22:07:54 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004701c24ae0$c5678220$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] An online Laws question Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 22:07:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Let me answer your last question first: If a thing like this happened in ordinary bridge, and when summoned to the table I become convinced from the description on what happened that there was a "slip of the tongue" (or "slip of the hand" when using bid boxes) I have no problem using Law 25a allowing him to withdraw his pass and make another call. So what about online bridge? (Assuming no relevant changes to the regular Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge has been announced) I am very surprised that the software accepts the sequence 2 C Pass Bid, and my immediate reaction is that this is an error in the software user interface. Several alternatives in the user interface is possible: - The user should be able to "cancel" any part of a call in progress, for instance by clicking a backspace (or cancel) button. - When a conflict in the call is detected (like when pass is attempted after 2 c) the software should request a validation of the user intent before allowing Bid to be selected. - And of course, at all times until selecting Bid the software should clearly indicate what call the user is about to prepare. My ruling would be here: If I judge that the software prevents the user his right to apply Law 25A I rule Law 82C: Director's error which probably means A+ both ways. If I judge that the software provides sufficient possibility for the user to exercise his privileges under Law 25a I rule an all pass game. Note that my judgement does not depend upon the layout of the various items to be selected when you build a call, but on the procedures followed by the software to avoid obvious user errors, i.e. when an illegal call is attempted built. What happens if you press X or XX in situations where these calls are illegal or when you have already pressed a number and possibly a denomination? Or what happens if you press a denomination without first pressing a number? regards Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 8:59 PM Subject: [BLML] An online Laws question > > As most of you are aware, Law 25 is the same in the code of laws for > online bridge as it is the the standard FLB. > > Some online sites have chosen to ignore this, and in general prohibit all > changes of call. At Swan Games (partly because of my constant prodding of > the management) we are attempting to follow the laws as much as we are > able. > > Here is a puzzle for you: > > The bidding starts, pass, pass, pass. The person in fourth seat has been > dealt a strong 2C opening, but misclicks on Pass. (Yes, on Swan this is > quite an easy mistake to make: the bidding-box is laid out like this: > > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > C D H S NT > Pass X XX > Bid Bid&Alert > > and to bid you click on "2", "C", "Bid"; to pass you click "Pass", > "Bid." If your mouse is slightly misaimed you can easily click "2", "C", > "Pass"-oops, I better move the mouse a little, nothing happened-"Bid".) > > L25A: I am allowed an immediate correction. > L17E: The auction period ends when all four players pass. > > In face-to-face bridge, a passout-seat misbid ought to be rare, but would > also be fairly easily correctible. In online bridge, the board becomes > unplayable the instant the last pass is made since all four hands are > exposed and the next hand is dealt. > > Do you say to the holder of the 2C hand, "tough cheese", or do you assign > A+/A- (he is at fault for having been sloppy), or A+/A+ (the software > caused the problem and the player still has all his rights)? > > For that matter... if this happen in face-to-face bridge, would you say > "OK, let's fix it" or "sorry, the auction period is over, can't help you"? > > 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 Aug 24 06:22:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7NKMi616948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 06:22:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7NKMdK16944 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 06:22:40 +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 g7NKPc501743 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:25:38 -0800 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:18:46 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] An online Laws question In-Reply-To: <004701c24ae0$c5678220$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, Sven Pran wrote: > > I am very surprised that the software accepts the sequence > 2 C Pass Bid, and my immediate reaction is that this is an > error in the software user interface. What happens is that when you click on a number, a suit, pass, double, etc, your choice is highlighted on your own screen and overrides your previous choices - radio buttons, essentially. Clicking on Pass un-highlights 2 Clubs and lights up Pass. When you click Bid, whatever is highlighted is transmitted to the server. Normally this works well, but unfortunately reflexes are such that an accidental pass is a common mistake - perhaps the most common one. Choices that are impossible (1 after the bidding is already at the 2-level, doubles when your side is declaring, etc) are ghosted. > - And of course, at all times until selecting Bid the software > should clearly indicate what call the user is about to prepare. It does. The snag is just that if you "click bid and nothing happens", you might not look to see if 2C is still highlighted or if you have activated the Pass button. 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 Aug 24 07:11:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7NLB0116978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 07:11:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail46.fg.online.no (mail46-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7NLAsK16974 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 07:10:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-0672.bb.online.no [80.212.210.160]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA21075 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 23:10:13 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <005101c24ae9$79e1ed00$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] An online Laws question Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 23:10:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Gordon Bower" > On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > I am very surprised that the software accepts the sequence > > 2 C Pass Bid, and my immediate reaction is that this is an > > error in the software user interface. > > What happens is that when you click on a number, a suit, pass, double, > etc, your choice is highlighted on your own screen and overrides your > previous choices - radio buttons, essentially. Clicking on Pass > un-highlights 2 Clubs and lights up Pass. When you click Bid, whatever is > highlighted is transmitted to the server. > > Normally this works well, but unfortunately reflexes are such that an > accidental pass is a common mistake - perhaps the most common one. > > Choices that are impossible (1 after the bidding is already at the > 2-level, doubles when your side is declaring, etc) are ghosted. > > > - And of course, at all times until selecting Bid the software > > should clearly indicate what call the user is about to prepare. > > It does. The snag is just that if you "click bid and nothing happens", you > might not look to see if 2C is still highlighted or if you have activated > the Pass button. Which means that you are denied your rights to correct under Law 25A It is (by your own words) too easy to make a mistake, especially with an unintentional pass. My ruling is A+/A+ Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 24 09:14:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7NND6I17040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:13:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7NNCtK17027 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:12:55 +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 17iNbC-0001QP-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:12:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:49:03 +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: >DWS wrote: >> >An application to play a natural bid that has been part of normal Acol >> for >generations - wow! Even worse what is actually needed given the >> way the >system operates is multiple applications (one each for >> Blackwood, fsf, >splinters, shortage cues, GSF). >> >> You do like to be annoying, don't you? If anyone does not realise, >> Tim is not telling the truth, and I suspect he knows it, by talking >> about multiple applications. > >David, the EBU website reads: > >If you wish to apply to the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee for approval of >any convention which is not currently permitted, send one copy to the >Secretary of the Committee, together with a fee of 12. This is payable >for all submissions considered, whether they are approved or not. > >Light openers are not conventional (and are already permitted, it's the >other conventions that are currently disallowed in conjunction)- so I >didn't imagine I could apply to play them directly. Reading the above I >assumed "one convention per application" (the use of the singular made me >think so)- you may consider that terminally stupid on my part but surely >it is a reasonable (and perhaps majority) interpretation. Are you telling >me I can make a single application to play all conventions permitted over >normal openers over light ones? I am telling you that you can apply to play light openers and that is a single application, despite your wordgames. >> >Instead I would ask that the EBU drop the Ro19/18 regulation, or at >> least >restrict it to conventions that are fundamentally supportive of >> the light >opening approach (such as Drury). >> >> You are all talk, aren't you? Moan, moan, grizzle. Why not put in >> such an application? >> Simple: because it might succeed, and you would have less to complain >> about. > >And it might fail and I have lost 12 (or as I originally thought 60+) >pointlessly. Oh yes, and when I give examples of the sort of hands I want >to open you tell me that "commonsense and judgement apply" and I can open >them anyway. This is certainly consistent with the way many people play >3rd hand openings with apparent EBU approval. > >I am coming to believe that the EBU already approves both light 3rd hand >openers and non Ro19 openers of sufficient playing strength and that it is >just that the regulations do not reflect the opportunity to apply such >judgements. You know that that is untrue. >I thus suspect I would not be "applying" for anything to change (except >for the clarity of the regulation itself). > >> I no longer believe that you actually want the game to improve in >> England: you are beginning to sound like someone who just likes to >> tease. > >Your belief is wrong. The evidence is getting stronger. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 24 09:14:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7NND7c17041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:13:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7NNCtK17028 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:12:55 +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 17iNbC-0001QQ-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:12:21 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:52:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Conflicting AI and UI References: <3D65AB25.8010402@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3D65AB25.8010402@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John R. Mayne writes >I received the below from a correspondent; slight edits have been made. >I offered to forward it to BLML; such offer was accepted. > >IMPS, MiniSpingolds (0-1500), All vul. (ACBL) > >Bidding goes: > >1C - 1H - 2C - 2H >P - P - 3C - P (a) >P (b) - ? > >At point (a), there was a noticeable hesitation (around 20s. before >passing). >At point (b), player quickly asks "Can we agree there is a hesitation?" A >hesitation is agreed by (a)'s partner. (b) quickly passes, looking >relieved. > >Here's the question. Can (a)'s partner X based upon (b)'s table manner? He may use it in his decision making, of course. When deciding his responsibilities under L73C because of the UI he considers what others would do with the AI available. >At the table, I was (a)'s partner. I had a pass. I would have surely >passed over partner's hesitation (though without the hesitation, I had >an arguable double). However, based upon (b)'s nervousness, then >obvious relief once partner had passed, I knew that (b) thought that >they were going down. I did, in fact, pass. > >Suppose I had doubled, and they had gone down. What should the ruling be? Depends on whether pass was an LA, and whether double was suggested by the UI. OK, double probably was suggested. So, was pass an LA, allowing for the AI from the opponent. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 24 09:14:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7NND6o17039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:13:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7NNCtK17029 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:12:55 +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 17iNbC-0001QT-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:12:21 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:53:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Conflicting AI and UI References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020823134648.00a6e520@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020823134648.00a6e520@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner writes >AG : while it is easy to agree on this (I have always felt that table feel >was more important than partner's bids and carding, let alone mannerisms), >isn't it a teeny weeny bit dangerous ? >Suppose North hesitates before passing, and East (wrongly) tells South he >is barred, as so often happens. Now South will call the TD, get the >relevant ruling, and bid on marginal values, because "East's attitudes gave >me the information that he wanted me not to bid, so it was natural to bid". >Too easy ... Are you suggesting we should have any sympathy for *East*? Perhaps this would teach him a lesson. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 24 10:43:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7O0gX817101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:42:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7O0gRK17095 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:42:28 +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 17iOzu-0000va-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 01:41:53 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:36:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Rule of 19,18,15 etc References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g7O0gTK17096 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jürgen Rennenkampff writes >> From: David Stevenson >> What principle do you want us to follow, might I enquire? > >What my personal preference is doesn't matter at all. However, it would be >pleasant if the authorities, who make the rules that restrict the meaning of >bids, did so in a consistent and rational manner. The principle you state >doesn't allow anyone to deduce what is and what is not allowed. I am not >arguing for or against any particular rule. But it is consistent and rational. Of course you can introduce parrot cries but since this would not benefit the membership we do not. If you are suggesting that rather than do the correct things we do the wrong thing so long as it is simpler then I do not buy the 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 Sat Aug 24 10:43:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7O0gbZ17105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:42:37 +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 g7O0gWK17100 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:42:32 +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 17iP01-0000vX-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 01:41:58 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:47:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Completely off-topic MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard asked whether it was legal to play >1D = ~ 9 - 14 HCP, 4+ Hearts, might have longer minor > >1H = ~ 9 - 14 HCP, 4+ Spades, might have longer minor > >1S = ~ 9 - 14 HCP, 4+ Diamonds, might have longer clubs and I read it too fast and answered like a plonker >> All of these are OK subject to Rule of 19 [L3] or Rule of 18 [L4]. but of course I had missed the transfer nature of the system. Sorry. No, these openings are currently not permitted at L3 or L4. Thanks to Robin for pointing out what a pillock I am [and for being polite about 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 Sat Aug 24 10:56:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7O0uGA17124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:56:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7O0uAK17120 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:56:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g7N1KnA15110 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 02:20:49 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 01:26:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Completely off-topic 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 > > Richard asked whether it was legal to play > >>1D = ~ 9 - 14 HCP, 4+ Hearts, might have longer minor >> >>1H = ~ 9 - 14 HCP, 4+ Spades, might have longer minor >> >>1S = ~ 9 - 14 HCP, 4+ Diamonds, might have longer clubs > >and I read it too fast and answered like a plonker > >>> All of these are OK subject to Rule of 19 [L3] or Rule of 18 [L4]. > >but of course I had missed the transfer nature of the system. Sorry. > > No, these openings are currently not permitted at L3 or L4. Thanks to >Robin for pointing out what a pillock I am [and for being polite about >it!]. > David, you're a pillock :) -- 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 Aug 24 11:55:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7O1se317161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 11:54:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7O1sZK17157 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 11:54:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from rota.alumni.princeton.edu (pcp01782626pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net [68.32.52.241]) by mtaout04.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H1B009YQRXUEG@mtaout04.icomcast.net> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 21:53:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 21:53:58 -0400 From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many In-reply-to: <3D660678.20907@skynet.be> X-Sender: davidgrabiner@mail.comcast.net To: Bridge Laws Message-id: <5.1.1.6.0.20020823185946.01c1f900@mail.comcast.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <5.1.1.6.0.20020822193159.01ba6ea8@mail.comcast.net> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:55 AM 8/23/2002, Herman De Wael wrote: >David J. Grabiner wrote: > >>At 06:35 AM 8/22/2002, Herman de Wael wrote: >> >>>Jeremy wrote: >> >>> >>>NO, because again you are starting with something undefined. What is a >>>60% player ? In my opinion, a 60% player is one who would average 60% >>>over all his boards in his career - in an infinite field !!! >>>(or using Ascherman scoring). That player will not score less than 60% >>>in a small field using traditional scoring - he will score more than >>>that !!!!!!! >> >>This is not correct; he will expect to get a 60% score in any field. >>For simplicity, assume that there are no ties and every board is scored >>uniformly on scale of 0-1. The 60% player will average 0.6 per board, >>and a score of 0.6 will beat 60% of all random pairs. > > >Sorry David, that is simply not true. >Not if you define a 60% player as one who would score 60% in an infinite >field. >If you define a 60% player as one who would score an average of 6MP in a >6-table field (top 10MP) then that is a different definition. It is what >I would call a 58.33% player (7/12). Here's a simple example to illustrate the difference. Suppose that everyone will reach 3NT, and 80% of all players will make it. A player who makes the contract will have a 60% score in an infinite field (whether conventional or Ascherman scored), and a player who always makes the contract is a 60% player on this board. Now put this player in a two-table field. There is an 80% chance that he will get half a matchpoint (US definition) because the other pair makes the contract, and a 20% chance that he will get a whole matchpoint. That is an expected value of 60% using the conventional scoring rules, so the 60% player will still get 60% in the average field. What matters here is that the player getting 60% is guaranteed to be part of the field. If you pick two pairs at random from the infinite field, then the probability is 64% that +400 will score 0.5 matchpoints, 32% that it will score 1 matchpoint, and 4% that it will be better than the top score. The expected value is now 70%, assuming that you value a score beating the top at 0.5 more than the top. With these assumptions, Ascherman preserves the 60% expected value; 64% probability of 2, 32% probability of 3, and 4% probability of 4 gives an expectation of 2.4 on a 4 average. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 24 17:53:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7O7pYv17345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 17:51:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from c3po.skynet.be (c3po.skynet.be [195.238.3.237]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7O7pRK17341 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 17:51:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be ([217.136.147.27]) by c3po.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7O7on619697 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:50:49 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D673AE2.206@skynet.be> Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:50:58 +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] one board too many References: <5.1.1.6.0.20020822193159.01ba6ea8@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.1.6.0.20020823185946.01c1f900@mail.comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David, I have no idea which camp you belong to, but you're analysis is spot on. David J. Grabiner wrote: > > > Here's a simple example to illustrate the difference. Suppose that > everyone will reach 3NT, and 80% of all players will make it. A player > who makes the contract will have a 60% score in an infinite field > (whether conventional or Ascherman scored), and a player who always > makes the contract is a 60% player on this board. > Yes. And No. He "deserves" 60% on this board. Whether he will get it is another matter. > Now put this player in a two-table field. There is an 80% chance that > he will get half a matchpoint (US definition) because the other pair > makes the contract, and a 20% chance that he will get a whole > matchpoint. That is an expected value of 60% using the conventional > scoring rules, so the 60% player will still get 60% in the average field. > Yes, that seems to bear out what Jeremy is saying. > What matters here is that the player getting 60% is guaranteed to be > part of the field. If you pick two pairs at random from the infinite > field, then the probability is 64% that +400 will score 0.5 matchpoints, > 32% that it will score 1 matchpoint, and 4% that it will be better than > the top score. The expected value is now 70%, assuming that you value a > score beating the top at 0.5 more than the top. With these assumptions, > Ascherman preserves the 60% expected value; 64% probability of 2, 32% > probability of 3, and 4% probability of 4 gives an expectation of 2.4 on > a 4 average. > and this bears out what I am saying. Now just determine which is the most important. The fact that a contract that 80% of the players make actually scores 60% on average, or the fact that some hypothetical player who "would always make it" scores 60% ? I believe the former is more important, because the latter is a special case that does not exist. There is no such thing as a player who will allways make this board, just as much as there is a board which 80% will make. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://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 Aug 24 18:51:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7O8ohE17390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 18:50:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7O8obK17385 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 18:50:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.92.67.23] (helo=mail18.svr.pol.co.uk) by cmailg1.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17iWcM-0001Bd-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:50:02 +0100 Received: from modem-172.cleaner-wrasse.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.246.172] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17iWcJ-0005a0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:50:00 +0100 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA06306; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:51:38 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020822143250.00a8cde0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3D660554.8050900@skynet.be> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 23 Aug 2002 18:02:01 +0100 In-Reply-To: Herman De Wael's message of "Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:50:12 +0200" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 60 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes: > Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > > > > I don't think Ascherman has anything to do with Stein's paradox, no. > > The "Stein shrinking factor" depends on the variance (the smaller the > > variance, the smaller the shrinking factor), but the "Ascherman > > shrinking factor" is independent of the variance (an average score of > > 60% will be "shrunk" towards 50% by the same factor -- depending only > > on the number of scores on the traveller -- whether it's the average > > over 2 boards or 20). > > > > > No Jeremy, not if the 60% is the one I am talking of - and the one > which you say is the same one you are talking of - the infinite field > one. The Ascherman score of an infinite occurence of 60% will tend to > be 60% regardless of the size of the field. I'm not talking about the score of an "occurrence". I'm talking about the score of a bridge player. > What you need to do is this : > > Take some two values of A and B, such that A+B/2 is 40%. > > Say that A% of all scores will be over +420, and B% of all scores will > be exactly +420. > > Take a random example of n scores, and make a draw using those > percentages. Then calculate the score for +420 using Ascherman scoring. > Average those scores. > > You will reach 60%. True, but completely irrelevant to any bridge player. What the bridge player who scores +420 wants to know is: what is my expected matchpoint score? > (of course is some cases you will find 0 scores of +420 in your > sample) I allow you to count these (with the score equal to the > middle between the other scores) or not, and to weigh or not. > > Still I believe you will reach 60%, regardless of the size of n. Actually, you'll find I do need to count them, giving them the natural notion of their Ascherman score. But let it pass. What do you mean by "to weigh or not"? Are you saying that if I weight the Ascherman scores of each group of n scores according to the number of +420 scores in that group, then I'll still get 60%? If so, then I'm afraid you're wrong. If n=2, say, then I'll get 55%. Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 24 18:51:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7O8oni17395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 18:50:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailm3.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailm3.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7O8ohK17391 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 18:50:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.92.67.23] (helo=mail18.svr.pol.co.uk) by cmailm3.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17iWcR-0003GB-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:50:07 +0100 Received: from modem-172.cleaner-wrasse.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.246.172] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17iWcO-0005b1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:50:05 +0100 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA06307; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:51:38 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many References: <3D64BE56.50004@skynet.be> <3D6603E5.8040708@skynet.be> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 24 Aug 2002 09:49:25 +0100 In-Reply-To: Herman De Wael's message of "Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:44:05 +0200" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 169 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes: > > Sorry, this is just confused. We're not trying to estimate different > > things; we're both (for the purpose, say, of assigning a matchpoint > > score to a player who scores +1430 on some board) trying to estimate > > what the percentage score for +1430 would be in a very large field. > > > > > Indeed - and that is either in Ascherman or Neuberg a particular formula > > > > Where we differ is in what it is that we want to be an unbiased > > estimator of this quantity. > > > > Imagine a large field divided into small subfields, each scored > > independently. > > > > In traditional matchpointing, the score given to a player getting > > +1430 is an unbiased estimator. If I score +1430 then I can expect on > > average to get the "correct" percentage score. > > > > In Ascherman, the score given to +1430 in a subfield (unweighted by > > the number of players who actually get that score ... and including > > subfields where nobody gets that score) is an unbiased estimator. If > > you find out what the percentage score given to +1430 was in all the > > subfields and average them, then you'll get the "correct" percentage > > score. > > > > Suppose that making a slam for +1430 requires a level of skill that > > only one in a hundred declarers possess. So in a large field it would > > score 99.5%. (Ignoring just for simplicity the occasional larger > > score.) > > > > One of these skillful declarers is a little disappointed with his > > (Ascherman) score of 95%, in a field of 10 tables: > > > > "I thought +1430 deserved more than that." > > > > "Yes, you're right. It deserved 99.5%." > > > > "So why did I only get 95%?" > > > > "Well, in a small field there are bound to be random fluctuations. But > > it all works out in the long run." > > > > "So I was just unlucky? Some of the declarers in other fields who made > > the slam got more than 99.5%?" > > > > "Um, no. They all got less. In fact, a few were in fields where more > > than one person made the slam, and they scored even worse than you." > > > > "So what do you mean by it working out in the long run?" > > > > "Well, in an average field, making the slam scored 99.5%, because we > > gave it 100% in all the fields where nobody made it." > > > > "Ah! So I was just unlucky to be in a field containing such a > > brilliant player as myself!" > > > > "Yes. Actually, you're lucky you weren't here last year. We had a > > rogue scorer who gave 0% in each field to all the scores that didn't > > occur there. That would have reduced the average score for +1430 to > > about 10%! Then you'd really have had a grievance! And would you > > believe it? Despite the fact that it made huge differences like that, > > giving an average of 10% instead of 99.5% to some scores, nobody even > > noticed until he confessed a few months later!" > > > > Jeremy. > > > > > Yes Jeremy, but you are forgetting two things. > > First, you keep talking about tops. I know that this is easier, but > it also makes it harder to understand that there are two ways going. You're surely not saying that Ascherman works ... except when it comes to tops? :) > If you would be talking about the 75% score, it would be easier to see > that sometimes it works the other way as well. > > And also, you keep talking about 1 board. If there are more boards, > you also get the opposite effect. ... or that Ascherman only works if you score more than one board with it? :) > If on the next board, 20% of the players would score +1430, and you > are alone in your subset of 10, then you score 95% instead of 80%. > That is the compensation you are looking for. > > Believe me, I have worked it out. It is impossible to say, from one > set of 10 scores, whether the top score would occur in an infinite > field 10% of the time, or 1%, or 20%. But on average, it will be > occuring 10%, Sorry, this is meaningless. On average over what? > and 95% of MP is a true unbiased estimator of the > "infinite score" for this occurence. Strictly speaking, a constant can only be an unbiased estimator of a score if it's equal to the score. But if for "95%" you substitute the random variable "the Ascherman score given to +1430", then I agree. In fact, I've said that in at least one of my recent postings. However, it is still the case that the Ascherman score given to a 60% player will be less than 60% on average. Another intuitive way of seeing why this is so. Suppose there is a possible good score of +1430, whose "infinite score" is big, 90% say. Sometimes the Ascherman score will be exactly correct. As when exactly the expected number of people achieve each score. Sometimes the Ascherman score will be too big. This will tend to be when fewer than expected score +1430, so it's scored as a more resounding top than it would be on average. Sometimes the Ascherman score will be too small. This will tend to be when more than expected score +1430. If you take the average, over all instances of choosing this small section from the infinite field, then these effects will cancel out. However, when the Ascherman score is too big, it affects few people (fewer than expected scored +1430), and when it is too small, it affects many people (more than expected scored +1430). So if a player scores +1430, it is more likely that he is one of the many people, and on average will get a score that is too small. The practical consequence is that, using Ascherman, a 60% player will score less than 60% on average. Using traditional matchpointing, he will score exactly 60% on average. On the other hand, the justification that you are trumpeting for Ascherman is that if you take the average Ascherman score given to +1430 (or whatever other score you want), averaging over all sections rather than over all instances of the score +1430, then this will be equal to the "true" score for +1430. This is not true for traditional matchpointing. My point is that the average score that you assign to a given player is clearly something relevant to the fair scoring of bridge tournaments. The average section score of +1430 is a quantity that is of no relevance at all, as is illustrated by the fact that you can dramatically change this quantity by changing the MP score that you give it if it doesn't occur. > > That last bit was worked out using mathematics over and above my > abilities by people I trust. I suspect you asked them the wrong question. Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 24 23:02:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7OD1bt17519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:01:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imailg3.svr.pol.co.uk (imailg3.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.181]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7OD1UK17515 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:01:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.92.198.123] (helo=mail17.svr.pol.co.uk) by imailg3.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17iaX9-0006vA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 14:00:55 +0100 Received: from modem-1.belthronding.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.140.1] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail17.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17iaX6-0002A5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 14:00:53 +0100 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA06839; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 14:02:28 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many References: <5.1.1.6.0.20020822193159.01ba6ea8@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.1.6.0.20020823185946.01c1f900@mail.comcast.net> <3D673AE2.206@skynet.be> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 24 Aug 2002 13:52:43 +0100 In-Reply-To: Herman De Wael's message of "Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:50:58 +0200" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 68 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes: > David, I have no idea which camp you belong to, but you're analysis is > spot on. > > David J. Grabiner wrote: > > > > > > > Here's a simple example to illustrate the difference. Suppose that > > everyone will reach 3NT, and 80% of all players will make it. A player > > who makes the contract will have a 60% score in an infinite field > > (whether conventional or Ascherman scored), and a player who always > > makes the contract is a 60% player on this board. > > > > > Yes. > And No. He "deserves" 60% on this board. Whether he will get it is > another matter. > > > > Now put this player in a two-table field. There is an 80% chance that > > he will get half a matchpoint (US definition) because the other pair > > makes the contract, and a 20% chance that he will get a whole > > matchpoint. That is an expected value of 60% using the conventional > > scoring rules, so the 60% player will still get 60% in the average field. > > > > > Yes, that seems to bear out what Jeremy is saying. > > > > What matters here is that the player getting 60% is guaranteed to be > > part of the field. If you pick two pairs at random from the infinite > > field, then the probability is 64% that +400 will score 0.5 matchpoints, > > 32% that it will score 1 matchpoint, and 4% that it will be better than > > the top score. The expected value is now 70%, assuming that you value a > > score beating the top at 0.5 more than the top. With these assumptions, > > Ascherman preserves the 60% expected value; 64% probability of 2, 32% > > probability of 3, and 4% probability of 4 gives an expectation of 2.4 on > > a 4 average. > > > > > and this bears out what I am saying. > > Now just determine which is the most important. > The fact that a contract that 80% of the players make actually scores > 60% on average, or the fact that some hypothetical player who "would > always make it" scores 60% ? I believe the former is more important, > because the latter is a special case that does not exist. There is no > such thing as a player who will allways make this board, just as much > as there is a board which 80% will make. Let's see. You're trying to justify a scoring method whose "fairness" depends on giving the correct number of matchpoints to scores that don't occur, and *we're* the ones who are guilty of dealing in "hypotheticals" that "don't exist"? Yes, right! Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 25 00:33:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7OEX2m17553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 00:33:02 +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-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 g7OEWvK17549 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 00:32:58 +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 17ibxb-0005kA-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 15:32:22 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 13:23:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Completely off-topic 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 >> >> Richard asked whether it was legal to play >> >>>1D = ~ 9 - 14 HCP, 4+ Hearts, might have longer minor >>> >>>1H = ~ 9 - 14 HCP, 4+ Spades, might have longer minor >>> >>>1S = ~ 9 - 14 HCP, 4+ Diamonds, might have longer clubs >> >>and I read it too fast and answered like a plonker >> >>>> All of these are OK subject to Rule of 19 [L3] or Rule of 18 [L4]. >> >>but of course I had missed the transfer nature of the system. Sorry. >> >> No, these openings are currently not permitted at L3 or L4. Thanks to >>Robin for pointing out what a pillock I am [and for being polite about >>it!]. >> >David, you're a pillock :) Excuse me, Robin noticed I was a plonker: you did not. What does that make *you*? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 25 07:20:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7OLJAS17740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 07:19:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g7OLJ5K17736 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 07:19:05 +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 17iiIc-000GME-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 22:18:28 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 22:14:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In the IBLF [International Bridge Laws forum, a place for laws-type questions and answers, rather than for discussion as here] someone asked the following innocent question: Dummy, a 90+ little old lady, innocently asks a defender why he bid spades after he failed to follow suit to the initial lead. Should the revoke be corrected but still subject to penalties under the law as attention has been drawn illegally? Had the opponent not revoked, he would have won the trick and sent a spade back for his partner to ruff. Well? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 25 07:41:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7OLesa17757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 07:40:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout02.sul.t-online.com (mailout02.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7OLenK17753 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 07:40:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd07.sul.t-online.de by mailout02.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17iide-0001j0-0B; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:40:10 +0200 Received: from vwalther.de (320051711875-0001@[217.226.210.160]) by fmrl07.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 17iida-0ECleKC; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:40:06 +0200 Message-ID: <3D67FBCD.7010302@vwalther.de> Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:34:05 +0200 From: "Volker R. Walther" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Late Play and Thunderstorms References: <060802218.23953@webbox.com> <009701c23d6d$69999e40$4d053dd4@b0e7g1> <3tHjLPFzOHU9EwYK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00b001c23edf$b6cccf20$ef053dd4@b0e7g1> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.62.3.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 320051711875-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Now I read other posts, I am not sure whether it was the first: I > think what you wrote above was not the first. It does not matter: the > point is I was not answering anything about stopping a board part-way > through to play later, which is an obvious no-no. > Just a small question: Today we had a small event played in the garden of an hotel this afternoon a thunderstorm suddenly arouse. I told the players to go inside and continue the board. Do you think I should have cancelled th boards involved? Greetings, Volker -- Adressen meiner Homepage: http://www.vwalther.de oder (schlechter zu merken, aber ohne Werbung) http://home.t-online.de/home/volker.r.walther -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 25 07:44:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7OLiWV17776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 07:44:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7OLiRK17772 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 07:44:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-2872.bb.online.no [80.212.219.56]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA26466 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:43:45 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002701c24bb7$52043120$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:43:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 11:14 PM Subject: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke > > In the IBLF [International Bridge Laws forum, a place for laws-type > questions and answers, rather than for discussion as here] someone asked > the following innocent question: > > > > Dummy, a 90+ little old lady, innocently asks a defender why he bid > spades after he failed to follow suit to the initial lead. Should the > revoke be corrected but still subject to penalties under the law as > attention has been drawn illegally? Had the opponent not revoked, he > would have won the trick and sent a spade back for his partner to ruff. > > > > Well? Is there any problem here? 1: Offender has become aware of the revoke before it is established and must correct it. The withdrawn card becomes a major penalty card. (L62) 2: Although attention was illegally drawn to the revoke this infraction was by the (until then) non-offending side. Thus there can be no further penalty against the revoking side. 3: Dummy should be given a procedural penalty for violating Law 42B1 (a warning unless she already has accumulated several similar warnings). regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 25 07:46:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7OLk3j17791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 07:46:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7OLjvK17787 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 07:45:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-2872.bb.online.no [80.212.219.56]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAB27525 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:45:16 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002d01c24bb7$8835a2b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <060802218.23953@webbox.com> <009701c23d6d$69999e40$4d053dd4@b0e7g1> <3tHjLPFzOHU9EwYK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00b001c23edf$b6cccf20$ef053dd4@b0e7g1> <3D67FBCD.7010302@vwalther.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play and Thunderstorms Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:45:15 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Volker R. Walther" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 11:34 PM Subject: [BLML] Late Play and Thunderstorms > David Stevenson wrote: > > > Now I read other posts, I am not sure whether it was the first: I > > think what you wrote above was not the first. It does not matter: the > > point is I was not answering anything about stopping a board part-way > > through to play later, which is an obvious no-no. > > > > Just a small question: > Today we had a small event played in the garden of an hotel this > afternoon a thunderstorm suddenly arouse. I told the players to go > inside and continue the board. Do you think I should have cancelled th > boards involved? > > Greetings, Volker Why should you have done that? regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 25 08:01:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7OM1fb17820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 08:01:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com (syr-24-92-226-122.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7OM1aK17816 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 08:01:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g7OM0sW26186; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 18:00:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 18:00:23 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] An online Laws question To: Gordon Bower cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List 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 8/23/02, Gordon Bower wrote: >For that matter... if this happen in face-to-face bridge, would you >say "OK, let's fix it" or "sorry, the auction period is over, can't >help you"? The auction isn't over until the opening lead is faced. 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 Aug 25 08:03:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7OM36x17835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 08:03:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout02.sul.t-online.com (mailout02.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7OM30K17831 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 08:03:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd06.sul.t-online.de by mailout02.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17iizB-0005j1-01; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 00:02:25 +0200 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.225.63.16]) by fwd06.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 17iiz0-0sCYhEC; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 00:02:14 +0200 Message-ID: <3D680254.90507@t-online.de> Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 00:01:56 +0200 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; de-DE; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020314 Netscape6/6.2.2 X-Accept-Language: de-DE MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > In the IBLF [International Bridge Laws forum, a place for laws-type > questions and answers, rather than for discussion as here] someone asked > the following innocent question: > > > > Dummy, a 90+ little old lady, innocently asks a defender why he bid > spades after he failed to follow suit to the initial lead. Should the > revoke be corrected but still subject to penalties under the law as > attention has been drawn illegally? Had the opponent not revoked, he > would have won the trick and sent a spade back for his partner to ruff. > > > > Well? > > Hello David, Law 43B3 says that the TD should assign a score to restore equity if dummy in violation of Law 43A2 is the first to draw attention to an irregularity by a defender. I expect the next question to be whether giving the ruff constitutes equity for both sides, which I won`t answer without knowledge of the distribution. Cheers Matthias -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 25 08:32:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7OMVo717871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 08:31:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com (syr-24-92-226-122.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7OMVjK17867 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 08:31:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g7OMUnW27789; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 18:30:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 18:14:46 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke To: Sven Pran cc: Bridge Laws Submissions X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <002701c24bb7$52043120$6400a8c0@WINXP> 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 8/24/02, Sven Pran wrote: >2: Although attention was illegally drawn to the revoke this infraction was >by the (until then) non-offending side. Thus there can be no further penalty >against the revoking side. Law 61B makes no distinction as to which side drew attention to the revoke. At least, not as I read 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 Sun Aug 25 08:39:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7OMdae17884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 08:39:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7OMdVK17880 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 08:39:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7OMctq15705 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 15:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003601c24bbf$1d6fd420$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <060802218.23953@webbox.com> <009701c23d6d$69999e40$4d053dd4@b0e7g1> <3tHjLPFzOHU9EwYK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00b001c23edf$b6cccf20$ef053dd4@b0e7g1> <3D67FBCD.7010302@vwalther.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play and Thunderstorms Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 15:18:08 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Volker R. Walther" > David Stevenson wrote: > > > Now I read other posts, I am not sure whether it was the first: I > > think what you wrote above was not the first. It does not matter: the > > point is I was not answering anything about stopping a board part-way > > through to play later, which is an obvious no-no. > > > > Just a small question: > Today we had a small event played in the garden of an hotel this > afternoon a thunderstorm suddenly arouse. I told the players to go > inside and continue the board. Do you think I should have cancelled the > boards involved? If you tell the two pairs at each table to carry the boards (cards restored) into the hotel while walking together and saying nothing about bridge, I think it would be okay to continue. If that is too difficult to achieve and monitor, then cancel the boards. 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 Aug 25 09:26:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7ONPpr17926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 09:25:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7ONPjK17922 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 09:25:46 +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 g7NNoUG01114 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:50:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 00:23:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Completely off-topic 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 >John (MadDog) Probst writes >>In article , David Stevenson >> writes >>> >>> Richard asked whether it was legal to play >>> >>>>1D = ~ 9 - 14 HCP, 4+ Hearts, might have longer minor >>>> >>>>1H = ~ 9 - 14 HCP, 4+ Spades, might have longer minor >>>> >>>>1S = ~ 9 - 14 HCP, 4+ Diamonds, might have longer clubs >>> >>>and I read it too fast and answered like a plonker >>> >>>>> All of these are OK subject to Rule of 19 [L3] or Rule of 18 [L4]. >>> >>>but of course I had missed the transfer nature of the system. Sorry. >>> >>> No, these openings are currently not permitted at L3 or L4. Thanks to >>>Robin for pointing out what a pillock I am [and for being polite about >>>it!]. >>> >>David, you're a pillock :) > > Excuse me, Robin noticed I was a plonker: you did not. What does that >make *you*? > I did notice, I was just too polite to say. Actually I was going to play transfer openings in the next session you direct me in and see what happened :) 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 Aug 25 09:26:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7ONQVh17938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 09:26:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7ONQPK17934 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 09:26:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g7NNpBG01118 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:51:11 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 00:24:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play and Thunderstorms References: <060802218.23953@webbox.com> <009701c23d6d$69999e40$4d053dd4@b0e7g1> <3tHjLPFzOHU9EwYK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00b001c23edf$b6cccf20$ef053dd4@b0e7g1> <3D67FBCD.7010302@vwalther.de> <002d01c24bb7$8835a2b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> In-Reply-To: <002d01c24bb7$8835a2b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <002d01c24bb7$8835a2b0$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Volker R. Walther" >To: "David Stevenson" >Cc: >Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 11:34 PM >Subject: [BLML] Late Play and Thunderstorms > > >> David Stevenson wrote: >> >> > Now I read other posts, I am not sure whether it was the first: I >> > think what you wrote above was not the first. It does not matter: the >> > point is I was not answering anything about stopping a board part-way >> > through to play later, which is an obvious no-no. >> > >> >> Just a small question: >> Today we had a small event played in the garden of an hotel this >> afternoon a thunderstorm suddenly arouse. I told the players to go >> inside and continue the board. Do you think I should have cancelled th >> boards involved? >> only if the cards had turned to papier machee >> Greetings, Volker > >Why should you have done that? > >regards Sven > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 25 10:29:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7P0SR817987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 10:28:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (syr-24-92-226-125.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7P0SMK17983 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 10:28:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g7P0ReC27980 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 20:27:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 19:59:44 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3D680254.90507@t-online.de> 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 8/25/02, Matthias Berghaus wrote: >Law 43B3 says that the TD should assign a score to restore equity if >dummy in violation of Law 43A2 is the first to draw attention to an >irregularity by a defender. I expect the next question to be whether >giving the ruff constitutes equity for both sides, which I won`t answer >without knowledge of the distribution. As Gordon pointed out to me, I've already put my foot in it once today. At the risk of doing it again: 43B3 says "If dummy, after violation of the limitations listed in A2 preceding is the first to draw attention to a defender's irregularity, no penalty shall be imposed. If the defenders benefit directly through their irregularity, the Director shall award an adjusted score to both sides to restore equity." Note the word "after". The limitations in A2 say that dummy forfeits his rights if he does one of three specific things, none of which dummy seems to have done here. I don't think 43B3 applies. 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 Aug 25 16:13:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7P6CXU18170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 16:12:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7P6CSK18166 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 16:12:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7P6Bqe03235 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007601c24bfe$644c65e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Different Tops Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:12:25 -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 Henry, I am going to start out like this when presenting your new method. I hope it works for 1, 2, and 3 results in the smaller group, because I imply that it does.. ######## The lower the top on a board, the greater the variance of scores, and the easier it is to get a good score (or a bad one). For different tops, Neuberg is generally accepted as an adjustment method, although the ACBL persists in factoring some scores that should be Neuberged. Factoring allows all contestants to keep their percentage result after the adjustment, making it obviously inferior. Neuberg assumes that a field with a larger top would have the same distribution of results as the smaller one. While Neuberg properly shrinks percentage scores a bit toward 50% when adjusting the scores of a smaller field, it does not take into account this variance difference. The shrinkage should be a bit more because of it. Neuberg gives poor results when there are three or fewer results. Accordingly, the ACBL uses it for three results only when they form the larger group. Otherwise, three results get 70%, 60% and 50%. Two results get 65% and 55%, while a single score gets 60%. Henry Bethe has a proposal for fixing all this in a simple manner with an "Expected Value" approach. He invites comments, either here on [rgb, BLML] or privately to hbethe@aol.com ######## Then I would follow with your latest draft. It takes up three printed pages, but I don't see anything that could be cut without lessening its clarity. Neither BLML nor rgb allows file attachments, so it would go into the text of my post, following the above. I looked at a 28.6 % game with 84 top, and it converted to 35% in the 12-top game. This is an improvement of 6.4%, exactly the same absolute value as the reduction when the 71.4% game was converted to 65%. This symmetry is as it should be, and it looks right. I just wanted to check that. You wrote: in regard to: (Whether using percentage of game to adjust for the number of boards played is the correct method is not within the scope of this inquiry.) >It is reasonable to contract using percentage. Whether it is reasonable to extend is another issue. It seems to me that you are not adjusting for the number of boards at all (not that you meant to), whether contracting or extending. Perhaps you should say that the method does not take into account number of boards played, only the difference in tops. Points per board, yes, number of boards, no. Nitpick: Your p's are confusing. I don't see where small p is defined. Then you had to (?) use capital P later, even though all lower-group numbers are given lower case designations. Marv -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 25 17:46:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7P7jSK18232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 17:45:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7P7jMK18228 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 17:45:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-1388.bb.online.no [80.212.213.108]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA22260 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 09:44:41 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001901c24c0b$44fb5b30$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 09:44:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Sven Pran" Cc: "Bridge Laws Submissions" Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 12:14 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke > On 8/24/02, Sven Pran wrote: > > >2: Although attention was illegally drawn to the revoke this infraction > was > >by the (until then) non-offending side. Thus there can be no further > penalty > >against the revoking side. > > Law 61B makes no distinction as to which side drew attention to the > revoke. At least, not as I read it. > > Regards, > > Ed True, but the point is that the offending side has legally become aware of the revoke, thus Laws 62A & B apply with no restriction on their part, and unlike the situation if offender's partner had drawn attention to the possible revoke in any manner (Law 63B) there is no reason for further sanctions against the offending side. The revoker must as said replace his revoking card and this revoking card becomes a major penalty card but that is all. Laws 63 and 64 do not apply. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 25 21:49:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7PBm0Z18334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 21:48:00 +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-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 g7PBlkK18321 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 21:47:47 +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 17ivrI-0003Yq-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 12:47:10 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 02:04:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Late Play and Thunderstorms References: <060802218.23953@webbox.com> <009701c23d6d$69999e40$4d053dd4@b0e7g1> <3tHjLPFzOHU9EwYK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00b001c23edf$b6cccf20$ef053dd4@b0e7g1> <3D67FBCD.7010302@vwalther.de> In-Reply-To: <3D67FBCD.7010302@vwalther.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Volker R. Walther writes >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Now I read other posts, I am not sure whether it was the first: I >> think what you wrote above was not the first. It does not matter: the >> point is I was not answering anything about stopping a board part-way >> through to play later, which is an obvious no-no. >Just a small question: >Today we had a small event played in the garden of an hotel this >afternoon a thunderstorm suddenly arouse. I told the players to go >inside and continue the board. Do you think I should have cancelled th >boards involved? No. In exigent circumstances the TD does something sensible. For example I stood on a pavement with my opponents and partner for 100 minutes after a fire alarm, and then went inside and misplayed the hand I had been thinking about for 100 minutes. It would occur to no-one to cancel such boards. But late plays are another matter. That is normal bridge, and either should be stopped or not, but not postponed part way through. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 25 21:49:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7PBlvs18333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 21:47:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7PBllK18322 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 21:47:48 +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 17ivrI-0003Yr-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 12:47:11 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 02:05:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke References: <002701c24bb7$52043120$6400a8c0@WINXP> In-Reply-To: <002701c24bb7$52043120$6400a8c0@WINXP> 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 > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 11:14 PM >Subject: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke > > >> >> In the IBLF [International Bridge Laws forum, a place for laws-type >> questions and answers, rather than for discussion as here] someone asked >> the following innocent question: >> >> >> >> Dummy, a 90+ little old lady, innocently asks a defender why he bid >> spades after he failed to follow suit to the initial lead. Should the >> revoke be corrected but still subject to penalties under the law as >> attention has been drawn illegally? Had the opponent not revoked, he >> would have won the trick and sent a spade back for his partner to ruff. >> >> >> >> Well? > >Is there any problem here? > >1: Offender has become aware of the revoke before it is established and >must correct it. The withdrawn card becomes a major penalty card. (L62) > >2: Although attention was illegally drawn to the revoke this infraction was >by the (until then) non-offending side. Thus there can be no further penalty >against the revoking side. Please tell me where this appears in the Laws. >3: Dummy should be given a procedural penalty for violating Law 42B1 >(a warning unless she already has accumulated several similar warnings). > >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/ -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 25 21:49:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7PBlv118332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 21:47:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7PBlkK18320 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 21:47:47 +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 17ivrI-0003Yu-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 12:47:09 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 02:06:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke References: <3D680254.90507@t-online.de> In-Reply-To: <3D680254.90507@t-online.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Matthias Berghaus writes >Law 43B3 says that the TD should assign a score to restore equity if >dummy in violation of Law 43A2 is the first to draw attention to an >irregularity by a defender. I expect the next question to be whether >giving the ruff constitutes equity for both sides, which I won`t answer >without knowledge of the distribution. L43B3 only applies after dummy has lost her rights, which just about never happens these days, and did not happen in the given 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 Sun Aug 25 22:25:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7PCOxj18395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 22:24:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail50.fg.online.no (mail50-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7PCOrK18391 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 22:24:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-0697.bb.online.no [80.212.210.185]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA13271 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 14:24:10 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00ba01c24c32$4fc82df0$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <002701c24bb7$52043120$6400a8c0@WINXP> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 14:24:08 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 3:05 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke > Sven Pran writes > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "David Stevenson" > >To: > >Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 11:14 PM > >Subject: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke > > > > > >> > >> In the IBLF [International Bridge Laws forum, a place for laws-type > >> questions and answers, rather than for discussion as here] someone asked > >> the following innocent question: > >> > >> > >> > >> Dummy, a 90+ little old lady, innocently asks a defender why he bid > >> spades after he failed to follow suit to the initial lead. Should the > >> revoke be corrected but still subject to penalties under the law as > >> attention has been drawn illegally? Had the opponent not revoked, he > >> would have won the trick and sent a spade back for his partner to ruff. > >> > >> > >> > >> Well? > > > >Is there any problem here? > > > >1: Offender has become aware of the revoke before it is established and > >must correct it. The withdrawn card becomes a major penalty card. (L62) > > > >2: Although attention was illegally drawn to the revoke this infraction was > >by the (until then) non-offending side. Thus there can be no further penalty > >against the revoking side. > > Please tell me where this appears in the Laws. Law 42B1 Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987 specifically states under 63.5: "Note: An enquiry by dummy of defender is a violation of Law 42B1, not of Law 61B" Furthermore I cannot believe that it has ever been the intention to give Dummy any possibility of damaging defenders through a violation of the laws, for instance by forcing a defender's revoke to become established because of an illegal question. Satisfactory? (A clarifying note under Law 63 might be in order) regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 25 22:52:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7PCqEF18418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 22:52:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7PCq8K18414 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 22:52:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from barton-bramhall.fsnet.co.uk ([62.137.132.131] helo=david) by cmailm1.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17iwrY-00061v-00; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 13:51:28 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01c24c36$80edac80$0300a8c0@mshome.net> From: "David Barton" To: "David Stevenson" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 13:54:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > In the IBLF [International Bridge Laws forum, a place for laws-type > questions and answers, rather than for discussion as here] someone asked > the following innocent question: > > > > Dummy, a 90+ little old lady, innocently asks a defender why he bid > spades after he failed to follow suit to the initial lead. Should the > revoke be corrected but still subject to penalties under the law as > attention has been drawn illegally? Had the opponent not revoked, he > would have won the trick and sent a spade back for his partner to ruff. > > > > Well? > OK I'll jump onto this hook! Dummy asking defender is a breach of 61B (since it is not one of the permitted actions). Law 63B is now applicable. The Director will apply Law 12A1 to dummy's infraction to restore equity. David.Barton@cwcom.net -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 25 23:28:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7PDSQD18447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 23:28:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail50.fg.online.no (mail50-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7PDSKK18443 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 23:28:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-2511.bb.online.no [80.212.217.207]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA15462 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 15:27:33 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00d501c24c3b$2c285f60$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <000c01c24c36$80edac80$0300a8c0@mshome.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 15:27:10 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Barton" > Dummy asking defender is a breach of 61B (since it is not one of the > permitted actions). > Law 63B is now applicable. Nope Read my post from about 30 minutes ahead of yours. (Reply to DWS) Dummy asking defender is a break of Law 41B1, NOT of Law 61B according to the official commentaries issued by Grattan Endicott in 1992. The laws in 1997 were not changed so that this interpretation became obsolete. Forget Law 63B in this case. > The Director will apply Law 12A1 to dummy's infraction to restore equity. No need to, but dummy should have a warning (PP) 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 Aug 26 02:06:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7PG5Ob18510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 02:05:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7PG5IK18506 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 02:05:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.156.35]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020825160439.HUUQ290.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 17:04:39 +0100 Message-ID: <004901c24c51$237cf950$239c68d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 17:04:45 +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 David Stevenson: Incidentally, with a general review just coming [new OB due in 2003] why does someone not apply to play 3rd in hand light by agreement? There has never been such an application in my time. Nigel Guthrie: I won't put in such an application for two reasons: (1) Personally, I can happily cope without such bids. (2) Third in hand openings are just a symptom. The real problem is that laws like the EBU rule of 18 19 etc... are little known, frequently broken, and rarely enforced. David says such laws exist because "the majority" want them. I have conducted a local poll and find that: (1) Few know them. (2) Nobody wants them (of those I have asked so far). (3) When I give a specific example like 3rd in hand openers, everyone, apart from those whom I have browbeaten, (including internationals) admit that they often break them. (4) Nobody has heard of a case where they were enforced. Luckily, novices, at EBU levels 1 and 2, are not subject to these restrictions -- or we would be encouraging tyros to cheat -- albeit unwittingly to begin with. I think such regulations are bad for the game and should be scrapped. Especially if they are a local aberration. Or, if they could in fact be popular, they need review to ensure that they can be enforced; and then they should be adopted and publicised internationally (why keep our good fortune to ourselves). --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 -- ======================================================================== (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 Aug 26 02:37:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7PGbbL18536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 02:37:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7PGbWK18532 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 02:37:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.149.45]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020825163654.MVMD5047.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 17:36:54 +0100 Message-ID: <00b301c24c55$a47b9990$239c68d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 17:37:01 +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 Marvin L French (in another thread): Okay, here is the regulation: 1. Each player is required to have a convention card legibly filled out.... 2. If a director determines that neither player has a substantially completed card, the partnership may only play conventions on the Limited Convention Chart and may only use standard carding. To this one must add the ACBL's instructions for filling out a CC, provided in that 13-page document I cited above. A very well-done document, by the way. Nigel: What a great idea! A standard convention card; with checkboxes; and every section must be completed. In England, we have at least two kinds of standard local card, but many players use non-standard, foreign or WBF cards. Few are complete. Many sections permit misleading entries (e.g. "signals: count" meaning "odd cards show an odd holding") It would help everybody if a standard card were internationally adopted and made compulsory. Books on popular systems could contain such a completed card, for use as a template. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 -- ======================================================================== (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 Aug 26 02:47:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7PGlAf18556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 02:47:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bean.epix.net (bean.epix.net [199.224.64.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7PGl4K18552 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 02:47:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (svcr-216-222-236-161.dsl.svcr.epix.net [216.222.236.161]) by bean.epix.net (8.12.5/2002081401/PL) with SMTP id g7PGkQm0024872 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 12:46:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 12:46:26 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <004901c24c51$237cf950$239c68d5@SCRAP> In-Reply-To: <004901c24c51$237cf950$239c68d5@SCRAP> 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, 25 Aug 2002 17:04:45 +0100, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >David Stevenson: > Incidentally, with a general review just coming [new OB due in 2003] > why does someone not apply to play 3rd in hand light by agreement? > There has never been such an application in my time. >Nigel Guthrie: > I won't put in such an application for two reasons: > (1) Personally, I can happily cope without such bids. > (2) Third in hand openings are just a symptom. > The real problem is that laws like the EBU rule of 18 19 etc... > are little known, frequently broken, and rarely enforced. > David says such laws exist because "the majority" want them. > I have conducted a local poll and find that: > (1) Few know them. > (2) Nobody wants them (of those I have asked so far). > (3) When I give a specific example like 3rd in hand openers, > everyone, apart from those whom I have browbeaten, > (including internationals) admit that they often > break them. > (4) Nobody has heard of a case where they were enforced. What makes the whole scheme even more ridiculous is the exclusion of the 1NT openers from the Rule of 19/18 restriction. The EBU regulations no longer affect me, but I remember the rule of 19 coming out. It seemed (and seems) nothing short of lunacy to me that my Precision 1D opener on a 4-3-3-3 11 count was illegal, but my opponent's 1NT opener on a 4-3-3-3 10 count was perfectly legal. I will confess to being one of those who knowingly ignored the restriction. As Nigel says, I cannot ever remember having the TD called when we opened a 4-3-3-3 11 count. Presumably opps didn't count my hand, or agreed that it was a damn silly restriction, or couldn't be bothered calling the TD, or thought my hand was a legitimate opening bid by virtue of high card strength, or some combination thereof. 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 Aug 26 03:25:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7PHNpP18619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 03:23:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7PHNkK18615 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 03:23:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7PHN8p05357; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 10:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004401c24c5c$2b05d560$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Nigel Guthrie" , "BLML" References: <00b301c24c55$a47b9990$239c68d5@SCRAP> Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 10:23:35 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Nigel Guthrie" > Marvin L French (in another thread): > Okay, here is the regulation: > 1. Each player is required to have a convention card legibly filled > out.... > 2. If a director determines that neither player has a substantially > completed card, the partnership may only play conventions on the > Limited Convention Chart and may only use standard carding. > To this one must add the ACBL's instructions for filling out a CC, > provided in that 13-page document I cited above. A very well-done > document, by the way. > > Nigel: > What a great idea! A standard convention card; with checkboxes; > and every section must be completed. > In England, we have at least two kinds of standard local card, > but many players use non-standard, foreign or WBF cards. > Few are complete. Many sections permit misleading entries > (e.g. "signals: count" meaning "odd cards show an odd holding") > It would help everybody if a standard card were internationally > adopted and made compulsory. > Books on popular systems could contain such a completed card, > for use as a template. One problem with the latest ACBL CC is that small print had to be used to get everything in on one side of a 8-1/2" high x 8" wide card, a standard size imposed by the many thousands of clear-plastic card holders that players have. Another restriction on size is that four CCs are supposed to be on the table at all times. Those who can use a paint program need not restrict themselves to the small print of the ACBL's CC. Simply download the .bmp file from the ACBL website and put it into a paint program to delete options that aren't applicable to the partnership. For instance, while there are three check boxes for Jump Overcall strength, one of which must be checked when using the standard CC, the other two standing empty with their descriptions, it is perfectly acceptable to wipe out all the boxes and use a large font to type in the partnership's agreement (STRONG or INTERMEDIATE or WEAK). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 > > -- > ======================================================================== > (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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 03:26:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7PHQqN18635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 03:26:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop016.verizon.net (pop016pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.173]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7PHQkK18629 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 03:26:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from MIKE ([67.250.97.215]) by pop016.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.09 201-253-122-126-109-20020611) with ESMTP id <20020825172603.JXGP19677.pop016.verizon.net@MIKE> for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 12:26:03 -0500 Message-ID: <003b01c24c5d$0884ddf0$0100a8c0@MIKE> From: "mike dodson" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <000c01c24c36$80edac80$0300a8c0@mshome.net> <00d501c24c3b$2c285f60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 10:29:24 -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: "Sven Pran" > From: "David Barton" > > Dummy asking defender is a breach of 61B (since it is not one of the > > permitted actions). > > Law 63B is now applicable. > > Nope > Read my post from about 30 minutes ahead of yours. (Reply to DWS) > > Dummy asking defender is a break of Law 41B1, NOT of Law 61B > according to the official commentaries issued by Grattan Endicott in > 1992. The laws in 1997 were not changed so that this interpretation > became obsolete. > > Forget Law 63B in this case. > > > The Director will apply Law 12A1 to dummy's infraction to restore equity. > > No need to, but dummy should have a warning (PP) > > regards Sven > Seems to me you're both right (or wrong). L42B1 applies, not 61B but L42B1 doesn't get us to L43B3. That law limits itself to L43A2 for application so L12A1 it is. Will L12a1 let us rule that the damage caused by dummy's infraction is the opportunity for revoker to notice before the revoke is established so, as Sven suggests, correct the revoke, declare a major penalty card and allow play to proceed? I don't see how that equals an adjusted score but it does seem equitable. Or can we just say that since dummy's utterance was illegal, it is UI for declarer, AI for defenders, proceed to L62A, same as above, PP(w?) to dummy. If this is the case, what's the point of L42B1? We get to same place as if declarer had legally inquired except for a chance to lecture the LOL on dummy's rights and restrictions. Meanwhile the revoking side is likely better off than if she had said nothing until the hand was over. I suppose now we must check if the correction and penalty card is worse for the revoker than the revoke penalty might have been had the revoke been established. 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 Mon Aug 26 06:19:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7PKIa118709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 06:18:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7PKIVK18705 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 06:18:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from rota.alumni.princeton.edu (pcp01782626pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net [68.32.52.241]) by mtaout03.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H1F00MDY1PNEN@mtaout03.icomcast.net> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 16:17:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 16:17:54 -0400 From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: [BLML] L25B in KO play X-Sender: davidgrabiner@mail.comcast.net To: bridge Laws Message-id: <5.1.1.6.0.20020825161012.01c2f400@mail.comcast.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk East dealer, both sides vulnerable, KO match B A B A W N E S P P 1NT P 2H! P (2H-announced as transfer) P, Oops! The TD is called, and he rules that West had not made a mechanical error, but since North has not yet bid, West is allowed to change his pass under L25B, limiting team B's score to at most average-minus (-3 IMPs). West uses the option to bid 2S, which ends the auction, and 2S makes for +110. At the other table, Team B is +140, which would be +6 IMPs without the L25B adjustment. Do you score -6 to team A and -3 to team B, and then average the non-balancing scores giving +1.5 to team B? Or do you score +3 to team A and -3 to team B? (On the actual hand, B decided to let his pass stand, so this issue didn't come up. 2H passed out went down four.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 07:08:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7PL7o818738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 07:07:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7PL7jK18734 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 07:07:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-0336.bb.online.no [80.212.209.80]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA25115 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 23:07:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <010101c24c7b$5930e460$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <000c01c24c36$80edac80$0300a8c0@mshome.net> <00d501c24c3b$2c285f60$6400a8c0@WINXP> <003b01c24c5d$0884ddf0$0100a8c0@MIKE> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 23:06:53 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "mike dodson" > From: "Sven Pran" > > From: "David Barton" > > > Dummy asking defender is a breach of 61B (since it is not one of the > > > permitted actions). > > > Law 63B is now applicable. > > > > Nope > > Read my post from about 30 minutes ahead of yours. (Reply to DWS) > > > > Dummy asking defender is a break of Law 41B1, NOT of Law 61B > > according to the official commentaries issued by Grattan Endicott in > > 1992. The laws in 1997 were not changed so that this interpretation > > became obsolete. > > > > Forget Law 63B in this case. > > > > > The Director will apply Law 12A1 to dummy's infraction to restore > equity. > > > > No need to, but dummy should have a warning (PP) > > > > regards Sven > > > Seems to me you're both right (or wrong). L42B1 applies, not 61B but L42B1 > doesn't get us to L43B3. That law limits itself to L43A2 for application so > L12A1 it is. I cannot imagine any situation where defenders will be better off with an established revoke rather than a non-established revoke corrected under Law 62, therefore there should be no need to look for any further action against (or for) the revoking side. If after a violation of law 42B1 by dummy it should be demonstrated that defenders in fact was damaged by the application of Law 62 rather than letting the revoke become established then the Director can always fall back on Law 82B1 leading to Law 12 for rectification. (I should be most interested in a realistic example of such damage!) > > Will L12a1 let us rule that the damage caused by dummy's infraction is the > opportunity for revoker to notice before the revoke is established so, as > Sven suggests, correct the revoke, declare a major penalty card and allow > play to proceed? Please show an example where defenders are damaged by being given the opportunity to notice their revoke before it is established! With no damage there is no cause for adjusting any score. > I don't see how that equals an adjusted score but it does > seem equitable. Or can we just say that since dummy's utterance was > illegal, it is UI for declarer, AI for defenders, proceed to L62A, same as > above, PP(w?) to dummy. > > If this is the case, what's the point of L42B1? We get to same place as if > declarer had legally inquired except for a chance to lecture the LOL on > dummy's rights and restrictions. Meanwhile the revoking side is likely > better off than if she had said nothing until the hand was over. I suppose > now we must check if the correction and penalty card is worse for the > revoker than the revoke penalty might have been had the revoke been > established. Exactly, and it is not Law 42B1 that is superfluous but Law 61B together with the reference to this law from Law 63B that possibly confuses the issue. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 11:25:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7Q1O0418828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:24:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7Q1NuK18824 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:23:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA11077 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:39:17 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:18:00 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] L25B in KO play To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:23:02 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 26/08/2002 11:17:33 AM 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] >At the other table, Team B is +140, which would be +6 IMPs without >the L25B adjustment. > >Do you score -6 to team A and -3 to team B, and then average the >non-balancing scores giving +1.5 to team B? Or do you score +3 to >team A and -3 to team B? [snip] The footnote to L25B2b2 states that the non-offending side receives the score achieved at the table. Therefore, +1.5 imps to team B is the correct result under L86B. 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 Aug 26 11:44:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7Q1iMt18854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:44:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7Q1iEK18847 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:44:14 +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 17j8uj-000Pw2-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 02:43:36 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 15:22:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke References: <001901c24c0b$44fb5b30$6400a8c0@WINXP> In-Reply-To: <001901c24c0b$44fb5b30$6400a8c0@WINXP> 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 >True, but the point is that the offending side has legally become aware >of the revoke, thus Laws 62A & B apply with no restriction on their part, >and unlike the situation if offender's partner had drawn attention to the >possible revoke in any manner (Law 63B) there is no reason for further >sanctions against the offending side. The revoker must as said replace >his revoking card and this revoking card becomes a major penalty >card but that is all. Laws 63 and 64 do not apply. L61B does not allow dummy to ask a defender whether he has shown out. So the defender did not discover "legally" that he had revoked, but through a breach of L61B. Since L63B refers to a breach of L61B, why does it not apply? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 11:44:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7Q1iM718855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:44:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7Q1iEK18846 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:44:14 +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 17j8uj-000Pw1-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 02:43:35 +0100 Message-ID: <0AQ8xLA3JOa9EwaU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 14:58:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Completely off-topic 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 >>John (MadDog) Probst writes >>>In article , David Stevenson >>> writes >>>> >>>> Richard asked whether it was legal to play >>>> >>>>>1D = ~ 9 - 14 HCP, 4+ Hearts, might have longer minor >>>>> >>>>>1H = ~ 9 - 14 HCP, 4+ Spades, might have longer minor >>>>> >>>>>1S = ~ 9 - 14 HCP, 4+ Diamonds, might have longer clubs >>>> >>>>and I read it too fast and answered like a plonker >>>> >>>>>> All of these are OK subject to Rule of 19 [L3] or Rule of 18 [L4]. >>>> >>>>but of course I had missed the transfer nature of the system. Sorry. >>>> >>>> No, these openings are currently not permitted at L3 or L4. Thanks to >>>>Robin for pointing out what a pillock I am [and for being polite about >>>>it!]. >>>> >>>David, you're a pillock :) >> >> Excuse me, Robin noticed I was a plonker: you did not. What does that >>make *you*? >I did notice, I was just too polite to say. Actually I was going to play >transfer openings in the next session you direct me in and see what >happened :) No way does anyone believe you, John: it wasn't even a good try! :) -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 12:08:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7Q28Uo18895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:08:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5-0.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 g7Q28MK18886 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:08:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g7Q27fW02309 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 22:07:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 22:00:26 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <00ba01c24c32$4fc82df0$6400a8c0@WINXP> 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 8/25/02, Sven Pran wrote: >Law 42B1 > >Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987 >specifically states under 63.5: > >"Note: An enquiry by dummy of defender is a violation of Law 42B1, >not of Law 61B" Usually, when somebody "asks about a revoke" (see thread title), the question is "having none?" or similar. In this case, dummy asked why defender who showed no spades had bid them. Is this still a violation of Law 42B1 ("Dummy may ask declarer (but not a defender) when he has failed to follow suit to a trick whether he has a card of the suit led")? It doesn't seem so to me. Please don't tell me that *any* question about a player's played card not of the suit led is a question whether he has any of that suit. I won't believe 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 Aug 26 12:08:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7Q28Wq18896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:08:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com (syr-24-92-226-122.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7Q28OK18888 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:08:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g7Q27gW02340; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 22:07:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 21:53:09 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list To: "Marvin L. French" cc: BLML X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <004401c24c5c$2b05d560$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 8/25/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >Simply download the .bmp file from the ACBL website and put it into a >paint program to delete options that aren't applicable to the >partnership. Simply, he says. Marv, does the acronym "PITA" ring any bells? :-) 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 Aug 26 12:17:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7Q2HEl18919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:17:14 +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 g7Q2H9K18915 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:17:09 +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 MAA22974 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:32:34 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:11:16 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:15:27 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 26/08/2002 12:10:49 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] >There's no rule (or there had better not be a rule) saying >you can't write something there that doesn't match the >label; the CC is there to inform the opponents, and if it >does that job, fine. > > -- Adam Some years ago the WBF tried to limit the number of conventions a partnership played by a requirement that all of a partnership's conventions had to be listed on the system card. The regulation was abandoned when it was found to unfairly advantage those players who would have been successful in a medieval monastery. (That is, the monkish players were excellent at miniscule calligraphy.) The ABF has a similar regulation, which requires written defences against Yellow (HUM) systems to fit on one A4 page. My calligraphy is terrible, but fortunately my preparation against a Yellow system in last month's Australian National Championships was saved by modern technology's ability to create a 9-point font. 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 Aug 26 15:31:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7Q5UcR19024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:30:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7Q5UWK19020 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:30:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-1793.bb.online.no [80.212.215.1]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA21126 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 07:29:48 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000f01c24cc1$95c1f270$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <001901c24c0b$44fb5b30$6400a8c0@WINXP> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 07:29:42 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David: Please get your copy of "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987 by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen" and look up the note under para 63.5 (page 197 in my book): That note specifically excludes the use of Law 61B and instructs us to apply Law 42B1 instead when dummy asks a defender, and I can see no reason why this note should not apply after 1997. regards Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 4:22 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke > Sven Pran writes > > >True, but the point is that the offending side has legally become aware > >of the revoke, thus Laws 62A & B apply with no restriction on their part, > >and unlike the situation if offender's partner had drawn attention to the > >possible revoke in any manner (Law 63B) there is no reason for further > >sanctions against the offending side. The revoker must as said replace > >his revoking card and this revoking card becomes a major penalty > >card but that is all. Laws 63 and 64 do not apply. > > L61B does not allow dummy to ask a defender whether he has shown out. > So the defender did not discover "legally" that he had revoked, but > through a breach of L61B. Since L63B refers to a breach of L61B, why > does it not apply? > > -- > David Stevenson -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 15:51:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7Q5pHZ19043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:51:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7Q5pCK19039 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:51:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-2059.bb.online.no [80.212.216.11]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA07817 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 07:50:29 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001501c24cc4$79328450$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 07:50:24 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > On 8/25/02, Sven Pran wrote: > > >Law 42B1 > > > >Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987 > >specifically states under 63.5: > > > >"Note: An enquiry by dummy of defender is a violation of Law 42B1, > >not of Law 61B" > > Usually, when somebody "asks about a revoke" (see thread title), the > question is "having none?" or similar. In this case, dummy asked why > defender who showed no spades had bid them. Is this still a violation of > Law 42B1 ("Dummy may ask declarer (but not a defender) when he has > failed to follow suit to a trick whether he has a card of the suit > led")? It doesn't seem so to me. > > Please don't tell me that *any* question about a player's played card > not of the suit led is a question whether he has any of that suit. I > won't believe it. > > Regards, > > Ed You better do. It has long since been a well established understanding of Law 61B that *any* remark or mannerism etc. by one defender which may draw his partner's attention to a possible revoke constitutes a break of Law 61B, this is not limited to spoken questions only. (Looking surprised when partner shows out is as good a question as anything!) But we don't even need to extend this understanding to Law 42B1 although that would be natural: If we rule that dummy did not "ask a question" then his action is a direct violation of Law 43A1(c) "Dummy must not participate in the play .....", and possibly also Law 43A1(b) "Dummy may not call attention .....". 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 Aug 26 17:26:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7Q7Pac19097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:25:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7Q7PTK19093 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:25:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (64.54-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.54.64]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7Q7Okf07117 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 09:24:46 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D69D7C8.4070705@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 09:24:56 +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] Dummy asks defender about revoke References: <001501c24cc4$79328450$6400a8c0@WINXP> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Ed Reppert" > > >>On 8/25/02, Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >>>Law 42B1 >>> >>>Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987 >>>specifically states under 63.5: >>> >>>"Note: An enquiry by dummy of defender is a violation of Law 42B1, >>>not of Law 61B" >>> >>Usually, when somebody "asks about a revoke" (see thread title), the >>question is "having none?" or similar. In this case, dummy asked why >>defender who showed no spades had bid them. Is this still a violation of >>Law 42B1 ("Dummy may ask declarer (but not a defender) when he has >>failed to follow suit to a trick whether he has a card of the suit >>led")? It doesn't seem so to me. >> >>Please don't tell me that *any* question about a player's played card >>not of the suit led is a question whether he has any of that suit. I >>won't believe it. >> >>Regards, >> >>Ed >> > > You better do. > > It has long since been a well established understanding of Law 61B that > *any* remark or mannerism etc. by one defender which may draw his > partner's attention to a possible revoke constitutes a break of Law 61B, > this is not limited to spoken questions only. (Looking surprised when > partner shows out is as good a question as anything!) > Not that it has any bearing on this particular problem - which is hardly punishable - but in Salsomaggiore a belgian defender was ruled to have asked partner about a revoke for simply waiting some time (according to him in order to reconstitute the hands - but the AC did not think this mattered). > But we don't even need to extend this understanding to Law 42B1 > although that would be natural: > > If we rule that dummy did not "ask a question" then his action is a direct > violation of Law 43A1(c) "Dummy must not participate in the play .....", > and possibly also Law 43A1(b) "Dummy may not call attention .....". > > regards Sven > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://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 Aug 26 17:30:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7Q7U9p19112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:30:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7Q7U3K19108 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:30:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-3744.bb.online.no [80.212.222.160]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA06620 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 09:29:20 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006001c24cd2$47a78800$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 09:29:14 +0200 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 From: "Jürgen Rennenkampff" ..... > > I cannot imagine any situation where defenders will be better off with an > > established revoke rather than a non-established revoke corrected under > > Law 62, therefore there should be no need to look for any further action > > against (or for) the revoking side. > > ... > > > > Sven > > > Schematically such a situation would be, for example, one where declarer has > several cashing tricks in dummy while his only possible entry is, say, Kx of > hearts. If RHO holds HA and revokes by pitching a low heart, then an entry > is created by the correction of the revoke that would not exist if the > revoke had become established, nor if there had not been a revoke. > More generally, an established revoke is often followed by play based on > incorrect inferences. You forget Law 72B1 (If dummy "could have known" - it is not neccessary to prove intent, only that the irregularity caused damage) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 20:05:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QA4Gl19198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:04:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (listserv.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QA41K19175 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:04:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id MAA13059; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:01:04 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id MAA16381; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:03:20 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826113054.00a6f2a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:31:32 +0200 To: Ed Reppert , Gordon Bower From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] An online Laws question Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List 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 18:00 24/08/2002 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 8/23/02, Gordon Bower wrote: > > >For that matter... if this happen in face-to-face bridge, would you > >say "OK, let's fix it" or "sorry, the auction period is over, can't > >help you"? > >The auction isn't over until the opening lead is faced. AG : what kind of lead do you expect after 4 passes ? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 20:05:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QA4Ig19199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:04:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (listserv.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QA42K19179 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:04:03 +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 MAA13073; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:01:05 +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 MAA16426; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:03:22 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826113300.00a6ee40@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:39:16 +0200 To: "Nigel Guthrie" , "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list In-Reply-To: <00b301c24c55$a47b9990$239c68d5@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 17:37 25/08/2002 +0100, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >Marvin L French (in another thread): > Okay, here is the regulation: > 1. Each player is required to have a convention card legibly filled > out.... > 2. If a director determines that neither player has a substantially > completed card, the partnership may only play conventions on the > Limited Convention Chart and may only use standard carding. > To this one must add the ACBL's instructions for filling out a CC, > provided in that 13-page document I cited above. A very well-done > document, by the way. > >Nigel: > What a great idea! A standard convention card; with checkboxes; > and every section must be completed. > In England, we have at least two kinds of standard local card, > but many players use non-standard, foreign or WBF cards. > Few are complete. Many sections permit misleading entries > (e.g. "signals: count" meaning "odd cards show an odd holding") > It would help everybody if a standard card were internationally > adopted and made compulsory. AG : I feel that it would be difficult to implement at a moderate level ; since the popular conventions differ very much from contry to country (not to speak of admitted conventions), the checkboxes shouldn't be the same in different countries ; even the place allowed to each treatment will vary. Examples : a checkbox for "2-bid forcing to game" is useless in Europa ; long descriptions for 3-bids could be needed in some countries (Paki preempts) ; space reserved to a "pass" opening will be used only where such an opening is allowed etc. It could be fun to answer "13" in the "min. # cards" for a Pass, but I'm afraid to be penalized for wrong information above the ordinary consequences for not having noticed I've got only 12 %-) Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 20:05:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QA4KE19200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:04:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (listserv.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QA43K19182 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:04:04 +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 MAA13017; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:01:00 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id MAA16333; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:03:18 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:05:46 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] DwS explained 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, For those who believe in DwS, for those who have something to say for or against it, (that's all of us), here is a case where I thought it should be applied : N E S W 1D p 1S 2H 4H* * splinterbid ; alerted and explained by partner as exclusion BW (MI) The DwS requests me to explain my partner's next bid as an answer to exclusion BW, so that he will not discover the misunderstanding. As I feel the DwS attitude often diminishes the amount of mess, as its main exponent was in the room, I had decided to use it if needed. East bids 5H. South bids 6S. I alert, albeit timidly ; when asked, I explain it shows _seven_ keycards. For some reason, they didn't believe me ;-) It seems like some adjustments should be made to said school in some cases ... Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 20:05:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QA4Ne19202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:04:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (listserv.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QA43K19181 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:04:03 +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 MAA13077; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:01:06 +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 MAA16464; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:03:23 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826121230.00a6d750@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:13:02 +0200 To: Ed Reppert , Sven Pran From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Cc: Bridge Laws Submissions In-Reply-To: References: <002701c24bb7$52043120$6400a8c0@WINXP> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 18:14 24/08/2002 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 8/24/02, Sven Pran wrote: > > >2: Although attention was illegally drawn to the revoke this infraction >was > >by the (until then) non-offending side. Thus there can be no further >penalty > >against the revoking side. > >Law 61B makes no distinction as to which side drew attention to the >revoke. At least, not as I read it. AG : L43B2c does. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 20:05:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QA4LW19201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:04:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (listserv.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QA43K19180 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:04:03 +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 MAA13031; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:01:02 +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 MAA16351; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:03:19 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826111911.00a6e360@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:28:52 +0200 To: Gordon Bower , Bridge Laws Mailing List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] An online Laws question 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 10:59 23/08/2002 -0800, Gordon Bower wrote: >As most of you are aware, Law 25 is the same in the code of laws for >online bridge as it is the the standard FLB. > >Some online sites have chosen to ignore this, and in general prohibit all >changes of call. At Swan Games (partly because of my constant prodding of >the management) we are attempting to follow the laws as much as we are >able. > >Here is a puzzle for you: > >The bidding starts, pass, pass, pass. The person in fourth seat has been >dealt a strong 2C opening, but misclicks on Pass. (Yes, on Swan this is >quite an easy mistake to make: the bidding-box is laid out like this: > >1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >C D H S NT >Pass X XX >Bid Bid&Alert > >and to bid you click on "2", "C", "Bid"; to pass you click "Pass", >"Bid." If your mouse is slightly misaimed you can easily click "2", "C", >"Pass"-oops, I better move the mouse a little, nothing happened-"Bid".) > >L25A: I am allowed an immediate correction. >L17E: The auction period ends when all four players pass. > >In face-to-face bridge, a passout-seat misbid ought to be rare, but would >also be fairly easily correctible. In online bridge, the board becomes >unplayable the instant the last pass is made since all four hands are >exposed and the next hand is dealt. > >Do you say to the holder of the 2C hand, "tough cheese", or do you assign >A+/A- (he is at fault for having been sloppy), or A+/A+ (the software >caused the problem and the player still has all his rights)? > >For that matter... if this happen in face-to-face bridge, would you say >"OK, let's fix it" or "sorry, the auction period is over, can't help you"? AG : replying without having seen other answers : in face-to-face bridge, it would be quite uncommon to pull Pass in lieu of 2C, but let's assume the player pulls a Pass in lieu of a Stop, which is not at all implausible. Assuming I decide there was a mispull, neither the Laws nor YHS have any objections about letting the player place a Stop and a bid. The players have no right to show their cards or comment about them ; they should just shuffle them and put them in the slots, which will usually give the mispuller enough time to realise his mistake and interrupt the proceedings. If somebody commented, this person is the responsible for the unplayability of the board. Adjust accordingly. Translating this to online bridge, of which I don't know anything, I'd say the program is responsible for the unplayability of the board. Adjust to either 60/60 or 50/60 and give the computer a PP. Best regards, Alain. I don't know much about online bridge, I suppose -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 20:14:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QAELb19252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:14:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (listserv.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QAEFK19248 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:14:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id MAA16514; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:11:18 +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 MAA27662; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:13:36 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826121428.00a6dd60@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:23:22 +0200 To: "Sven Pran" , "Bridge Laws Submissions" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke In-Reply-To: <001901c24c0b$44fb5b30$6400a8c0@WINXP> 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 09:44 25/08/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Ed Reppert" >To: "Sven Pran" >Cc: "Bridge Laws Submissions" >Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 12:14 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke > > > > On 8/24/02, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > >2: Although attention was illegally drawn to the revoke this infraction > > was > > >by the (until then) non-offending side. Thus there can be no further > > penalty > > >against the revoking side. > > > > Law 61B makes no distinction as to which side drew attention to the > > revoke. At least, not as I read it. > > > > Regards, > > > > Ed > >True, but the point is that the offending side has legally become aware >of the revoke, thus Laws 62A & B apply with no restriction on their part, >and unlike the situation if offender's partner had drawn attention to the >possible revoke in any manner (Law 63B) there is no reason for further >sanctions against the offending side. The revoker must as said replace >his revoking card and this revoking card becomes a major penalty >card but that is all. Laws 63 and 64 do not apply. AG : at least it iequitable. It is exactly the same as if declarer had ostensibly gulped on seeing RHO's card, giving him time to correct the revoke. If the TD decides L43B doesn't apply (the facts as stated give no clue as to any loss of dummy's rights), the decision has to be 'non established revoke'. NB : this will prohibit RHO from giving his partner a ruff, unless the penalty card makes the next trick. L72B1 will never apply, because the revoker will never be better off after the revoke.If he wanted to play the would-be-PC, he could do so without making it a PC. Well ... it raises an interesting question ... Suppose I have a MPC. Suppose I play a card, contrevening to the obligation of playing a PC. Might I be liable to L72B1 penalties, on the grounds that I could have played that card in the hope that declarer choose to apply L52 and accept the played card (or cover the card too quickly) ? Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 20:18:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QAHxe19264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:17:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (listserv.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QAHrK19260 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:17:53 +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 MAA18150; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:14:56 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id MAA03265; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:17:13 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826122439.00a65300@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:26:59 +0200 To: "Sven Pran" , "Bridge Laws Submissions" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke In-Reply-To: <00d501c24c3b$2c285f60$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000c01c24c36$80edac80$0300a8c0@mshome.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 15:27 25/08/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "David Barton" > > Dummy asking defender is a breach of 61B (since it is not one of the > > permitted actions). > > Law 63B is now applicable. > >Nope >Read my post from about 30 minutes ahead of yours. (Reply to DWS) AG : don't be too harsh with him. It could well happen that he sent his mail before receiving yours. Sometimes (quite often) it takes more than 30 mn for a mail to reach us. >Dummy asking defender is a break of Law 41B1, NOT of Law 61B >according to the official commentaries issued by Grattan Endicott in >1992. The laws in 1997 were not changed so that this interpretation >became obsolete. AG : Okay, but only a previous loss of rights would enable the use of L42B1 ; it isn't the case 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 Aug 26 20:20:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QAKAD19276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:20:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (listserv.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QAK4K19272 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:20:05 +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 MAA18949; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:17:07 +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 MAA05450; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:19:24 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826122811.00a6aec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:29:10 +0200 To: "mike dodson" , "Bridge Laws Submissions" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke In-Reply-To: <003b01c24c5d$0884ddf0$0100a8c0@MIKE> References: <000c01c24c36$80edac80$0300a8c0@mshome.net> <00d501c24c3b$2c285f60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:29 25/08/2002 -0700, mike dodson wrote: >If this is the case, what's the point of L42B1? We get to same place as if >declarer had legally inquired except for a chance to lecture the LOL on >dummy's rights and restrictions. Meanwhile the revoking side is likely >better off than if she had said nothing until the hand was over. I suppose >now we must check if the correction and penalty card is worse for the >revoker than the revoke penalty might have been had the revoke been >established. AG : this will never be the case. If the established revoke costs less, L64C applies. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 20:22:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QALtH19291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:21:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (listserv.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QALnK19287 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:21:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id MAA19592; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:18:52 +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 MAA07471; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:21:09 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826123005.00a66780@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:30:55 +0200 To: Ed Reppert , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke In-Reply-To: References: <00ba01c24c32$4fc82df0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 22:00 25/08/2002 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 8/25/02, Sven Pran wrote: > > >Law 42B1 > > > >Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987 > >specifically states under 63.5: > > > >"Note: An enquiry by dummy of defender is a violation of Law 42B1, > >not of Law 61B" > >Usually, when somebody "asks about a revoke" (see thread title), the >question is "having none?" or similar. In this case, dummy asked why >defender who showed no spades had bid them. Is this still a violation of >Law 42B1 ("Dummy may ask declarer (but not a defender) when he has >failed to follow suit to a trick whether he has a card of the suit >led")? It doesn't seem so to me. > >Please don't tell me that *any* question about a player's played card >not of the suit led is a question whether he has any of that suit. I >won't believe it. AG : what about an astonished look ostensibly directed at the player's card ? It has been ruled before that, between defenders, this was equivalent of a question, establishing the revoke. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 20:26:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QAQNc19304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:26:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QAQHK19300 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:26:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-3016.bb.online.no [80.212.219.200]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA03068 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:25:34 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <010101c24cea$e54c0d20$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826121428.00a6dd60@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:25:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Alain Gottcheiner ......... > NB : this will prohibit RHO from giving his partner a ruff, unless the > penalty card makes the next trick. L72B1 will never apply, because the > revoker will never be better off after the revoke.If he wanted to play the > would-be-PC, he could do so without making it a PC. L72B1 might apply on the irregularity made by dummy if it should turn out that defender would have been better off by an established rather than a corrected revoke. > > Well ... it raises an interesting question ... > Suppose I have a MPC. Suppose I play a card, contrevening to the obligation > of playing a PC. Might I be liable to L72B1 penalties, on the grounds that > I could have played that card in the hope that declarer choose to apply L52 > and accept the played card (or cover the card too quickly) ? Yes, of course, if it should turn out that declarer was "damaged". You "could have known" that the choice you gave declarer "would be likely to damage" him, particularly when it actually did damage him. (And if there was no damage then there is no question of Law 72B1 anyway) 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 Aug 26 20:32:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QAVnb19316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:31:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7QAVhK19312 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:31:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-3016.bb.online.no [80.212.219.200]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA13068 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:31:00 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <010701c24ceb$a78f5810$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <000c01c24c36$80edac80$0300a8c0@mshome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020826122439.00a65300@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:30:52 +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: "Alain Gottcheiner" > At 15:27 25/08/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > >From: "David Barton" > > > Dummy asking defender is a breach of 61B (since it is not one of the > > > permitted actions). > > > Law 63B is now applicable. > > > >Nope > >Read my post from about 30 minutes ahead of yours. (Reply to DWS) > > AG : don't be too harsh with him. It could well happen that he sent his > mail before receiving yours. Sometimes (quite often) it takes more than 30 > mn for a mail to reach us. Sure, and I do hope I didn't seem harsh, that was absolutely not my intention! (I can imagine hundred reasons why a more recent post gets read before an older) > > > >Dummy asking defender is a break of Law 41B1, NOT of Law 61B > >according to the official commentaries issued by Grattan Endicott in > >1992. The laws in 1997 were not changed so that this interpretation > >became obsolete. > > AG : Okay, but only a previous loss of rights would enable the use of L42B1 > ; it isn't the case here. There is no such condition for the use of L42B1 - it applies unconditionally. I believe you must be mixing with Laws 43B2 and/or 43B3? 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 Aug 26 20:40:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QAdoL19341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:39:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7QAdiK19337 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:39:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-3194.bb.online.no [80.212.220.122]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA22226 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:39:00 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <011101c24cec$c5b43670$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826113054.00a6f2a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] An online Laws question Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:38:52 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Ed Reppert" ; "Gordon Bower" Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] An online Laws question > At 18:00 24/08/2002 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > >On 8/23/02, Gordon Bower wrote: > > > > >For that matter... if this happen in face-to-face bridge, would you > > >say "OK, let's fix it" or "sorry, the auction period is over, can't > > >help you"? > > > >The auction isn't over until the opening lead is faced. > > AG : what kind of lead do you expect after 4 passes ? There is still room for revealing that there has been misinformation, for instance that one of the pass calls should have been alerted. Then TD should offer the last player that passed on the non-offending side to replace his pass with some bid at his own choice after which the auction would continue normally. The auction in this case isn't over until the cards are being restored to the board. (This is not explicitly stated anywhere in the laws, but any other definition on when the auction ends if there is no bid becomes meaningless). Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 20:48:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QAmhp19375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:48:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7QAmbK19371 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:48:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-3398.bb.online.no [80.212.221.70]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA26702 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:47:53 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:47:37 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > Dear blmlists, > > For those who believe in DwS, for those who have something to say for or > against it, (that's all of us), here is a case where I thought it should be > applied : > > N E S W > > 1D p 1S 2H > 4H* > > * splinterbid ; alerted and explained by partner as exclusion BW (MI) > > The DwS requests me to explain my partner's next bid as an answer to > exclusion BW, so that he will not discover the misunderstanding. As I feel > the DwS attitude often diminishes the amount of mess, as its main exponent > was in the room, I had decided to use it if needed. Your partners explanation that 4H is exclusion BW is unauthorized information for you - you are not allowed to use that information in any way. Thus you are not allowed to prevent partner from learning that he is wrong by yourself giving opponents a sustaining and wrong explanation. (But partner may not use your correct explanation as a reminder that he has given a wrong statement). I am really surprised that DWS can have said anything along the line you refer. > > East bids 5H. > South bids 6S. > > I alert, albeit timidly ; when asked, I explain it shows _seven_ keycards. > For some reason, they didn't believe me ;-) > > It seems like some adjustments should be made to said school in some cases ... I am really glad not meeting this case at the table as TD. The way you describe it I would have given a severe PP (for intentionally misleading opponents) 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 Aug 26 20:52:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QAq2D19393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:52:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QApuK19389 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:51:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-3448.bb.online.no [80.212.221.120]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA15869 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:51:13 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <011f01c24cee$7aa38760$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <002701c24bb7$52043120$6400a8c0@WINXP> <5.1.0.14.0.20020826121230.00a6d750@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:51:02 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Ed Reppert" ; "Sven Pran" Cc: "Bridge Laws Submissions" Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke > At 18:14 24/08/2002 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > >On 8/24/02, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > >2: Although attention was illegally drawn to the revoke this infraction > >was > > >by the (until then) non-offending side. Thus there can be no further > >penalty > > >against the revoking side. > > > >Law 61B makes no distinction as to which side drew attention to the > >revoke. At least, not as I read it. > > AG : L43B2c does. L43B2c ??????? (doesn't exist in my book) Do you mean L43B3? That law doesn't apply because Dummys rights has not been forfeited. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 21:00:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QB03219416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:00:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QAxvK19408 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:59:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-3639.bb.online.no [80.212.222.55]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA28184 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:59:14 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <012b01c24cef$993669d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826113300.00a6ee40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:59:03 +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: "Alain Gottcheiner" > At 17:37 25/08/2002 +0100, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >Marvin L French (in another thread): > > Okay, here is the regulation: > > 1. Each player is required to have a convention card legibly filled > > out.... > > 2. If a director determines that neither player has a substantially > > completed card, the partnership may only play conventions on the > > Limited Convention Chart and may only use standard carding. > > To this one must add the ACBL's instructions for filling out a CC, > > provided in that 13-page document I cited above. A very well-done > > document, by the way. > > > >Nigel: > > What a great idea! A standard convention card; with checkboxes; > > and every section must be completed. > > In England, we have at least two kinds of standard local card, > > but many players use non-standard, foreign or WBF cards. > > Few are complete. Many sections permit misleading entries > > (e.g. "signals: count" meaning "odd cards show an odd holding") > > It would help everybody if a standard card were internationally > > adopted and made compulsory. Effective this autumn any pair participating in Norwegian tournaments must have satisfactory convention cards. The new sanction is that a pair without such cards must use a standard convention card published by the Norwegian Bridge Federation, and absolutely NO deviations from this may be agreed upon between the players in that pair until they have completed their own convention cards. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 21:07:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QB78Z19439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:07:08 +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-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 g7QB71K19430 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:07:01 +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 17jHhM-000Ebt-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:06:22 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 03:15:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25B in KO play References: <5.1.1.6.0.20020825161012.01c2f400@mail.comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20020825161012.01c2f400@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 >East dealer, both sides vulnerable, KO match > >B A B A >W N E S > P P >1NT P 2H! P (2H-announced as transfer) >P, Oops! > >The TD is called, and he rules that West had not made a mechanical error, >but since North has not yet bid, West is allowed to change his pass under >L25B, limiting team B's score to at most average-minus (-3 IMPs). West >uses the option to bid 2S, which ends the auction, and 2S makes for >+110. At the other table, Team B is +140, which would be +6 IMPs without >the L25B adjustment. > >Do you score -6 to team A and -3 to team B, and then average the >non-balancing scores giving +1.5 to team B? Yes, that's 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 Aug 26 21:07:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QB7At19440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:07:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7QB73K19435 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:07:04 +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 17jHhQ-000Eby-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:06:25 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 03:14:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list References: <00b301c24c55$a47b9990$239c68d5@SCRAP> In-Reply-To: <00b301c24c55$a47b9990$239c68d5@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 > What a great idea! A standard convention card; with checkboxes; > and every section must be completed. The ACBL card shows why this does not work. In England there would either be far less info to opponents or people would have to have about eight pages of check boxes. > In England, we have at least two kinds of standard local card, > but many players use non-standard, foreign or WBF cards. If people use illegal cards call the TD. The two types of local card are better than the ACBL card if anything non-standard is played. > Few are complete. Many sections permit misleading entries > (e.g. "signals: count" meaning "odd cards show an odd holding") That's irrelevant - you should see the way ACBL cards are filled out! While it would be better if cards are filled better that is not the fault of the card - people are pretty casual over such things. > It would help everybody if a standard card were internationally > adopted and made compulsory. No, that would be far worse. There are different approaches in different countries, and different levels of player. It would make the game worse for the various levels if you did this. > Books on popular systems could contain such a completed card, > for use as a template. This would hardly work: who plays a system per the book these days? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 21:15:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QBFQi19472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:15:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.49]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QBFKK19468 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:15:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from pavilion ([12.91.170.216]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020826111436.LTKT23721.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@pavilion> for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:14:36 +0000 From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" Subject: RE: [BLML] DwS explained Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 07:14:48 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> 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: Sven Pran > Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 6:48 AM > To: Bridge Laws Submissions > Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained > > I am really surprised that DWS can have said anything > along the line you refer. The lowercase w is significant. DwS = De Wael School. > I am really glad not meeting this case at the table as > TD. The way you describe > it I would have given a severe PP (for intentionally > misleading opponents) There should be no difficult problem for the TD to address. North, who has UI, is not given any chance to use it. Hopefully, the MI is corrected before the opening lead. The only question is whether or not EW would double or sacrifice in 7H over the correct explanations. -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 Mon Aug 26 21:26:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QBQFU19515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:26:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from poczta.interia.pl (naos.interia.pl [217.74.65.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QBQ9K19511 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:26:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (naos.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by system.wewnetrzny9 (Mailserver) with SMTP id A1E217CA1 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:25:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 6FA717FE0; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:25:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 69C3E7F71 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:25:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <00f101c24cf3$60df0e30$727e870a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <002701c24bb7$52043120$6400a8c0@WINXP> <5.1.0.14.0.20020826121230.00a6d750@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:18:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 142be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > AG : L43B2c does. > There is no §43B2c in my book. Do you mean §43B2b or §43B3? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Zgodz sie, co Ci szkodzi? >>> http://link.interia.pl/f163f -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 21:31:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QBVaL19527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:31:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QBVUK19523 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:31:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (64.54-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.54.64]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7QBUif02761 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:30:44 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D6A116E.6080509@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:30:54 +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] DwS explained References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@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: > Dear blmlists, > > For those who believe in DwS, for those who have something to say for or > against it, (that's all of us), here is a case where I thought it should > be applied : > > N E S W > > 1D p 1S 2H > 4H* > > * splinterbid ; alerted and explained by partner as exclusion BW (MI) > > The DwS requests me to explain my partner's next bid as an answer to > exclusion BW, so that he will not discover the misunderstanding. As I > feel the DwS attitude often diminishes the amount of mess, as its main > exponent was in the room, I had decided to use it if needed. > > East bids 5H. > South bids 6S. > > I alert, albeit timidly ; when asked, I explain it shows _seven_ keycards. > For some reason, they didn't believe me ;-) > > It seems like some adjustments should be made to said school in some > cases ... Nice story Alain, but there is something I don't understand. You are North. You bid 4H. You intend this as splinter, but partner explains it as BW. Partner then bids 6S. Under BW, that would mean 7 KC. So partner must be up to something. Then why not in fact explain it as you did ? After all, partner did believe 4H was BW, no ? So his 6S did mean something in BW, no ? Possibly 2 Aces and a void ? If it's not, then partner should first correct his explanation BW. I don't think the DwS needs changing from this example. > Best regards, > > Alain. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://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 Aug 26 21:36:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QBa3Q19551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:36:03 +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 g7QBZsK19543 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:35:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-0479.bb.online.no [80.212.209.223]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA28308 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:35:11 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <015c01c24cf4$9ed7f700$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:34:59 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > From: Sven Pran > > I am really surprised that DWS can have said anything > > along the line you refer. > > The lowercase w is significant. DwS = De Wael School. Thanks for the clarification and my apology for even suspecting that DWS could have uttered what in my opinion is directly illegal. My surprise then instead goes on DwS! 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 Aug 26 21:36:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QBa1Y19550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:36:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (www.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QBZrK19542 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:35:53 +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 NAA04589; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:32:55 +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 NAA19065; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:35:13 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826134209.00a6c820@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:45:00 +0200 To: "Sven Pran" , "Bridge Laws Submissions" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke In-Reply-To: <010701c24ceb$a78f5810$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000c01c24c36$80edac80$0300a8c0@mshome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020826122439.00a65300@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g7QBZtK19544 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:30 26/08/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > > At 15:27 25/08/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > >From: "David Barton" > > > > Dummy asking defender is a breach of 61B (since it is not one of the > > > > permitted actions). > > > > Law 63B is now applicable. > > > > > >Nope > > >Read my post from about 30 minutes ahead of yours. (Reply to DWS) > > > > AG : don't be too harsh with him. It could well happen that he sent his > > mail before receiving yours. Sometimes (quite often) it takes more than 30 > > mn for a mail to reach us. > >Sure, and I do hope I didn't seem harsh, that was absolutely not my >intention! >(I can imagine hundred reasons why a more recent post gets read before an >older) > > > > > > > >Dummy asking defender is a break of Law 41B1, NOT of Law 61B > > >according to the official commentaries issued by Grattan Endicott in > > >1992. The laws in 1997 were not changed so that this interpretation > > >became obsolete. > > > > AG : Okay, but only a previous loss of rights would enable the use of >L42B1 > > ; it isn't the case here. > >There is no such condition for the use of L42B1 - it applies >unconditionally. >I believe you must be mixing with Laws 43B2 and/or 43B3? AG : okay, I meant 43B2b, which should take precedence over 43B1 because of its specificity. By the way, the French edition hasn't got any § 43B3. This is not an isolated case. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 21:48:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QBlwx19604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:47:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (eurasianchemtech.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QBlqK19600 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:47:52 +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 NAA07093; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:44:55 +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 NAA00513; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:47:12 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826134608.00a79300@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:56:58 +0200 To: "Sven Pran" , "Bridge Laws Submissions" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained In-Reply-To: <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@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 12:47 26/08/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > Dear blmlists, > > > > For those who believe in DwS, for those who have something to say for or > > against it, (that's all of us), here is a case where I thought it should >be > > applied : > > > > N E S W > > > > 1D p 1S 2H > > 4H* > > > > * splinterbid ; alerted and explained by partner as exclusion BW (MI) > > > > The DwS requests me to explain my partner's next bid as an answer to > > exclusion BW, so that he will not discover the misunderstanding. As I feel > > the DwS attitude often diminishes the amount of mess, as its main exponent > > was in the room, I had decided to use it if needed. > >Your partners explanation that 4H is exclusion BW is unauthorized >information >for you - you are not allowed to use that information in any way. Thus you >are >not allowed to prevent partner from learning that he is wrong by yourself >giving opponents a sustaining and wrong explanation. (But partner may not >use >your correct explanation as a reminder that he has given a wrong statement). > >I am really surprised that DWS can have said anything along the line you >refer. AG : some confusion here. I'm referring to the De wael School (notice the lower case w), which suggests that you give explanations according to partner's previous explanations, to avoid giving him the UI that a wheel came loose. Why compound MI with UI ? Since adopting the DwS attitude will never help partner (quite the contrary) and since it would minimize the amount of UI and the ensuing headaches aimed at a reasonable correction of the score (which, to the contrary, is not too difficult when MI is the only infraction), it both seems more honest and less damaging to you, your opponents and the TD. For a detailed defence plea of DwS, refer to HDw, not DWS. Eye habbik nerwit siff. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 21:54:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QBrxM19634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:53:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7QBrrK19630 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:53:54 +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 NAA06532; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:51:00 +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 NAA06510; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:53:13 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826135739.00a78730@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:03:00 +0200 To: "Sven Pran" , "Bridge Laws Submissions" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list In-Reply-To: <012b01c24cef$993669d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826113300.00a6ee40@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 12:59 26/08/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > > At 17:37 25/08/2002 +0100, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > >Marvin L French (in another thread): > > > Okay, here is the regulation: > > > 1. Each player is required to have a convention card legibly filled > > > out.... > > > 2. If a director determines that neither player has a substantially > > > completed card, the partnership may only play conventions on the > > > Limited Convention Chart and may only use standard carding. > > > To this one must add the ACBL's instructions for filling out a CC, > > > provided in that 13-page document I cited above. A very well-done > > > document, by the way. > > > > > >Nigel: > > > What a great idea! A standard convention card; with checkboxes; > > > and every section must be completed. > > > In England, we have at least two kinds of standard local card, > > > but many players use non-standard, foreign or WBF cards. > > > Few are complete. Many sections permit misleading entries > > > (e.g. "signals: count" meaning "odd cards show an odd holding") > > > It would help everybody if a standard card were internationally > > > adopted and made compulsory. > >Effective this autumn any pair participating in Norwegian tournaments >must have satisfactory convention cards. The new sanction is that a pair >without such cards must use a standard convention card published by >the Norwegian Bridge Federation, and absolutely NO deviations from >this may be agreed upon between the players in that pair until they have >completed their own convention cards. AG : wonderful ! In Noway, at least. Because you will need a country where there exist a consensus about a standard system, especially as a system is like a language, of which we have three, which divide us strongly. We Belgians will never achieve the creation of Sambelgisk (?). There will never be a consensus about anything, I feel. When playing bridge, there exists a standard Flemish and a standard Walloon. (BTW, both are allowed in the case you mention). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 21:58:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QBwlj19662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:58:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resulb.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QBwgK19658 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:58:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA07765; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:55:42 +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 NAA11116; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:57:03 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826140333.00a7c270@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:06:48 +0200 To: "Todd Zimnoch" , "Bridge Laws Submissions" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] DwS explained In-Reply-To: References: <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:14 26/08/2002 -0400, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sven Pran > > Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 6:48 AM > > To: Bridge Laws Submissions > > Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained > > > > I am really surprised that DWS can have said anything > > along the line you refer. > > The lowercase w is significant. DwS = De Wael School. > > > I am really glad not meeting this case at the table as > > TD. The way you describe > > it I would have given a severe PP (for intentionally > > misleading opponents) AG : you mean there was any risk of inducing them to believe my partner had *seven* of the relevant *four* keycards ? At least them, if not you, had the good sense to laugh, as did HDw of course when told. > There should be no difficult problem for the TD to address. >North, who has UI, is not given any chance to use it. Hopefully, >the MI is corrected before the opening lead. AG : that's why the DWs is superior. *All* MI is corrected before the lead. Full stop. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 22:02:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QC2Sk19735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:02:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resulb.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QC2LK19730 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:02:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA09001; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:59:27 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA16378; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:01:40 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826140703.00a7acb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:11:26 +0200 To: "Konrad Ciborowski" , "Bridge Laws Submissions" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke In-Reply-To: <00f101c24cf3$60df0e30$727e870a@krackow.gradient.ie> References: <002701c24bb7$52043120$6400a8c0@WINXP> <5.1.0.14.0.20020826121230.00a6d750@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g7QC2NK19732 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:18 26/08/2002 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > > AG : L43B2c does. > > > >There is no §43B2c in my book. Do you >mean §43B2b or §43B3? AG : good question. There is one in mine. I mean the paragraph which says approximately (I'm translating from the French translation) "if dummy is the first person to draw the attention to an irregularity by an opponent ..." , which AAMOF will not apply here because it needs a violation of L43A to be implemented. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 22:10:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QC9dc19761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:09:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7QC9XK19757 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:09:34 +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 OAA10783; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:06:39 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA23389; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:08:52 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826141143.00a7d330@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:18:39 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained Cc: piret@dice.ucl.ac.be In-Reply-To: <3D6A116E.6080509@skynet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:30 26/08/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>Dear blmlists, >>For those who believe in DwS, for those who have something to say for or >>against it, (that's all of us), here is a case where I thought it should >>be applied : >> N E S W >> 1D p 1S 2H >> 4H* >>* splinterbid ; alerted and explained by partner as exclusion BW (MI) >>The DwS requests me to explain my partner's next bid as an answer to >>exclusion BW, so that he will not discover the misunderstanding. As I >>feel the DwS attitude often diminishes the amount of mess, as its main >>exponent was in the room, I had decided to use it if needed. >>East bids 5H. >>South bids 6S. >>I alert, albeit timidly ; when asked, I explain it shows _seven_ keycards. >>For some reason, they didn't believe me ;-) >>It seems like some adjustments should be made to said school in some >>cases ... > > >Nice story Alain, but there is something I don't understand. > >You are North. >You bid 4H. >You intend this as splinter, but partner explains it as BW. >Partner then bids 6S. >Under BW, that would mean 7 KC. >So partner must be up to something. >Then why not in fact explain it as you did ? AG : partner decided not to answer to BW. The intervention of DWs here is anecdotic. My guess is that after explaining as exclusion BW, he had second thoughts (note that, thanks to DWs, they were *not* induced by UI) and decided to avoid any problems by bidding what he thought he would make (he was wrong, the cards were awfully placed. I wonder when the Riviera will prensent us non-doctored deals). Okay, he should have said to the opponents 'I'm not sure about my explanation' and bid 6S, but of course this constitutes UI. >After all, partner did believe 4H was BW, no ? >So his 6S did mean something in BW, no ? AG : no. >Possibly 2 Aces and a void ? AG : no. This would have been the 4th step, which after a 5H overcall is 5NT using PODI. The 6th step and above have *no* meaning. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 22:22:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QCMW219834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:22:32 +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 g7QCMPK19826 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:22:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-126.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.126] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #6) id 17jIsL-0000fO-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 08:21:46 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020826081348.00b293d0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 08:25:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke In-Reply-To: References: <001901c24c0b$44fb5b30$6400a8c0@WINXP> <001901c24c0b$44fb5b30$6400a8c0@WINXP> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:22 AM 8/25/02, David wrote: > L61B does not allow dummy to ask a defender whether he has shown out. >So the defender did not discover "legally" that he had revoked, but >through a breach of L61B. Since L63B refers to a breach of L61B, why >does it not apply? Because we may take as given that the law prescribed penalties only for violations committed by the side being penalized. This principle must be strong enough to trump the strictly literal interpretation of the words of L63B. The premature establishment of the revoke is explicitly a penalty for violating L61B. It cannot be intended to impose the penalty on the revoking side when it is the *other* side that has committed the violation. David seems to be suggesting that when a defender fails to follow suit, dummy can immediately "establish" the revoke by calling attention to it, notwithstanding that the provisions of L63A have not been met. This seems inconsistent with the wording of the other laws in Part III Section Three. 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 Aug 26 22:22:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QCMXh19835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:22:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QCMPK19827 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:22:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-1782.bb.online.no [80.212.214.246]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA09439 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:21:42 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <016c01c24cfb$1e324b30$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <000c01c24c36$80edac80$0300a8c0@mshome.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020826122439.00a65300@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020826134209.00a6c820@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:21:33 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Alain Gottcheiner" ...... > > >Dummy asking defender is a break of Law 41B1, NOT of Law 61B > > >according to the official commentaries issued by Grattan Endicott in > > >1992. The laws in 1997 were not changed so that this interpretation > > >became obsolete. > > > > AG : Okay, but only a previous loss of rights would enable the use of >L42B1 > > ; it isn't the case here. > >There is no such condition for the use of L42B1 - it applies >unconditionally. >I believe you must be mixing with Laws 43B2 and/or 43B3? AG : okay, I meant 43B2b, which should take precedence over 43B1 because of its specificity. By the way, the French edition hasn't got any § 43B3. This is not an isolated case. And by the first statement in Law 43 Law 42 takes precedence, so Law 43 is irrelevant in this case. The applicable law is 42B1 only, leading us to law 62. In particular Law 61B (together with Law 63) does not apply. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 22:30:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QCUDQ19860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:30:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7QCU7K19856 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:30:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-1782.bb.online.no [80.212.214.246]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA29843 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:29:23 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <017e01c24cfc$30c5e3a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <002701c24bb7$52043120$6400a8c0@WINXP> <5.1.0.14.0.20020826121230.00a6d750@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020826140703.00a7acb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:29:15 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > >There is no §43B2c in my book. Do you > >mean §43B2b or §43B3? > > AG : good question. There is one in mine. I mean the paragraph which says > approximately (I'm translating from the French translation) "if dummy is > the first person to draw the attention to an irregularity by an opponent > ..." , which AAMOF will not apply here because it needs a violation of L43A > to be implemented. >From the official English edition: Law 43B3 If dummy after violation of the limitations listed in A2 preceeding is the first to draw attention to a defender's irregularity, no penalty shall be imposed. If the defenders benefit directly through their irregularity, the director shall award an adjusted score to both sides to restore equity. Does that match your 43B2c? 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 Aug 26 22:36:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QCaEo19875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:36:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7QCa9K19871 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:36:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-2094.bb.online.no [80.212.216.46]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA19996 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:35:25 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <018601c24cfd$08fa3f50$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <001901c24c0b$44fb5b30$6400a8c0@WINXP> <001901c24c0b$44fb5b30$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4.3.2.7.0.20020826081348.00b293d0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:35:17 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Eric Landau" > At 10:22 AM 8/25/02, David wrote: > > > L61B does not allow dummy to ask a defender whether he has shown out. > >So the defender did not discover "legally" that he had revoked, but > >through a breach of L61B. Since L63B refers to a breach of L61B, why > >does it not apply? > > Because we may take as given that the law prescribed penalties only for > violations committed by the side being penalized. This principle must > be strong enough to trump the strictly literal interpretation of the > words of L63B. The premature establishment of the revoke is explicitly > a penalty for violating L61B. It cannot be intended to impose the > penalty on the revoking side when it is the *other* side that has > committed the violation. As I have already pointed out a couple of times we have an official comment to Laws 61B and 63B that a question made by dummy to an opponent is not a violation of Law 61B, it is a violation of Law 42B1! Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 26 23:03:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QD2oC19915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:02:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QD2jK19911 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:02:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (64.54-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.54.64]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7QD1ff24365 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:01:41 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D6A26BD.8090705@skynet.be> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:01:49 +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] DwS explained References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@pop.ulb.ac.be> <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven, I though you were here longer already. Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > >>Dear blmlists, >> >>For those who believe in DwS, for those who have something to say for or >>against it, (that's all of us), here is a case where I thought it should >> > be > >>applied : >> >>N E S W >> >>1D p 1S 2H >>4H* >> >>* splinterbid ; alerted and explained by partner as exclusion BW (MI) >> >>The DwS requests me to explain my partner's next bid as an answer to >>exclusion BW, so that he will not discover the misunderstanding. As I feel >>the DwS attitude often diminishes the amount of mess, as its main exponent >>was in the room, I had decided to use it if needed. >> > > Your partners explanation that 4H is exclusion BW is unauthorized > information > for you - you are not allowed to use that information in any way. Thus you > are > not allowed to prevent partner from learning that he is wrong by yourself > giving opponents a sustaining and wrong explanation. (But partner may not > use > your correct explanation as a reminder that he has given a wrong statement). > > I am really surprised that DWS can have said anything along the line you > refer. > Not DWS as in David W Stevenson but DwS as in De wael School. Yes I know the acronym is confusing. That's why we keep on using it. Summary of the DwS : You are not allowed ("in any manner") to indicate that partner was wrong. I interpret that this includes explaining his next call "correctly". First of all, it would not be correctly according to his intention, secondly, I find it a very roundabout way to indicate what you are not allowed. you said up there : you are not allowed to prevent partner from learning that he is wrong by yourself giving opponents a sustaining and wrong explanation. That's a few too many negatives to be clear - but if I understand you, you are saying that you are not allowed to "not indicate to him". that's a very strong statement considering that there is a positive injunction against this. The discussion centers mainly on which of the two laws one should break. I believe breaking L40B in this instance is less harmful than breaking L75D2. L75D2 imposes a strong injunction. L40B is a general law - besides, there has already been misinformation and you are correctly explaining partner's intent, if not your actual systemic agreement. Of course your next bid must be based on your agreement, not on partner's intent, which is UI to you. > >>East bids 5H. >>South bids 6S. >> >>I alert, albeit timidly ; when asked, I explain it shows _seven_ keycards. >>For some reason, they didn't believe me ;-) >> >>It seems like some adjustments should be made to said school in some cases >> > ... > > I am really glad not meeting this case at the table as TD. The way you > describe > it I would have given a severe PP (for intentionally misleading opponents) > I would gladly use L75D2 as a basis for my appeal against that PP. Especially if my partner was indeed signalling "7 key-cards" (I already stated that there is something wrong with Alain's story). > regards Sven > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://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 Aug 27 02:39:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QGcWb19998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 02:38:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7QGcQK19994 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 02:38:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.92.67.23] (helo=mail18.svr.pol.co.uk) by cmailg1.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17jMs7-0007Il-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:37:47 +0100 Received: from modem-174.dusty-damsel.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.137.3.174] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17jMs3-0002Fg-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:37:44 +0100 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA07114; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:37:46 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many References: From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 26 Aug 2002 17:35:58 +0100 In-Reply-To: Gordon Bower's message of "Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:51:15 -0800 (AKDT)" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 121 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower writes: > Apologies to all for straying so far from the Laws content. > > On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Steve Willner wrote: > > > I think ideally what one would want is a correction so that one's > > expected ranking is independent of the number of boards played. > > Ideally, yes. There is no such animal. > > > > In article , Jeremy Rickard > > > writes > > > >Suppose I'm a 60% player. Then traditional matchpointing will give me > > > >a score of 60% on average, whatever the size of the field. > > > > > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > > This is NOT true. > > > > Sorry, John. Jeremy is quite correct. > > Jeremy is correct in the sense he explained in his post. > The fact does remain that unusually high (and low) scores occur more > frequently in small fields than in large ones. > > David desJardins has a web > > page that explains why: > > http://www.desjardins.org/david/factor.txt > > This web page contains what some of us are tempted to call a glaring > error, essentially the same question as in Jeremy Rickard's Ascherman > posts earlier. If I may point out explicitly where the two paths diverge > in the DesJardins argument: > > DesJardins considers a board played on either a 7 top or an 8 top, calling > the MP result on a 7 top "Mb" and on an 8 top "Ma." He correctly shows > that E[Mb] = 7/8 * E[Ma]. he correctly notes that his M2, M3, ... need not > be independent. > > The point of divergence comes when he gets to "but our goal was an > unbiased estimator, where E[Mb'] = E[Ma]." Yes, 8/7 * Mb is an unbiased > estimator in the sense of Rickard, presuming we know nothing at all about > what may or may not happed at the ninth table. > > But the "M2, M3 ... M8" are based on comparing P1 and P2, P1 and P3, etc., > and the result at the table where the board didnt get played would have > been based on P1 and P9. He assumes all of the P_i are i.i.d. No. He only assumes that P2,...,P9 are i.i.d. If P1 had the same probability distribution as P2, ..., P9, then the expected matchpoint score of the pair we're trying to assign a score to would be 50%, which is of course not true if they're not an average pair! > M9 is 1 if P9P1. Some of us think our goal is > not a head-in-the-sand unbiased estimator, but the best unbiased estimator > we can get given the information we have at the time we make the > estimate. That is, we wish Mb' such that E[Mb'] = E[Ma|Mb] = E[Mb+M9 | Mb] > = Mb + E[M9|Mb] = Mb + (Mb + 1/2) / 8 = Neuberg. The fact that a given > result occurred at table 1 is evidence that the result might occur > again. Neuberg / Ascherman take into account all that is known about the > history of a board when they estimate what will happen at the missing > table, multiplying by 8/7 doesn't. You're giving the results at all 8 tables equal weight in determining the probable result at the ninth table. However, if the player at table 1 whose score you are trying to calculate is a better than average player, then the result at table 1 will on average be better than the average probable result at table 9. So your calculation introduces a systematic downwards bias in the matchpoint score that you assign to better than average players. If your equation E[Ma|Mb] = Mb + (Mb + 1/2) / 8 were correct, we could multiply both sides by P(Mb), the probability that the 7-top result takes the particular value Mb, and sum over all possible values of Mb to get sum of E[Ma|Mb]P(Mb) = sum of (9/8 * Mb + 1/16)P(Mb), which gives E[Ma] = 9/8 * E[Mb] + 1/16. But, as I think I've convinced you, this is not true (if we're dealing with an above-average or below-average pair). The correct equation is E[Ma] = 8/7 * E[Mb]. > > Nevertheless, I believe Aschermann is a good method. It is a "rough > > and ready" correction for the increased variance, despite its lack of > > obvious mathematical justification. (Perhaps there is such a > > justification, though, along the lines of the Stein's-paradox estimator > > we have been discussing.) > > Some of us find the justification of Ascherman quite obvious > indeed. Either you believe the score at every table tells you something > about the play of a board, or you believe that you temporarily go blind > to the result at each table in turn as you assign matchpoints to each > score. > > The "There are two things..." paragraph in the second article on > desJardins's webpage sums up the two schools of thought nicely. The > problem arises when he says "Neuberg's formula does not even have the > second property and therefore cannot have the first property > either." Neuberg is constructed to have the first property, and the two > schools of thought differ on what it means to have the second property. > He goes on to say "The problem is that the first property is > ill-defined." I find the first problem well defined, and the second > property open to two different interpretations (either "E[Ma]" or > "E[Ma|Mb]") Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 04:10:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QI9aJ20080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 04:09:36 +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 g7QI9VK20076 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 04:09:31 +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 17jOI3-0000gY-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:08:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:44:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke References: <000c01c24c36$80edac80$0300a8c0@mshome.net> <00d501c24c3b$2c285f60$6400a8c0@WINXP> <5.1.0.14.0.20020826122439.00a65300@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826122439.00a65300@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 15:27 25/08/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >>From: "David Barton" >> > Dummy asking defender is a breach of 61B (since it is not one of the >> > permitted actions). >> > Law 63B is now applicable. >> >>Nope >>Read my post from about 30 minutes ahead of yours. (Reply to DWS) > >AG : don't be too harsh with him. It could well happen that he sent his >mail before receiving yours. Sometimes (quite often) it takes more than 30 >mn for a mail to reach us. As a general comment, not only is Usenet notoriously poor on timing [and mailing lists are similar] but for people like me who do not live where local calls are free the costs of being online all the time would be horrendous. So I read a whole batch of emails and posts at a time, and sometimes I answer things which I find are answered later by others - in extreme occasions I have been known to answer things which were answered *days* earlier. >>Dummy asking defender is a break of Law 41B1, NOT of Law 61B >>according to the official commentaries issued by Grattan Endicott in >>1992. The laws in 1997 were not changed so that this interpretation >>became obsolete. > >AG : Okay, but only a previous loss of rights would enable the use of L42B1 >; it isn't the case here. No, L42B1 applies unless L43 says otherwise: try a re-read. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 04:10:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QIAQK20086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 04:10:26 +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 g7QIALK20082 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 04:10:21 +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 17jOHq-0000hD-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:09:28 +0100 Message-ID: <+9ZhvIDwmma9Ew4E@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:47:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke References: <002701c24bb7$52043120$6400a8c0@WINXP> <00ba01c24c32$4fc82df0$6400a8c0@WINXP> In-Reply-To: <00ba01c24c32$4fc82df0$6400a8c0@WINXP> 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" >> Please tell me where this appears in the Laws. >Law 42B1 > >Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987 >specifically states under 63.5: > >"Note: An enquiry by dummy of defender is a violation of Law 42B1, >not of Law 61B" I suppose this is the answer, though I do wish the Law was clearer and we did not have to rely on an obsolete out-of-print manual. It certainly is not clear from reading L61B. >Furthermore I cannot believe that it has ever been the intention to give >Dummy any possibility of damaging defenders through a violation of the >laws, for instance by forcing a defender's revoke to become established >because of an illegal question. No, I do not think this is relevant. We have proved many times that there are odd things the law-makers did not think of so intent is difficult to prove anything. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 04:11:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QIBKX20108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 04:11:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QIBFK20104 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 04:11:15 +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 17jOIh-0000fu-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:10:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:38:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke References: <00ba01c24c32$4fc82df0$6400a8c0@WINXP> 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 8/25/02, Sven Pran wrote: > >>Law 42B1 >> >>Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987 >>specifically states under 63.5: >> >>"Note: An enquiry by dummy of defender is a violation of Law 42B1, >>not of Law 61B" > >Usually, when somebody "asks about a revoke" (see thread title), the >question is "having none?" or similar. In this case, dummy asked why >defender who showed no spades had bid them. Is this still a violation of >Law 42B1 ("Dummy may ask declarer (but not a defender) when he has >failed to follow suit to a trick whether he has a card of the suit >led")? It doesn't seem so to me. > >Please don't tell me that *any* question about a player's played card >not of the suit led is a question whether he has any of that suit. I >won't believe it. Perhaps not any, but most. To stop people trying to get around this Law we always make sure that indirect questions are included. In this case, a question such as "Why did you bid 1S on a singleton?" would certainly have been a breach of L61B otherwise all the clever clogs would be asking their partners this way throughout the world - well, the relevant parts of the world. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 04:37:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QIbis20142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 04:37:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QIbdK20138 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 04:37:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id OAA12146 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:37:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA26085 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:37:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:37:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208261837.OAA26085@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Conflicting AI and UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > So it looks that next time your partner hesitates & passes all you > have to do is say that your opponents looked very much relieved > or took a deep breath or whatever. Well, you have to make the TD believe it. Presumably he will ask the other players before making a decision. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 04:45:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QIidH20175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 04:44:39 +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-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 g7QIiTK20163 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 04:44:29 +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 17jOq3-0005Hj-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:43:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:05:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@pop.ulb.ac.be> <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> In-Reply-To: <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran writes >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >> Dear blmlists, >> >> For those who believe in DwS, for those who have something to say for or >> against it, (that's all of us), here is a case where I thought it should >be >> applied : >> >> N E S W >> >> 1D p 1S 2H >> 4H* >> >> * splinterbid ; alerted and explained by partner as exclusion BW (MI) >> >> The DwS requests me to explain my partner's next bid as an answer to >> exclusion BW, so that he will not discover the misunderstanding. As I feel >> the DwS attitude often diminishes the amount of mess, as its main exponent >> was in the room, I had decided to use it if needed. > >Your partners explanation that 4H is exclusion BW is unauthorized >information >for you - you are not allowed to use that information in any way. Thus you >are >not allowed to prevent partner from learning that he is wrong by yourself >giving opponents a sustaining and wrong explanation. (But partner may not >use >your correct explanation as a reminder that he has given a wrong statement). > >I am really surprised that DWS can have said anything along the line you >refer. This rubbish has nothing to do with me. I play to the Laws, and do not advise people not to. Herman has decided to call this illegal method of answering questions "the De Wael School" and abbreviated it to DwS [sic]. I leave it to others to decide whether he was just trying to wind me up using initials he knew would get confused with mine 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 Aug 27 04:45:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QIifX20176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 04:44:41 +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-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 g7QIiVK20167 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 04:44:32 +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 17jOq8-0005Hh-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:43:52 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:54:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] An online Laws question References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826111911.00a6e360@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826111911.00a6e360@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner writes >AG : replying without having seen other answers : in face-to-face bridge, >it would be quite uncommon to pull Pass in lieu of 2C, but let's assume the >player pulls a Pass in lieu of a Stop, which is not at all implausible. OK so far. Pass in lieu of 2C is not impossible, of course, which is why the unfortunate reg of the early days "... from the same part of the box" has been deleted: nowadays the regs trust the TD to judge and rule. >Assuming I decide there was a mispull, neither the Laws nor YHS have any >objections about letting the player place a Stop and a bid. The players >have no right to show their cards or comment about them ; they should just >shuffle them and put them in the slots, which will usually give the >mispuller enough time to realise his mistake and interrupt the proceedings. >If somebody commented, this person is the responsible for the unplayability >of the board. Adjust accordingly. This makes little sense to me. I have no idea what YHS is: I do not understand what you mean by letting a player place a Stop and a bid. As for the next bit of course the players have every right to comment on a hand once it has finished: you cannot possibly think this is illegal! To adjust because a player comments as he has every right to do is incredible. When do you consider players are permitted to discuss hands according to the Laws? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 04:45:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QIifw20177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 04:44:41 +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-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 g7QIiSK20162 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 04:44:29 +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 17jOq3-0005Hi-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:43:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:00:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] An online Laws question References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826113054.00a6f2a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <011101c24cec$c5b43670$6400a8c0@WINXP> In-Reply-To: <011101c24cec$c5b43670$6400a8c0@WINXP> 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 >The auction in this case isn't over until the cards are >being restored to the board. (This is not explicitly stated >anywhere in the laws, but any other definition on when >the auction ends if there is no bid becomes meaningless). L17E states explicitly when the auction period ends, and you really cannot devise a new period like this! :) One or two posts in this thread make me wonder whether we are discussing a well known game, or whether just involved in a fairly pointless exercise. :) After four passes players throughout the world immediately discuss the hand because it is over. This will go wrong maybe once in ten thousand times. To make up new rules that are not the same as the Laws to make it illegal for players to do so because of the one in 10,000 is not worthwhile, not helpful, not sensible, and not legal. So let's not bother, ok? Having considered my own experience, I think maybe once in fifty thousand times would be closer. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 05:03:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QJ36420225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:03:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QJ31K20221 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:03:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.2]) by splat.mosquitonet.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g7QJ5u507997 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:05:56 -0800 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 10:58:55 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] one board too many 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 26 Aug 2002, Jeremy Rickard wrote: > No. He only assumes that P2,...,P9 are i.i.d. If P1 had the same > probability distribution as P2, ..., P9, then the expected matchpoint > score of the pair we're trying to assign a score to would be 50%, > which is of course not true if they're not an average pair! It is perhaps not surprising, in light of this comment, that "in the old days" (before computer scoring in the ACBL), you factored a board in exactly that way: adding half a matchpoint for each time the board wasn't played but should have been. Neuberg was quite a leap forward from that. It seems we aren't ever going to agree on how best to guess at what P1 might be distributed. Oh, well; life will go on. 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 Aug 27 05:53:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QJqwf20276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:52:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QJqrK20272 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:52:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id PAA15993 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:52:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA26155 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:52:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:52:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208261952.PAA26155@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] An online Laws question X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > L17E states explicitly when the auction period ends, and you really > cannot devise a new period like this! :) Yes, but L25A is not limited by the end of the auction period. It is limited in time only by partner's subsequent call (presumably on the next board). Of course "without pause for thought" will seldom apply once everyone starts putting their cards away. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 06:00:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QK05n20296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 06:00:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QK00K20289 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 06:00:00 +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 PAA16216 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:58:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA26164 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:58:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:58:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208261958.PAA26164@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > L61B does not allow dummy to ask a defender whether he has shown out. > So the defender did not discover "legally" that he had revoked, but > through a breach of L61B. > Sven Pran writes > >Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987 > >specifically states under 63.5: > > > >"Note: An enquiry by dummy of defender is a violation of Law 42B1, > >not of Law 61B" > I suppose this is the answer, though I do wish the Law was clearer ... The law (61B) is perfectly clear if you discard the fallacy that anything not permitted is prohibited. L61B makes no mention of dummy asking a defender. Our response should _not_ be to jump to the conclusion that this is an infraction but rather to look for a different law to apply. Of course in this case, as Sven points out, we will eventually come to L42B1, so dummy asking a defender _is_ in infraction, but it is not one that triggers L63B. All so easy. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 06:03:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QK3jv20311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 06:03:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QK3eK20307 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 06:03:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id QAA16457 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:03:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA26177 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:03:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:03:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208262003.QAA26177@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > Your partners explanation that 4H is exclusion BW is unauthorized > information for you Yes, we all agree so far. > - you are not allowed to use that information in any way. But where is "in any way" found in the Laws? L16 is explicitly restricted to choice of calls and plays. I suppose L73C might apply, but it is not clear that the opponents are disadvantaged. While I am no subscriber to the DwS, Herman has a better case than some people are willing to admit. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 06:16:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QKGVk20331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 06:16:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QKGQK20327 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 06:16:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id QAA17175 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:15:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA26196 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:15:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:15:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208262015.QAA26196@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > What a great idea! A standard convention card; with checkboxes; > and every section must be completed. Be careful what you wish for! The ACBL convention card is very bad indeed for any methods other than mainstream American bidding. There is, for example, no good place to describe opening minor suit one-bids, nor is there any way to explain how weak two-bid strength (let alone meaning!) might vary by position or vulnerability. I see what you mean, though, about the EBU 20A. It is flexible but perhaps just a little too free-form. The WBF card has much the same character, but it is probably appropriate in the competitions where it is needed. Getting the balance right between flexibility and clarity is not an easy thing to do. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 06:55:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QKstu20365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 06:54:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7QKsnK20361 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 06:54:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-3520.bb.online.no [80.212.221.192]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA08871 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:54:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001101c24d42$b3c7c7f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@pop.ulb.ac.be> <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <3D6A26BD.8090705@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:53:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" ....... > The discussion centers mainly on which of the two laws one should > break. I believe breaking L40B in this instance is less harmful than > breaking L75D2. It seems to me that you have an untenable understanding of the laws on disclosure: My opinion (and I believe it is according to law) is simply that during the auction you shall answer any question on your system correctly according to your own understanding of your agreements and as if you have not heard anything your partner has said during same auction. After the final pass and before the initial lead is made you shall on your own initiative correct any incorrect (in your opinion) information given by your partner during the auction if you are to become either dummy or declarer, if you are to become a defender such correction must be delayed until end of the play. This leaves you no option trying to evaluate what will be less harmful to your opponents, the truth or a lie. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 07:07:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QL7kg20384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 07:07:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7QL7eK20380 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 07:07:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-0005.bb.online.no [80.212.208.5]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA27397 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:06:56 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002901c24d44$7f3352a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <200208261958.PAA26164@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:06:49 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" ...... > > >"Note: An enquiry by dummy of defender is a violation of Law 42B1, > > >not of Law 61B" > > > I suppose this is the answer, though I do wish the Law was clearer ... > > The law (61B) is perfectly clear if you discard the fallacy that > anything not permitted is prohibited. > > L61B makes no mention of dummy asking a defender. Our response should > _not_ be to jump to the conclusion that this is an infraction but > rather to look for a different law to apply. Of course in this case, > as Sven points out, we will eventually come to L42B1, so dummy asking a > defender _is_ in infraction, but it is not one that triggers L63B. > > All so easy. I have to agree with DWS that the laws could be clearer here, and I did in fact indicate in one of my previouos posts the wish for a note to either Law 61B or to Law 63B that dummy asking a defender is a violation of Law 42B1 but not of Law 61B. It is far too easy to overlook the fact that the prohibition for dummy to ask a defender exists only in Law 42B1 and not in Law 61B Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 07:13:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QLDkS20404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 07:13:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7QLDfK20400 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 07:13:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from simba.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@simba.irvine.com [192.160.8.19]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA27941; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:12:58 -0700 Message-Id: <200208262112.OAA27941@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 26 Aug 2002 08:25:17 EDT." <4.3.2.7.0.20020826081348.00b293d0@pop.starpower.net> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:13:03 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 10:22 AM 8/25/02, David wrote: > > > L61B does not allow dummy to ask a defender whether he has shown out. > >So the defender did not discover "legally" that he had revoked, but > >through a breach of L61B. Since L63B refers to a breach of L61B, why > >does it not apply? > > Because we may take as given that the law prescribed penalties only for > violations committed by the side being penalized. This principle must > be strong enough to trump the strictly literal interpretation of the > words of L63B. The premature establishment of the revoke is explicitly > a penalty for violating L61B. It cannot be intended to impose the > penalty on the revoking side when it is the *other* side that has > committed the violation. Sorry, Eric, this answer violates Law 1A of BLML discussions: don't inject common sense into a discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Really, I kind of enjoy these discussions, or otherwise I wouldn't be on BLML. But if we were given this problem to rule at the table, how many of us would go through all these arguments to figure out whether L63B ought to apply to the defender? Some of us would, perhaps, and might even rule that it does apply. But those of us who do not work for an American public school system (*) and still have some common sense left would probably just say, "L63B was obviously not intended to apply when dummy asks a defender, and this is clearly a bug in the Laws, and I'm going to rule accordingly". If the declaring side pursues the matter after the game and tries to argue that L63B should apply, we would say one or more of the following, as appropriate to the situation: (1) It's obviously unfair to penalize the defense for an infraction by dummy, so the Laws couldn't possibly mean what they say literally. (2) Yes, I do follow the Laws, but sometimes common sense will tell you that there's an obvious mistake in them. (3) Go away. (4) Go away or I'll throw my beer at you. (5) Law 61B does not explicitly say that dummy may not ask a defender, so therefore L63B doesn't apply. [I'm not convinced by the argument that this is the correct way to interpret the Laws, but it could certainly be a useful interpretation when trying to tame an angry BL.] (6) Here are the addresses of the relevant national and WBF authorities. Please feel free to write them and ask for the correct interpretation, and let me know what you hear from them. (7) Here's three bucks to buy yourself a beer if you go away. All right, I'm done with my rant. You can go back to your discussion about pinheaded angels or whatever. (*) Not too long ago, there was a case reported in the paper where an honor student was helping to move his grandmother to a nursing home, and he was carrying her cutlery in the back of his pickup truck, and a knife fell out without him realizing it, and then when he went back to school they expelled him for violating the school's Zero Tolerance policy about bringing weapons to campus even though the officials involved were sure he was telling the truth about the knife. Let's hope bridge never achieves this ideal of sense-free decision-making. (P.S. They readmitted him after the media got involved and embarrassed the heck out of the school district.) -- 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 Aug 27 07:46:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QLkZf20434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 07:46:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QLkUK20430 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 07:46:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.2]) by splat.mosquitonet.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g7QLnP513790 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:49:25 -0800 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:42:23 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Convention cards at clubs Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Attention, ACBL members: The ACBL board of directors has tried and failed 3 times in the past 3 years already to approve looking at your own convention card under certain circumstances. Guess what: they are trying again. Here is the latest version, up for a vote in November in Phoenix: "Effective January 1, 2003, Clubs (for club games) are given the option of allowing players to refer to their own convention card in games under their jurisdiction." I sincerely hope that the ACBL laws commission will tell them where they can put regulations contrary to the laws like they did last time. But it wouldn't do any harm to tell your district representative what you think of this idea. Interestingly, it appears to me that a club could require a convention card of its own design, or none at all, exercising its L40E1 rights as the sponsoring organization. I've never seen a club that did this explicitly, though I have seen many clubs that don't enforce any rules about filling them out. But L40E2 still applies. 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 Aug 27 08:37:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7QMaRQ20463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:36:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (mta07-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7QMaMK20459 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:36:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.152.28]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020826223541.ZNRS13709.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:35:41 +0100 Message-ID: <005701c24d50$f0d0e6a0$1c9868d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <00b301c24c55$a47b9990$239c68d5@SCRAP> Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:35:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson [D] with replies from Nigel Guthrie [N2] N: What a great idea! A standard convention card; with checkboxes; > and every section must be completed. D: The ACBL card shows why this does not work. In England there would either be far less info to opponents or people would have to have about eight pages of check boxes. N2: If the ACBL card is inadequate to describe permitted foreign understandings, then it disadvantages foreigners (or locals) in the USA. Maybe, the simplest course if action is restrict "basic" conventions to those that fit on the card. (Perhaps allow additional notes for late auction developments) N: In England, we have at least two kinds of standard local card, but many players use non-standard, foreign or WBF cards. D: If people use illegal cards call the TD. The two types of local card are better than the ACBL card if anything non-standard is played. N2: Card banning is another rule I have never heard of being enforced. At EBU events are WBF cards legal? Is it legal to vary EBU formats? N: Few are complete. Many sections permit misleading entries (e.g. "signals: count" meaning "odd cards show an odd holding") D: That's irrelevant - you should see the way ACBL cards are filled out! While it would be better if cards are filled better that is not the fault of the card - people are pretty casual over such things. N2: Irrelevant? surely the whole point of standard cards with checkboxes and compulsory completion is (relative) completeness and accuracy. N: It would help everybody if a standard card were internationally > adopted and made compulsory. D: No, that would be far worse. There are different approaches in different countries, and different levels of player. It would make the game worse for the various levels if you did this. N2: IMO, In all countries the CC rules should cater for foreign competitors. A standard CC helps ensure a level playing field. N Books on popular systems could contain such a completed card, > for use as a template. D: This would hardly work: who plays a system per the book these days? N2: It could work as a "template" --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 21/08/2002 -- ======================================================================== (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 Aug 27 10:44:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7R0hnI20526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:43:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7R0hiK20522 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:43:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from rota.alumni.princeton.edu (pcp01782626pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net [68.32.52.241]) by mtaout02.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H1H00GVW8NEGG@mtaout02.icomcast.net> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:42:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:42:58 -0400 From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826113300.00a6ee40@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: davidgrabiner@mail.comcast.net To: BLML Message-id: <5.1.1.6.0.20020826204132.00b45630@mail.comcast.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <00b301c24c55$a47b9990$239c68d5@SCRAP> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:39 AM 8/26/2002, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >It could be fun to answer "13" in the "min. # cards" for a Pass, but I'm >afraid to be penalized for wrong information above the ordinary >consequences for not having noticed I've got only 12 %-) Along similar lines, the ACBL convention card has a box for you to play Lebensohl (a 2NT relay to 3C) over a takeout double of a 3-bid. Are there any other useless boxes on the cards? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 10:55:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7R0swc20542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:54:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7R0sqK20538 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:54:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from rota.alumni.princeton.edu (pcp01782626pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net [68.32.52.241]) by mtaout06.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H1H005XR965WA@mtaout06.icomcast.net> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:54:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:54:08 -0400 From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] L25B in KO play In-reply-to: X-Sender: davidgrabiner@mail.comcast.net To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.1.1.6.0.20020826204341.01bcb3c8@mail.comcast.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <5.1.1.6.0.20020825161012.01c2f400@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.1.6.0.20020825161012.01c2f400@mail.comcast.net> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:15 PM 8/25/2002, David Stevenson wrote: >David J. Grabiner writes > >East dealer, both sides vulnerable, KO match > > > >B A B A > >W N E S > > P P > >1NT P 2H! P (2H-announced as transfer) > >P, Oops! > > > >The TD is called, and he rules that West had not made a mechanical error, > >but since North has not yet bid, West is allowed to change his pass under > >L25B, limiting team B's score to at most average-minus (-3 IMPs). West > >uses the option to bid 2S, which ends the auction, and 2S makes for > >+110. At the other table, Team B is +140, which would be +6 IMPs without > >the L25B adjustment. > > > >Do you score -6 to team A and -3 to team B, and then average the > >non-balancing scores giving +1.5 to team B? > > Yes, that's right. This seems to be the consensus, and it does match how the law was written. Is the law actually applied that way? In the actual situation, the TD informed West that if he changed his call, his side would play for at most average-minus, which is -3 IMPs. West didn't change his call. That is probably a TD error which should have led to an adjusted score under L82C, assuming that West would have changed his bid had he been given the correct information that the penalty was halved. Now, is the following the correct way to rule under L82C here if there is more than one likely result? Say that both +110 and -100 for team B were likely. Team B's score is based on +110 and L25B, and thus the -3 IMPs. Team A's score is based on +100 without L25B, and thus -1 IMP. Net score: +1 IMP to team A. Alternatively, you could apply the non-balancing scores rule twice. Team B would get +110 for +1.5 IMPs assuming the most favorable likely result (averaging +6 and -3 as before), while team A would get +100 for +1 IMP assuming the most favorable likely result, and average *these* two scores for +0.25 IMPs to team B. This seems to be more fair; if the +110/-100 result was a coin flip, then team B would be equally likely to get +1.5 or -1. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 10:56:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7R0ua420557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:56:36 +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 g7R0uVK20553 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:56:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA11848 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:11:54 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:50:34 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:39:21 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 27/08/2002 10:50:08 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 g7R0uXK20554 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Case Eight Subject (Tempo): Close, But No Cigar Event: Blue Ribbon Pairs, 22 Nov 01, First Qualifying Session Bd: 30 Manfred Michlmayr Dlr: East K93 Vul: None AJ4 A52 AK93 Larry Cohen David Berkowitz AJ842 1065 87 KQ1095 KQJ73 1084 4 107 Clark Millikan Q7 632 96 QJ8652 West North East South Pass Pass 1S 1NT 2S Pass(1) Pass Dbl Pass 3C 3D 4C All Pass 1) Break in tempo The Facts: 4C went down one, +50 for E/W. The opening lead was the diamond K. The Director was called after North doubled. The Director changed the contract to 3S made three, +140 for E/W (Law 16). The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. North believed that his great strength, his high cards all likely to be working, the opponents having found a fit, and the attractive vulnerability for competing all made his balancing double a standout action. He accepted his opponents' opinion that 4C could not be allowed, given South's hesitation, but argued that against 3S he would have led a high club. Upon seeing the dummy, a diamond switch would have been attractive, given the 3D bid by West. Then, upon gaining the lead with the SK, he would have given his partner a diamond ruff to defeat the contract. N/S played Lebensohl after a 1NT opening, but had not discussed whether it applied after a 1NT overcall. So while South wanted to compete to 3C, he was afraid that either 2NT or 3C might be misinterpreted by his partner. North was an experienced player from Austria and was likely capable of finding the winning defense against 3S. E/W argued that their third-seat 1S opening might be made on a four-card suit, so an eight-card spade fit did not necessarily exist. Thus, N/S could not count on finding a good fit of their own. South's hesitation clearly suggested interest in competing, and although most players with the North hand would not sell out to 2S at matchpoints, pass was a possible action that would be seriously considered by some. E/W believed that 4C should not be allowed: North had a flat hand and his partner had promised nothing. Although N/S could defeat 3S, the defense was not clear cut. E/W believed that as the offending side, N/S could not be given the benefit of the doubt on defense. The Committee Decision: [snipped] * * * How would you rule as AC, if this appeal had occurred where L12C3 was enabled? * * * David Stevenson wrote: >>If North accepts that his 4C bid could >>not be allowed, why did he make it? Would >>not 4C by South (who has no UI from partner) >>be routine? >> >>I rarely mention Law 12C3 here since we all >>know the ACBL has not enabled it. But if >>ever there was a hand that cried out for it, >>with ifs, maybes and perhaps's, surely this >>is it. My personal, radical-right view is that on this particular appeal L12C3 is irrelevant. Put me in with Ron Gerard, who wrote: [snip] >But the defense to 3S should have been >irrelevant. The Committee's own proceedings >marked pass as an LA to double. There is no >correlation between winning at matchpoints and >doubling 2S. If you want to win at matchpoints, >get your partner to bid 3C or 2NT, according to >methods. We had this once before where someone >claimed that the way to show extras was to >overcall 1NT and then bid again, with a flat >18-count yet (CASE SEVEN from Orlando). As I >recall, they were laughed out of court. If this >is a 1NT overcall (it is for me), it's within >range. What is the correlation between winning at >matchpoints and South's holding xx 10xxx J10xx Qxx? > >It just drives me nuts when committees substitute >rhetoric for reason. How can anyone read the first >sentence of the Committee decision and not stop >right there? In 2S, without a 3D bid, the defense >would have been far less obvious. [snip] Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 11:28:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7R1SCg20594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:28:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7R1S7K20590 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:28:07 +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 SAA30492; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:27:23 -0700 Message-Id: <200208270127.SAA30492@mailhub.irvine.com> To: BLML CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:42:58 EDT." <5.1.1.6.0.20020826204132.00b45630@mail.comcast.net> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:27:30 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > Along similar lines, the ACBL convention card has a box for you to play > Lebensohl (a 2NT relay to 3C) over a takeout double of a 3-bid. You must be using a quite old version of the CC. The format got changed sometime in 1997, I believe: VS Opening Preempts Double Is Takeout [] thru ______ Penalty [] Conv. Takeout: ____________________ Lebensohl 2NT Response [] Others: ___________________________ -- 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 Aug 27 12:57:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7R2uiC20715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:56:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7R2udK20711 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:56:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7R2u0v12261 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:56:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006b01c24d75$5c8aae20$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200208262015.QAA26196@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:41:35 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > > What a great idea! A standard convention card; with checkboxes; > > and every section must be completed. > > Be careful what you wish for! The ACBL convention card is very bad > indeed for any methods other than mainstream American bidding. There > is, for example, no good place to describe opening minor suit one-bids, Just Alert them if the meaning is conventional, unusual, or unexpected. WTP? > nor is there any way to explain how weak two-bid strength (let alone > meaning!) might vary by position or vulnerability. Use multiple CCs, put out the right one before taking cards from the board. That's better than cluttering up the CC with ranges that don't apply at the time. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 13:10:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7R3AiV20732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:10:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (syr-24-92-226-125.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7R3AcK20728 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:10:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g7R39tC08849; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:09:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:44:30 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke To: Sven Pran cc: Bridge Laws Submissions X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <001501c24cc4$79328450$6400a8c0@WINXP> 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 8/26/02, Sven Pran wrote: >You better do. Or else what? 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 Aug 27 13:27:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7R3Qpp20749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:26:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7R3QkK20745 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:26:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7R3Q7v23842 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:26:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007e01c24d79$91b90ac0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <00b301c24c55$a47b9990$239c68d5@SCRAP> <5.1.1.6.0.20020826204132.00b45630@mail.comcast.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:04:06 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From David J. Grabiner > Along similar lines, the ACBL convention card has a box for you to play > Lebensohl (a 2NT relay to 3C) over a takeout double of a 3-bid. Under "vs Opening Preempts Double is.." Weak two bids are preempts also, David. > > Are there any other useless boxes on the cards? Can't see any off hand. There are some poor labels, however. "Forcing Stayman" should be "Game-Forcing Stayman." Is there any other kind of Forcing Stayman? Yes 1NT=2C=2D=2H/2S forcing is "Forcing Stayman." "Michaels" should be a blank line, as there is no room for "Top & Bottom" cue bids. Just nitpicking. Somebody went to a lot of work to produce the ACBL CC, and whoever it was did a good job. 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 Aug 27 13:41:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7R3fEC20766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:41:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com (syr-24-92-226-122.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7R3f9K20762 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:41:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g7R3e0W19463; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:40:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:21:17 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] An online Laws question To: Alain Gottcheiner cc: Gordon Bower , Bridge Laws Mailing List X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826113054.00a6f2a0@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 8/26/02, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >AG : what kind of lead do you expect after 4 passes ? Okay, I missed that. So sue me. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 14:40:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7R4di220793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:39:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com (syr-24-92-226-122.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7R4dcK20789 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:39:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id g7R4cuW10628; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 00:38:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 00:27:59 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke To: Sven Pran cc: Bridge Laws Submissions X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <018601c24cfd$08fa3f50$6400a8c0@WINXP> 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 8/26/02, Sven Pran wrote: >As I have already pointed out a couple of times we have an official >comment to Laws 61B and 63B that a question made by dummy to >an opponent is not a violation of Law 61B, it is a violation of Law 42B1! The commentary was "official"? Okay, fine. Under what office? I gather that the thing had something to do with the European Bridge League. Does their commentary have effect in the rest of the world? Why so? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp 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 Aug 27 15:11:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7R5B4n20821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:11:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7R5AxK20813 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:10:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA21642 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:26:18 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:04:58 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Conflicting AI and UI To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:05:28 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 27/08/2002 03:04:31 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] >The subsequent AI* (opp has basically said "you haven't >doubled and you can't -thank the lord") would certainly >change the percentage of my peers that would double >(from say 30% to about 99%). I am pretty sure that AI >may be used regardless of whether it is received before >or after the UI. > >* I am rather less sure that the opponent reaction is AI. >It seems to me that since it arises primarily from a >tempo break by my own side it might be UI. > >Tim 1. Before the UI, Pass and Double were the only two LAs. 2. The UI demonstrably suggested that Double would be more successful than Pass. 3. Therefore, before the AI, Pass was the only legal call. 4. The AI also demonstrably suggested that Double would be more successful than Pass. 5. But if, after the AI, Pass is still an LA, then it must still be selected. 6. Double can only be selected if it is the only remaining LA, because the AI has annihilated the pre-existing determination that Pass is an LA. 7. Given that use of AI is "at his own risk" (L73D1), can AI annihilate a pre-existing LA? 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 Aug 27 15:51:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7R5ogl20848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:50:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7R5ocK20844 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:50:38 +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 QAA00905 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:06:02 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:44:42 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:47:52 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 27/08/2002 03:44:14 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven wrote: [snip] >My opinion (and I believe it is according to law) is >simply that during the auction you shall answer any >question on your system correctly according to your >own understanding of your agreements and as if you >have not heard anything your partner has said during >same auction. [snip] My opinion (and I believe it is according to law) is also very much opposed to the De Wael School. But while my views are very close to the Sven Norse School, I wish to draw a fine distinction between it and the Richard Taswegian School: 1. During the auction you shall *bid* according to your understanding of agreements. 2. If partner's explanation during the auction reminds you that you have misbid, you shall continue to *bid* according to your original misunderstanding (L16). 3. If partner's explanation during the auction reminds you that you have *misexplained*, you shall *immediately* call the Director (L75D1), and inform the opponents of the true partnership agreement (L75C). Since I often play complex systems, there have been several occasions where: a) I have explained to the opponents during the auction that pard is showing hand X, b) our system agreement is that pard is showing hand X, c) pard actually holds hand X, d) pard's earlier explanation was consistent with hand X, e) but pard's explanation provided UI, and f) therefore, while giving correct hand X *explanations*, I have deliberately self-destructed by *bidding* on my original assumption of pard holding hand Y. 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 Aug 27 16:16:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7R6FvV20870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:15:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7R6FpK20866 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:15:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-2386.bb.online.no [80.212.217.82]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA20220 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:15:06 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002101c24d91$13583620$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:14:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: To: Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 7:47 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained > > Sven wrote: > > [snip] > > >My opinion (and I believe it is according to law) is > >simply that during the auction you shall answer any > >question on your system correctly according to your > >own understanding of your agreements and as if you > >have not heard anything your partner has said during > >same auction. > > [snip] > > My opinion (and I believe it is according to law) is > also very much opposed to the De Wael School. But > while my views are very close to the Sven Norse > School, I wish to draw a fine distinction between it > and the Richard Taswegian School: > > 1. During the auction you shall *bid* according to > your understanding of agreements. Wrong - you are free to make whatever call you like (except as possibly regulated by SO or ZO) - Law 40A > > 2. If partner's explanation during the auction > reminds you that you have misbid, you shall > continue to *bid* according to your original > misunderstanding (L16). Correct > > 3. If partner's explanation during the auction > reminds you that you have *misexplained*, you > shall *immediately* call the Director (L75D1), > and inform the opponents of the true partnership > agreement (L75C). Correct > > Since I often play complex systems, there have been > several occasions where: > > a) I have explained to the opponents during the auction > that pard is showing hand X, > b) our system agreement is that pard is showing hand X, > c) pard actually holds hand X, > d) pard's earlier explanation was consistent with hand X, > e) but pard's explanation provided UI, and > f) therefore, while giving correct hand X *explanations*, I > have deliberately self-destructed by *bidding* on my > original assumption of pard holding hand Y. How is your "original assumption of pard holding hand Y" consistent with a) through d) above? Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 16:23:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7R6MuM20882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:22:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7R6MqK20878 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:22:52 +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 QAA07818 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:38:16 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:16:56 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:22:01 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 27/08/2002 04:16:29 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Effective this autumn any pair participating in >Norwegian tournaments must have satisfactory >convention cards. The new sanction is that a pair >without such cards must use a standard convention >card published by the Norwegian Bridge Federation, >and absolutely NO deviations from this may be >agreed upon between the players in that pair until >they have completed their own convention cards. > >Sven I applaud the Norse for taking a strong stand on incomplete convention cards. But I question whether the sanction of playing "Norse Standard" for defaulters is legal, if their agreements are completely non-conventional. L40D allows SOs merely to regulate conventional partnership agreements (and non-conventional agreements about light one-level openings). Therefore, L40E1 cannot be used to bypass L40D. Otherwise, a regulation under L40E1 could be used to require *all* Norwegian players to adopt the agreements listed on the pre-printed "Norse Standard" convention card. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 16:26:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7R6Q4P20898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:26:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7R6PwK20893 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:25:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-2386.bb.online.no [80.212.217.82]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA02272 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:25:13 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003701c24d92$7d2d25f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:25:07 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Sven Pran" Cc: "Bridge Laws Submissions" Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 4:44 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke > On 8/26/02, Sven Pran wrote: > > >You better do. > > Or else what? > > Regards, > > Ed Or else you may find yourself ruled to have violated Law 61B without understanding why. We rule that *any* mannerism by a defender which may alert partner (the other defender) of a possible revoke is a violation of this law. Remark, face expression, hesitation, it all amounts to the same. regards Sven (You had written: "Please don't tell me that *any* question about a player's played card not of the suit led is a question whether he has any of that suit. I won't believe 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 Tue Aug 27 16:35:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7R6Z4H20910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:35:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7R6YsK20906 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:34:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-2386.bb.online.no [80.212.217.82]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA13754 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:34:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003d01c24d93$ba622280$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:33:59 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: To: Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 8:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list > > >Effective this autumn any pair participating in > >Norwegian tournaments must have satisfactory > >convention cards. The new sanction is that a pair > >without such cards must use a standard convention > >card published by the Norwegian Bridge Federation, > >and absolutely NO deviations from this may be > >agreed upon between the players in that pair until > >they have completed their own convention cards. > > > >Sven > > I applaud the Norse for taking a strong stand on > incomplete convention cards. > > But I question whether the sanction of playing > "Norse Standard" for defaulters is legal, if their > agreements are completely non-conventional. > > L40D allows SOs merely to regulate conventional > partnership agreements (and non-conventional > agreements about light one-level openings). > > Therefore, L40E1 cannot be used to bypass L40D. > > Otherwise, a regulation under L40E1 could be > used to require *all* Norwegian players to adopt > the agreements listed on the pre-printed "Norse > Standard" convention card. > > Best wishes > > Richard I think you misunderstand the regulation: All players must have an acceptable set of convention cards. At every arrangement there is a pile of pre-completed CC's available and anybody is free to use that. The "general" line on that CC specifies "natural" and "NO DEVIATIONS". Players are not enforced to use this CC if they have their own cards, but that is the only CC available if they don't. So this is not a matter of violating or bypassing Law 40D, it is a matter of enforcing Law 40E1. I see no legal trouble with that, nor did our laywers. 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 Aug 27 17:02:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7R720O20953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:02:00 +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 g7R71sK20949 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:01:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be ([217.136.147.3]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7R713f18004 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:01:03 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D6B23B9.4090402@skynet.be> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:01:13 +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] DwS explained References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@pop.ulb.ac.be> <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <3D6A26BD.8090705@skynet.be> <001101c24d42$b3c7c7f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Come off it, Sven, Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > ....... > >>The discussion centers mainly on which of the two laws one should >>break. I believe breaking L40B in this instance is less harmful than >>breaking L75D2. >> > > It seems to me that you have an untenable > understanding of the laws on disclosure: > No Sir, I have a full understanding of this Law AND of Law 75D2. And I see that these two laws conflict. 'Nuff said. > > -- 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 Aug 27 17:03:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7R73OE20965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:03:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from c3po.skynet.be (c3po.skynet.be [195.238.3.237]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7R73JK20961 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:03:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be ([217.136.147.3]) by c3po.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7R72a601485 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:02:36 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D6B2417.8080203@skynet.be> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:02:47 +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] DwS explained References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@pop.ulb.ac.be> <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> 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: > > This rubbish has nothing to do with me. I play to the Laws, and do > not advise people not to. > > Herman has decided to call this illegal method of answering questions > "the De Wael School" and abbreviated it to DwS [sic]. I leave it to > others to decide whether he was just trying to wind me up using initials > he knew would get confused with mine or not. It was never my idea to call this the De Wael School, nor to abbreviate it. But now that it has been done, I insist they use the correct spelling of my name : De wael into the abbreviation DwS. > > -- 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 Aug 27 17:11:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7R7At620978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:10:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7R7AnK20974 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:10:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be ([217.136.147.3]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7R7A2f28956 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:10:02 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D6B25D5.4070802@skynet.be> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:10:13 +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] DwS explained 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, you are going one step further: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Sven wrote: > > [snip] > > >>My opinion (and I believe it is according to law) is >>simply that during the auction you shall answer any >>question on your system correctly according to your >>own understanding of your agreements and as if you >>have not heard anything your partner has said during >>same auction. >> > > [snip] > > My opinion (and I believe it is according to law) is > also very much opposed to the De Wael School. But > while my views are very close to the Sven Norse > School, I wish to draw a fine distinction between it > and the Richard Taswegian School: > > 1. During the auction you shall *bid* according to > your understanding of agreements. > of course > 2. If partner's explanation during the auction > reminds you that you have misbid, you shall > continue to *bid* according to your original > misunderstanding (L16). > of course > 3. If partner's explanation during the auction > reminds you that you have *misexplained*, you > shall *immediately* call the Director (L75D1), > and inform the opponents of the true partnership > agreement (L75C). > yes indeed - but partner is not allowed (L75D2) to do this. > Since I often play complex systems, there have been > several occasions where: > > a) I have explained to the opponents during the auction > that pard is showing hand X, > b) our system agreement is that pard is showing hand X, > c) pard actually holds hand X, > d) pard's earlier explanation was consistent with hand X, > e) but pard's explanation provided UI, and > f) therefore, while giving correct hand X *explanations*, I > have deliberately self-destructed by *bidding* on my > original assumption of pard holding hand Y. > again all correct, but irrelevant to the discussion. In your example, you believe that you have misbid, and that partner's original explanation is the correct one. So you continue bidding according to your own idea of system, and you continue explaining according to his. No dilemma there. You are following both DwS (explaining according to partner's ideas) and DWS (explaining according to system) since they tell you to do the same thing. The dilemma only arises when you believe partner's explanation is wrong. We all know that one. Now tell me what you should do if partner's explanation are such that you have no idea what is actually in your system notes? Why not simply agree with the DwS, follow L75D2, not giving partner UI that limits his judgment, and get on with the game ? > Best wishes > > Richard > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://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 Aug 27 17:12:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7R7C4C20997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:12:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7R7BwK20993 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:11:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be ([217.136.147.3]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7R7B8I12959 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:11:09 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D6B2617.6000402@skynet.be> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:11:19 +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] DwS explained References: <002101c24d91$13583620$6400a8c0@WINXP> 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: > To: > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 7:47 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained > > > >>Sven wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >> >>>My opinion (and I believe it is according to law) is >>>simply that during the auction you shall answer any >>>question on your system correctly according to your >>>own understanding of your agreements and as if you >>>have not heard anything your partner has said during >>>same auction. >>> >>[snip] >> >>My opinion (and I believe it is according to law) is >>also very much opposed to the De Wael School. But >>while my views are very close to the Sven Norse >>School, I wish to draw a fine distinction between it >>and the Richard Taswegian School: >> >>1. During the auction you shall *bid* according to >> your understanding of agreements. >> > > Wrong - you are free to make whatever call you like > (except as possibly regulated by SO or ZO) - Law 40A > Incredible !!!!!!!!!!! Wrong, Sven - you are NOT free to make whatever call you want. L16 limits you in very severe ways !!!!!! > > > -- 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 Aug 27 17:26:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7R7QZW21013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:26:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 10.4.10.65 (ws.aegon.nl [193.79.56.97]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g7R7QTK21009 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:26:29 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020827091937.00d974d0@MDWexc1> X-Sender: s.f.kuipers@ngi.nl (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:25:38 +0200 To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" From: Simon Kuipers Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list In-Reply-To: <3D3815AF00009407@ocpmta3.be.tiscali.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Sven] >All players must have an acceptable set of convention cards. > >At every arrangement there is a pile of pre-completed CC's >available and anybody is free to use that. > >The "general" line on that CC specifies "natural" and >"NO DEVIATIONS". > >Players are not enforced to use this CC if they have >their own cards, but that is the only CC available if >they don't. And what will happen if a pair takes a pre-completed CC, crosses out the NO DEVIATIONS line and adds some conventions it would like to play? Then they will have made their own CC and they will obey to rule 1: "All players must have an acceptable set of convention cards." - because why would such a card be illegal? Simon -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 17:31:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7R7V6s21025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:31:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from vador.skynet.be (vador.skynet.be [195.238.3.236]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7R7V0K21021 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:31:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be ([217.136.147.3]) by vador.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7R7UHD27270 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:30:17 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D6B2A93.5020505@skynet.be> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:30:27 +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] DwS explained References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@pop.ulb.ac.be> <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> 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: > > This rubbish has nothing to do with me. I play to the Laws, and do > not advise people not to. > really David, I would have expected more from you. There is a dilemma here, and if you cannot see that, you are just plain stupid. You too are breaking a Law : L75D2. Our difference of opinion is which law we should break. > Herman has decided to call this illegal method of answering questions > "the De Wael School" and abbreviated it to DwS [sic]. I leave it to > others to decide whether he was just trying to wind me up using initials > he knew would get confused with mine or not. > I don't like you putting me down like this. You deliberately use words lilke "illegal" to discredit my views. I think I deserve better. There are not many people with as much knowledge of the laws like you and me in the world. Even if we disagree, we should respect one another's views. I have never called your views illegal, yet you continue to do this with mine. You are a respected source in these midsts and I believe I don't deserve you putting me down with just the one sentence. > -- 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 Aug 27 17:47:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7R7lZT21045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:47:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7R7lTK21041 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:47:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-0138.bb.online.no [80.212.208.138]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA27574 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:46:44 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006f01c24d9d$dff38d40$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020827091937.00d974d0@MDWexc1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:46:37 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Simon Kuipers" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 9:25 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list > [Sven] > > >All players must have an acceptable set of convention cards. > > > >At every arrangement there is a pile of pre-completed CC's > >available and anybody is free to use that. > > > >The "general" line on that CC specifies "natural" and > >"NO DEVIATIONS". > > > >Players are not enforced to use this CC if they have > >their own cards, but that is the only CC available if > >they don't. > > And what will happen if a pair takes a pre-completed CC, crosses out the NO > DEVIATIONS line and adds some conventions it would like to play? Then they > will have made their own CC and they will obey to rule 1: "All players must > have an acceptable set of convention cards." - because why would such a > card be illegal? > > Simon It wouldn't If their system conforms to the "standard" so well that they can make their "own" cards satisfactorily this way it is OK. But if their changes and overstrikes make the "standard" card rather unintelligible they won't get away with that. And remember it doesn't take much crossing outs and additions before the card gets rather unintelligible! Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 19:09:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7R98Pf21120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:08:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 10.4.10.65 (ws.aegon.nl [193.79.56.97]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g7R98JK21116 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:08:20 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020827105536.00d95af0@MDWexc1> X-Sender: s.f.kuipers@ngi.nl (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:07:31 +0200 To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" From: Simon Kuipers Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained In-Reply-To: <3D3815AF000094EB@ocpmta3.be.tiscali.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Herman] >No Sir, I have a full understanding of this Law [L40B} AND of Law 75D2. >And I see that these two laws conflict. L40B is about a special partnership understanding and its (prohibited) concealment. L75D2 is about a mistaken explanation - I would say: a partnership misunderstanding. How could those two Laws be in conflict with each other, the subjects being different?? Simon -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 20:19:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RAIwF21176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:18:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7RAIqK21172 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:18:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-1761.bb.online.no [80.212.214.225]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA22430 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:18:07 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00f301c24db3$0516f2f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020827105536.00d95af0@MDWexc1> Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:17:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Simon Kuipers" > [Herman] > > >No Sir, I have a full understanding of this Law [L40B} AND of Law 75D2. > >And I see that these two laws conflict. > > L40B is about a special partnership understanding and its (prohibited) > concealment. L75D2 is about a mistaken explanation - I would say: a > partnership misunderstanding. How could those two Laws be in conflict with > each other, the subjects being different?? > > Simon I shall leave it for Herman to answer for himself, but the way I understand him he considers it more important to conceal from partner the fact that he has made a wrong explanation than to reveal the true agreements within the partnership to opponents. This of course is a matter of opinion, and where I (and I believe several others) disagree with Herman. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 20:45:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RAjE421201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:45:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7RAj8K21197 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:45:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be ([217.136.147.3]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7RAiLf24584 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:44:21 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D6B580F.2070603@skynet.be> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:44:31 +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] DwS explained References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020827105536.00d95af0@MDWexc1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Simon, new here ? I'm certain some of us will want to know more about you - tell us something about yourself some time. (some people -not me- are very interested to know if you have cats or dogs) Simon Kuipers wrote: > [Herman] > >> No Sir, I have a full understanding of this Law [L40B} AND of Law 75D2. >> And I see that these two laws conflict. > > > L40B is about a special partnership understanding and its (prohibited) > concealment. L75D2 is about a mistaken explanation - I would say: a > partnership misunderstanding. How could those two Laws be in conflict > with each other, the subjects being different?? > Let me give you a small lesson in the conflict of the De Wael school. I make a bid, thinking my system is A. Instead of explaining it as A1, partner explains it as B1. Partner now makes a bid. I should interpret that as meaning A2, but of course by UI I know he intends it as B2. It is clear that I must make my next bid with the meaning A3, knowing full well that partner will interpret it as B3. I am not even allowed to chose a bid where A3 and B3 are similar. That much is clear. But how should I explain partner's bid. According to DWS (that's David Stevenson of Liverpool) I should explain it as A2, because explaining it as B2 would be in violation of L40. According to the DwS (that's an acronym they've give to De wael School - after Herman De Wael -that's me- of Antwerpen), I should explain it as B2, because explaining it as A2 would be in violation of L75D2. I maintain that these laws are in conflict with one another. I believe it is impossible not to break one or the other. I believe L75D2 is a stronger one, given that it includes the words "in any manner", something which is absent in L40B. Of course all this is only true if I am certain that "A" is our system. If I am convinced that B is the true system I have no problems - both schools then say that I should bid according to A, and explain according to B. > Simon > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://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 Aug 27 20:48:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RAmMS21216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:48:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7RAmGK21212 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:48:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by system.wewnetrzny9 (Mailserver) with SMTP id 1D3397037 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:40:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 3BC3B70B3; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:32:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 4FAAB5A7E for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:25:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <01ae01c24db4$1d839590$727e870a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020827105536.00d95af0@MDWexc1> Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:25:36 +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 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 142be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Simon Kuipers" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 11:07 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained > [Herman] > > >No Sir, I have a full understanding of this Law [L40B} AND of Law 75D2. > >And I see that these two laws conflict. > > L40B is about a special partnership understanding and its (prohibited) > concealment. L75D2 is about a mistaken explanation - I would say: a > partnership misunderstanding. How could those two Laws be in conflict with > each other, the subjects being different?? > > Simon > Before this goes any further I suggest that all BLMLers who were not on this list four years ago follow the discussion that took place then. http://cibor.w.interia.pl/MPB/dwschool.html Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Zgodz sie, nic nie tracisz... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1640 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 21:08:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RB8St21239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 21:08:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7RB8NK21235 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 21:08:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be ([217.136.147.3]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7RB7aI20580 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:07:36 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D6B5D82.3050907@skynet.be> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:07:46 +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] DwS explained References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020827105536.00d95af0@MDWexc1> <00f301c24db3$0516f2f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> 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: "Simon Kuipers" > > > > I shall leave it for Herman to answer for himself, but the way > I understand him he considers it more important to conceal > from partner the fact that he has made a wrong explanation > than to reveal the true agreements within the partnership to > opponents. > Thanks Sven, that you at least show some consideration for my opinions. One modification though. Not only do I believe it is my right to not give UI to partner - It also happens to be my duty. L75D2 actually tells me to do this. As for revealing the true agreements to opponents - don't forget that I am actually informing opponents of the true intention of my partner. So yes, I do believe the one is more important than the other. > This of course is a matter of opinion, and where I (and I > believe several others) disagree with Herman. > Feel free to do so. > Sven > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > -- 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 Aug 27 21:33:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RBWe221278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 21:32:40 +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 g7RBWXK21270 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 21:32:33 +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 17jeZW-0008Xq-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:31:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:15:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke References: <200208261958.PAA26164@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200208261958.PAA26164@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 >> L61B does not allow dummy to ask a defender whether he has shown out. >> So the defender did not discover "legally" that he had revoked, but >> through a breach of L61B. > >> Sven Pran writes >> >Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987 >> >specifically states under 63.5: >> > >> >"Note: An enquiry by dummy of defender is a violation of Law 42B1, >> >not of Law 61B" > >> I suppose this is the answer, though I do wish the Law was clearer ... > >The law (61B) is perfectly clear if you discard the fallacy that >anything not permitted is prohibited. It is not a fallacy. The WBFLC has said so, and commonsense says so, and some of the most ridiculous arguments on BLML have proved it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 21:33:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RBWdM21277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 21:32:40 +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 g7RBWVK21268 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 21:32:32 +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 17jeZW-0008Xp-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:31:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:13:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] An online Laws question References: <200208261952.PAA26155@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200208261952.PAA26155@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 >> L17E states explicitly when the auction period ends, and you really >> cannot devise a new period like this! :) > >Yes, but L25A is not limited by the end of the auction period. It is >limited in time only by partner's subsequent call (presumably on the >next board). I know that. It is the suggestion that you penalise players if they discuss while they are putting the cards away that is ridiculous. Do you really think the Laws say that you may discuss a board when it is completed *unless* there are four passes, in which case you may not discuss it until partner calls on the next board? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 22:05:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RC4Uv21367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:04:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 10.4.10.65 (ws.aegon.nl [193.79.56.97]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g7RC4NK21361 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:04:24 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020827135916.00dbfef0@MDWexc1> X-Sender: s.f.kuipers@ngi.nl (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:03:33 +0200 To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" From: Simon Kuipers Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained In-Reply-To: <3D3815AF000096C4@ocpmta3.be.tiscali.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Konrad] >Before this goes any further I suggest that all BLMLers >who were not on this list four years ago follow >the discussion that took place then. >http://cibor.w.interia.pl/MPB/dwschool.html Thank you Konrad (and also Herman for his - I am sure - very concise explanation). I see I have to do a lot of thinking now about this subject. Simon -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 22:11:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RCBSn21387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:11:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7RCBNK21383 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:11:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-126.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.126] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #6) id 17jfBB-0007St-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:10:42 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020827080914.00ab0e40@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:14:15 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Convention cards at clubs 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 05:42 PM 8/26/02, Gordon wrote: >I sincerely hope that the ACBL laws commission will tell them where they >can put regulations contrary to the laws... The Handbook of Rules and Regulations? ACBLScore? The Bulletin? Plenty of precedent... 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 Aug 27 22:30:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RCToM21452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:29:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7RCTjK21448 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:29:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-126.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.126] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #6) id 17jfSz-0002Bv-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:29:05 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020827082636.00b2ae60@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:32:35 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:22 AM 8/27/02, richard.hills wrote: >Otherwise, a regulation under L40E1 could be >used to require *all* Norwegian players to adopt >the agreements listed on the pre-printed "Norse >Standard" convention card. It could. We learned in a recent thread that the WBF has decided that the powers granted to the SO under L40D are "unrestricted". Therefore L40E isn't needed; such a requirement would, per the WBF interpretation, be perfectly legal using L40D alone ("The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions."). 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 Aug 27 23:12:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RDCcB21521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:12:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7RDCRK21512 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:12:28 +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 17jg86-000Ob4-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:11:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:51:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Conflicting AI and UI 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 writes > >[snip] > >>The subsequent AI* (opp has basically said "you haven't >>doubled and you can't -thank the lord") would certainly >>change the percentage of my peers that would double >>(from say 30% to about 99%). I am pretty sure that AI >>may be used regardless of whether it is received before >>or after the UI. >> >>* I am rather less sure that the opponent reaction is AI. >>It seems to me that since it arises primarily from a >>tempo break by my own side it might be UI. >> >>Tim > >1. Before the UI, Pass and Double were the only two LAs. >2. The UI demonstrably suggested that Double would be > more successful than Pass. >3. Therefore, before the AI, Pass was the only legal call. >4. The AI also demonstrably suggested that Double would be > more successful than Pass. >5. But if, after the AI, Pass is still an LA, then it must > still be selected. >6. Double can only be selected if it is the only remaining > LA, because the AI has annihilated the pre-existing > determination that Pass is an LA. >7. Given that use of AI is "at his own risk" (L73D1), can > AI annihilate a pre-existing LA? You are making it far too complicated. Given the AI, would a relevant proportion of similar players playing a similar system and style find the call? If so it is an LA: if not, then not. Nothing to do with "pre-existing LAs". -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 23:12:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RDCWw21517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:12:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7RDCKK21510 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:12:20 +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 17jg81-000Ob5-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:11:32 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:32:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list References: <00b301c24c55$a47b9990$239c68d5@SCRAP> <005701c24d50$f0d0e6a0$1c9868d5@SCRAP> In-Reply-To: <005701c24d50$f0d0e6a0$1c9868d5@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 >David Stevenson [D] with replies from Nigel Guthrie [N2] >N: What a great idea! A standard convention card; with checkboxes; >> and every section must be completed. >D: The ACBL card shows why this does not work. In England there would > either be far less info to opponents or people would have to have > about eight pages of check boxes. >N2: If the ACBL card is inadequate to describe permitted foreign > understandings, then it disadvantages foreigners (or locals) in the USA. It is inadequate to describe permitted American methods unless they play a basically standard approach. > Maybe, the simplest course if action is restrict "basic" conventions > to those that fit on the card. Perhaps simpler would be to do as we do now which seems to be working well. > (Perhaps allow additional notes for late auction developments) >N: In England, we have at least two kinds of standard local card, > but many players use non-standard, foreign or WBF cards. >D: If people use illegal cards call the TD. > The two types of local card are better than the ACBL card if anything > non-standard is played. >N2: Card banning is another rule I have never heard of being enforced. Have you called the TD in such a case? > At EBU events are WBF cards legal? Only at L5, ie the Spring Foursomes, and in hte EBL Seniors, being a joint EBU/EBL event. > Is it legal to vary EBU formats? NO. You may use a computer version so long as the items are in the same order as the ordinary card. >N: Few are complete. Many sections permit misleading entries > (e.g. "signals: count" meaning "odd cards show an odd holding") >D: That's irrelevant - you should see the way ACBL cards are filled out! > While it would be better if cards are filled better that is not the > fault of the card - people are pretty casual over such things. >N2: Irrelevant? surely the whole point of standard cards with checkboxes > and compulsory completion is (relative) completeness and accuracy. It does not work that way. >N: It would help everybody if a standard card were internationally >> adopted and made compulsory. >D: No, that would be far worse. There are different approaches in > different countries, and different levels of player. It would make > the game worse for the various levels if you did this. >N2: IMO, In all countries the CC rules should cater for foreign > competitors. A standard CC helps ensure a level playing field. I think it would be a good idea to let local people play their own methods as well. >N Books on popular systems could contain such a completed card, >> for use as a template. >D: This would hardly work: who plays a system per the book these days? >N2: It could work as a "template" Yeah, 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 Tue Aug 27 23:12:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RDCJw21509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:12:19 +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-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 g7RDCDK21500 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:12:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17jg81-000Ob6-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:11:32 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:35:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list References: <00b301c24c55$a47b9990$239c68d5@SCRAP> <5.1.1.6.0.20020826204132.00b45630@mail.comcast.net> <007e01c24d79$91b90ac0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <007e01c24d79$91b90ac0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >"Forcing Stayman" should be "Game-Forcing Stayman." Is there any other >kind of Forcing Stayman? Yes 1NT=2C=2D=2H/2S forcing is "Forcing Stayman." "Forcing Stayman" is a name that has been around for many years. Sure, it means GF Stayman. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 23:13:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RDDDD21543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:13:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7RDCFK21504 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:12:28 +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 17jg81-000Ob4-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:11:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:27:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke References: <018601c24cfd$08fa3f50$6400a8c0@WINXP> 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 8/26/02, Sven Pran wrote: > >>As I have already pointed out a couple of times we have an official >>comment to Laws 61B and 63B that a question made by dummy to >>an opponent is not a violation of Law 61B, it is a violation of Law >42B1! > >The commentary was "official"? Okay, fine. Under what office? I gather >that the thing had something to do with the European Bridge League. Does >their commentary have effect in the rest of the world? Why so? No, but you seem to be confusing official with world-wide. I am quite sure that if you ask the ACBL they will tell you their publications are official - and they will be right. In fact Duplicate Decisions from the ACBL says DUMMY MAY NOT QUESTION THE DEFENDERS [sic] The interesting point about this is that it is under L61 and *not* L42. Sure, L42 has a reference, but not so clear, just a throwaway remark, and not in capitals. Perhaps that means that L63B, which normally has no effect in Zone 2 because defenders are permitted to ask each other, kicks in in Zone 2 when dummy asks a defender? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 23:14:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RDEMU21554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:14:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7RDCUK21516 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:13:17 +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 17jg88-000Ob7-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:11:38 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:38:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list References: <3D3815AF00009407@ocpmta3.be.tiscali.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020827091937.00d974d0@MDWexc1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020827091937.00d974d0@MDWexc1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Simon Kuipers writes >And what will happen if a pair takes a pre-completed CC, crosses out the NO >DEVIATIONS line and adds some conventions it would like to play? Then they >will have made their own CC and they will obey to rule 1: "All players must >have an acceptable set of convention cards." - because why would such a >card be illegal? Nothing much. When I played with Ros Bavin [Max's ex] some years ago she went off to get some blank CCs to fill in, and came back proudly with two simple system cards, which the EBU have been using for about twelve years in the way Norway is about to. So we changed about two things and played them. Very kind of the EBU to do the job of filling them in for us. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 27 23:14:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RDEgo21564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:14:42 +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-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 g7RDDxK21550 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:13:59 +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 17jg85-000Ob3-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:11:35 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:46:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25B in KO play References: <5.1.1.6.0.20020825161012.01c2f400@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.1.6.0.20020825161012.01c2f400@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.1.6.0.20020826204341.01bcb3c8@mail.comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20020826204341.01bcb3c8@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 10:15 PM 8/25/2002, David Stevenson wrote: >>David J. Grabiner writes >> >East dealer, both sides vulnerable, KO match >> > >> >B A B A >> >W N E S >> > P P >> >1NT P 2H! P (2H-announced as transfer) >> >P, Oops! >> > >> >The TD is called, and he rules that West had not made a mechanical error, >> >but since North has not yet bid, West is allowed to change his pass under >> >L25B, limiting team B's score to at most average-minus (-3 IMPs). West >> >uses the option to bid 2S, which ends the auction, and 2S makes for >> >+110. At the other table, Team B is +140, which would be +6 IMPs without >> >the L25B adjustment. >> > >> >Do you score -6 to team A and -3 to team B, and then average the >> >non-balancing scores giving +1.5 to team B? >> >> Yes, that's right. > >This seems to be the consensus, and it does match how the law was >written. Is the law actually applied that way? The only case I remember was in the Champion's Cup in Sweden. Because I was across a road and down a hill [so he said!] Christer Grahs did not consult with me but decided anyway that this was correct. >In the actual situation, the TD informed West that if he changed his call, >his side would play for at most average-minus, which is -3 IMPs. West >didn't change his call. That is probably a TD error which should have led >to an adjusted score under L82C, assuming that West would have changed his >bid had he been given the correct information that the penalty was halved. It is arguable whether this is TD error, since it is correct. But it could certainly have been better expressed. >Now, is the following the correct way to rule under L82C here if there is >more than one likely result? Say that both +110 and -100 for team B were >likely. Team B's score is based on +110 and L25B, and thus the -3 >IMPs. Team A's score is based on +100 without L25B, and thus -1 IMP. Net >score: +1 IMP to team A. > >Alternatively, you could apply the non-balancing scores rule twice. Team B >would get +110 for +1.5 IMPs assuming the most favorable likely result >(averaging +6 and -3 as before), while team A would get +100 for +1 IMP >assuming the most favorable likely result, and average *these* two scores >for +0.25 IMPs to team B. This seems to be more fair; if the +110/-100 >result was a coin flip, then team B would be equally likely to get +1.5 or -1. I am sorry, I have read this thrice, and my head is spinning. So I shall give the answer without reference to what you wrote. Let us assume you decide it was TD error. If the TD had told him about L86B he would have known that he could have done better than -3 imps. So he would be more likely to use L25B in K/O play. But he did, so there is no damage, so the result stands. WTP? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 00:36:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7REaFY21618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:36:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7REa6K21610 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:36:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id KAA17182 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:35:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA02680 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:35:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:35:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208271435.KAA02680@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] penalty card, or is it? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >Dummy, North, wins a trick. South is holding his played card > >face up and says -- or mumbles, depending on whom you believe > >-- "Cards?" East hears "Heart," and puts a heart spot card > >face up on the table. > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > 1. As TD, my determination of the facts, under the balance of > probabilities, is that South mumbled "cards". > > 2. I rule that South's mumbling is not an infraction of L73D2. > > 3. Since South was not calling for a card from dummy, I rule > that there has been no violation of the "clearly state" > provision of L46A. > > 3. For the same reason, I rule that L47E1 does not apply. > > 4. Therefore, I would apply L53. If South does not accept the > lead out of turn, then East's heart spot card becomes a major > penalty card under L50. All fine, but it seems to leave out the most important step. Why are you ruling that the heart spot was a "lead to the next trick" (L57A) and not "exposed inadvertently" (L50C)? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 00:58:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7REvK121641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:57:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7REv9K21637 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:57:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id KAA18352 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:56:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA02709 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:56:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:56:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208271456.KAA02709@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > "Forcing Stayman" is a name that has been around for many years. Indeed. > Sure, it means GF Stayman. That's not what Mr. Stayman thought when he wrote his book (probably mid-60's, but I'd have to check). However, it might well be true nowadays. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 01:05:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RF2W321657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 01:02:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7RF2RK21653 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 01:02:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id LAA18575 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:01:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA02737 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:01:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:01:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208271501.LAA02737@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] An online Laws question X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > I know that. It is the suggestion that you penalise players if they > discuss while they are putting the cards away that is ridiculous. > > Do you really think the Laws say that you may discuss a board when it > is completed *unless* there are four passes, in which case you may not > discuss it until partner calls on the next board? Well, *I* never made any such suggestion, and I agree it's ridiculous. It does seem to me that if there is discussion, there has almost certainly been a "pause for thought," so L25A could not apply. Now that you bring it up, though, it looks to me as though L25B could apply even after there has been some discussion of the passed-out board. What a mess! -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 01:09:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RF8Ug21669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 01:08:30 +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 g7RF8IK21665 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 01:08:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id LAA18908 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:07:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA02748 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:07:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:07:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208271507.LAA02748@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >The law (61B) is perfectly clear if you discard the fallacy that > >anything not permitted is prohibited. > From: David Stevenson > It is not a fallacy. The WBFLC has said so, and commonsense says so, > and some of the most ridiculous arguments on BLML have proved it. Please don't bring up that old chestnut again. The WBF said the exact opposite, and you know it. There are _three_ categories, not two: permitted, prohibited, and extraneous. Anything not addressed is in the third category, not the second. Show me one example where one has to read the laws in the fallacious way you claim in order to avoid a genuine problem. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 01:30:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RFPWW21695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 01:25:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from obelix.spase.nl (c69101.upc-c.chello.nl [212.187.69.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7RFPRK21691 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 01:25:27 +1000 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:26:21 +0200 Message-ID: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A5FD@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] penalty card, or is it? Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:26:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner [mailto:willner@cfa.harvard.edu] wrote: > > >Dummy, North, wins a trick. South is holding his played card > > >face up and says -- or mumbles, depending on whom you believe > > >-- "Cards?" East hears "Heart," and puts a heart spot card > > >face up on the table. > > > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > 1. As TD, my determination of the facts, under the balance of > > probabilities, is that South mumbled "cards". > > > > 2. I rule that South's mumbling is not an infraction of L73D2. > > > > 3. Since South was not calling for a card from dummy, I rule > > that there has been no violation of the "clearly state" > > provision of L46A. > > > > 3. For the same reason, I rule that L47E1 does not apply. > > > > 4. Therefore, I would apply L53. If South does not accept the > > lead out of turn, then East's heart spot card becomes a major > > penalty card under L50. > > All fine, but it seems to leave out the most important step. Why are > you ruling that the heart spot was a "lead to the next trick" (L57A) > and not "exposed inadvertently" (L50C)? East played the card, and had every intention of playing it. It was not exposed inadvertently (as in dropping the card, or playing two at the same time). That East falsely thought that it was his turn to play is a different matter. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 01:51:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RFp2I21730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 01:51:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7RFoeK21726 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 01:50:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from pavilion ([12.91.170.81]) by mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020827154950.EXHP1817.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@pavilion> for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:49:50 +0000 From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] L25B in KO play Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:50:00 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: David Stevenson > > If the TD had told him about L86B he would have known > that he could > have done better than -3 imps. So he would be more > likely to use L25B > in K/O play. But he did, so there is no damage, so the > result stands. WTP? He didn't use L25B. Assuming I'm remembering correctly, the result at table 1 was 2H+1 +140 NS, and at table 2 2H-4 -400 EW. If he had used L25B, the results would have been: Team A Team B -140 -140 +140 (+140 or Ave-, whichever is worse) -7 imps -3 imps As it was, the result for the team that could have used L25B was -6. With L25B, would the result would have been +2 for them? If team B was unaware that their opponents would score the table result, rather than +3 imps as many would assume not being told different, then they weren't aware of the full 'benefits' of L25B and missed out on a chance to recover 8 imps. 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 Wed Aug 28 03:18:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RHFx221809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 03:15:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7RHFsK21805 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 03:15:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from simba.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@simba.irvine.com [192.160.8.19]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06498; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:15:07 -0700 Message-Id: <200208271715.KAA06498@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:56:29 EDT." <200208271456.KAA02709@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:15:09 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: David Stevenson > > "Forcing Stayman" is a name that has been around for many years. > > Indeed. > > > Sure, it means GF Stayman. > > That's not what Mr. Stayman thought when he wrote his book (probably > mid-60's, but I'd have to check). However, it might well be true > nowadays. I have to concur with Steve. From what I recall from my reading, "forcing Stayman" (as opposed to non-forcing Stayman) applies to agreements about what follow-ups are forcing after 1NT-2C. It certainly doesn't make 2C game-forcing---nobody plays it that way. This means the term doesn't apply at all to 1NT-2D Stayman. It's possible to have "forcing Stayman" mean one thing when applied to 1NT-2C, and another thing (i.e. game force) when applied to 1NT-2D; but that would be too confusing, IMHO. So I don't think the term "Forcing Stayman" should appear on the ACBL CC under 2D. By the way, I still have some old (1988) convention cards. The one I'm looking at has a section that looks like this: STAYMAN: 2C Forc. [] Non-Forc. [] 2D Forc. [] (with suit symbols instead of C and D). So the confusion goes back to before the current convention card design. The current convention card doesn't have any space to designate Forcing or Non-forcing 2C Stayman, possibly because no one is sure exactly what it means anyway. Neither card has a place to designate non-game-forcing 2D Stayman, which is probably OK since hardly anyone plays it. I have played it once, though, as part of an unusual structure over 10-12 NT in which 2C was a relay to 2D, 2D was Stayman, 2H, 2S and all 3 bids were to play, 2NT was an artificial game force. As for David's comment that "Forcing Stayman" means game-forcing Stayman: that may be true in Britain, but it may be one of those terms, like "chips", whose meaning has diverged. -- 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 Aug 28 05:12:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RJBXc21857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 05:11:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hoover.skynet.be (hoover.skynet.be [195.238.3.144]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7RJBRK21853 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 05:11:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3po.skynet.be (c3po.skynet.be [195.238.3.237]) by hoover.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-FALLBACK-2.21) with ESMTP id g7RDnhi18200 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:49:43 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Received: from skynet.be (230.15-200-80.adsl.skynet.be [80.200.15.230]) by c3po.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7RDnL611298 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:49:21 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D6B836A.8050308@skynet.be> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:49:30 +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] DwS explained References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@pop.ulb.ac.be> <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4.3.2.7.0.20020827083511.00aae7e0@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 Very off-topic. Eric Landau wrote: > At 03:02 AM 8/27/02, you wrote: > >> I insist they use the correct spelling of my name : De wael > > > What is the correct spelling of your name, Herman? Is it "De wael" (as > above) or "De Wael" (as in your "from" line)? > The normal spelling of this name in flemish would be either De Wael or Dewael. However. My great-grandfather was called Dewael. So was my great-aunt. But at my grandfathers' birth they misspelt his name De wael. So there are (were) 7 people with this strangely spelt name in the world: my grandfather, father, me, brother, two nieces and a nephew. My sister saw yet another misspelling. She is officially De Wael. But as I said, that is a strange way of spelling. So both my father and myself have always spelt our name De Wael. My brother started spelling his name correctly when he started his business. And then someone coined this De Wael School thingy, and some-one else abbreviated it. And the confusing with DWS came to light. So after some time, I'm settling for DwS as the official BLML abbreviation of De Wael School. Still I prefer to see my name spelt De Wael, two words, two capital letters, alphabetized under "D". > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > -- Herman DE WAEL (or all in capitals) 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 Aug 28 06:25:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RKOjk21912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 06:24:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7RKObK21904 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 06:24:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7RKNvB09476 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:23:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003b01c24e07$c13c7e60$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200208271456.KAA02709@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:15:05 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" > > From: David Stevenson > > "Forcing Stayman" is a name that has been around for many years. > > Indeed. > > > Sure, it means GF Stayman. > > That's not what Mr. Stayman thought when he wrote his book (probably > mid-60's, but I'd have to check). However, it might well be true > nowadays. You are right, Steve. I was there, and here's what happened. In the early days of Stayman, 1N=2C=2D=2H/2S was not forcing, just invitational. Then many players decided it should be forcing, and this was called Forcing Stayman. The CC then provided two boxes, one for Non-Forcing Stayman and the other for Forcing Stayman. Then many players decided to play two-way Stayman, in which 2D is GF Stayman and 2C is not GF. However, there was no easy way to show this on the CC, so they had the stupid idea of checking both boxes, even though the boxes referred to a major suit rebid, not to a response. As a consequence, GF Stayman came to be called Forcing Stayman. I find this to be particularly galling because I play Forcing Stayman but not GF Stayman. 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 Aug 28 06:25:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RKOkt21913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 06:24:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7RKObK21905 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 06:24:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7RKNvB09479 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:23:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003c01c24e07$c1aa5b60$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200208271507.LAA02748@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:24:25 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" > > >The law (61B) is perfectly clear if you discard the fallacy that > > >anything not permitted is prohibited. > > > From: David Stevenson > > It is not a fallacy. The WBFLC has said so, and commonsense says so, > > and some of the most ridiculous arguments on BLML have proved it. > > Please don't bring up that old chestnut again. The WBF said the exact > opposite, and you know it. There are _three_ categories, not two: > permitted, prohibited, and extraneous. Anything not addressed is in > the third category, not the second. > > Show me one example where one has to read the laws in the fallacious > way you claim in order to avoid a genuine problem. Well, there is the law regarding CCs. You are permitted by L40E2 to refer to an opponent's CC when it's your turn to bid or play. Looking at other times is not extraneous, it is forbidden, and any other interpretation is ridiculous. 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 Aug 28 06:30:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RKUYx21931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 06:30:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7RKUTK21927 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 06:30:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7RKTmB11689 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:29:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004a01c24e08$93626800$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@pop.ulb.ac.be> <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4.3.2.7.0.20020827083511.00aae7e0@pop.starpower.net> <3D6B836A.8050308@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:30:22 -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: "Herman De Wael" < > Still I prefer to see my name spelt De Wael, two words, two capital > letters, alphabetized under "D". > And "Wael" rhymes with "Wall." I'm sure Herman would not like to be called Herman da Whale. 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 Aug 28 06:54:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RKrlJ21957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 06:53:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7RKrgK21953 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 06:53:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-126.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.126] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #6) id 17jnKe-0000f7-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:53:00 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020827164613.00aad100@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:56:35 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list In-Reply-To: References: <007e01c24d79$91b90ac0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <00b301c24c55$a47b9990$239c68d5@SCRAP> <5.1.1.6.0.20020826204132.00b45630@mail.comcast.net> <007e01c24d79$91b90ac0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:35 AM 8/27/02, David wrote: >Marvin L. French writes > > >"Forcing Stayman" should be "Game-Forcing Stayman." Is there any other > >kind of Forcing Stayman? Yes 1NT=2C=2D=2H/2S forcing is "Forcing > Stayman." > > "Forcing Stayman" is a name that has been around for many years. >Sure, it means GF Stayman. It doesn't really. In fact, the ACBL CC has had a checkbox for "forcing Stayman" for so many years as to pre-date the use of GF Stayman, and GF Stayman, other than as part of "2-way Stayman" remains virtually unheard of in ACBL-land -- even less popular than the old-fashioned "forcing Stayman" Marv describes. On the rare occasion where I've actually seen 2C (as opposed to 2D) marked as "forcing Stayman" it has inevitably meant the old, non-GF kind. OTOH, when a pair checks 2C as "non-forcing Stayman" and 2D as "forcing Stayman" it is assumed that the latter is GF. Has anyone reading this ever seen 2C played as GF Stayman in N.A.? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 06:56:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RKtr721970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 06:55:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7RKtmK21966 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 06:55:48 +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 QAA11536 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:55:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA03021 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:55:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:55:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208272055.QAA03021@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Show me one example where one has to read the laws in the fallacious > > way you claim in order to avoid a genuine problem. > From: "Marvin L. French" > Well, there is the law regarding CCs. You are permitted by L40E2 to refer > to an opponent's CC when it's your turn to bid or play. > > Looking at other times is not extraneous, it is forbidden, and any other > interpretation is ridiculous. Sorry, Marv, but the WBFLC doesn't agree with you. Besides, I asked for a genuine problem, not a mere statement that "It's illegal." What problems does it cause if someone looks at an opponent's CC at an "improper" time? The obvious one is communicating something to partner, but that is forbidden by L73A1 and L73B1. Care to try again? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 07:24:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RLNrB22002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 07:23:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lexington.fscv.net ([216.206.44.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7RLNlK21998 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 07:23:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from walt.com (216.206.47.49 [216.206.47.49]) by lexington.fscv.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id Q8LLF3XM; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:23:04 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.0.20020827171907.028205f0@mail.fscv.net> X-Sender: Walt.Flory@mail.fscv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:22:49 -0400 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Walt Flory Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020827164613.00aad100@pop.starpower.net> References: <007e01c24d79$91b90ac0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <00b301c24c55$a47b9990$239c68d5@SCRAP> <5.1.1.6.0.20020826204132.00b45630@mail.comcast.net> <007e01c24d79$91b90ac0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:56 PM 27/08/2002 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >... the ACBL CC has had a checkbox for "forcing Stayman" for so many years >as to pre-date the use of GF Stayman, and GF Stayman, other than as part >of "2-way Stayman" remains virtually unheard of in ACBL-land ... Eric I've played 2-way Stayman in strong club systems ever since I started playing them in 1976. Does the ACBL's checkoff for forcing Stayman really predate that? Walt Flory -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 08:23:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RMN7t22031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:23:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7RMN3K22027 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:23:03 +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 IAA03841 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:38:27 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:17:04 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:07:09 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 28/08/2002 08:16:36 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard wrote: [snip] >>Since I often play complex systems, there have been >>several occasions where: >> >>a) I have explained to the opponents during the auction >> that pard is showing hand X, >>b) our system agreement is that pard is showing hand X, >>c) pard actually holds hand X, >>d) pard's earlier explanation was consistent with hand X, >>e) but pard's explanation provided UI, and >>f) therefore, while giving correct hand X *explanations*, I >> have deliberately self-destructed by *bidding* on my >> original assumption of pard holding hand Y. Sven asked: >How is your "original assumption of pard holding hand Y" >consistent with a) through d) above? In the beginning was the assumption. And darkness moved through Richard's memory of the system. And partner said, "Let there be light!" That is, pard's UI was *before* a), but *after* my original misinterpretation and/or misbidding of our agreed system. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 09:05:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7RN4r522057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:04:53 +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 g7RN4mK22053 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:04:48 +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 JAA12374 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:20:12 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:58:49 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:50:02 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 28/08/2002 08:58:21 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard wrote: >>Otherwise, a regulation under L40E1 could be >>used to require *all* Norwegian players to adopt >>the agreements listed on the pre-printed "Norse >>Standard" convention card. Eric replied: >It could. We learned in a recent thread that the >WBF has decided that the powers granted to the SO >under L40D are "unrestricted". Therefore L40E >isn't needed; such a requirement would, per the WBF >interpretation, be perfectly legal using L40D alone >("The sponsoring organization may regulate the use >of bidding or play conventions."). The words I used in my post above were "agreements listed", *not* "conventions listed". If a compulsory pre-printed convention card includes 1NT = 15-17, then that is an invalid regulation if based on L40D. *But*, is it a valid regulation if based on L40E1? 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 Aug 28 11:08:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7S17sR22105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:07:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7S17nK22101 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:07:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from rota.alumni.princeton.edu (pcp01782626pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net [68.32.52.241]) by mtaout04.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H1J00MO14FPEG@mtaout04.icomcast.net> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 21:07:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 21:07:02 -0400 From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] L25B in KO play In-reply-to: X-Sender: davidgrabiner@mail.comcast.net To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.1.1.6.0.20020827210329.01bd7740@mail.comcast.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <5.1.1.6.0.20020826204341.01bcb3c8@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.1.6.0.20020825161012.01c2f400@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.1.6.0.20020825161012.01c2f400@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.1.6.0.20020826204341.01bcb3c8@mail.comcast.net> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I omitted the context here. In the actual situation (as opposed to the problem posed on BLML), the offender on team B chose not to change his call under L25B when he was informed about the 3-IMP penalty, and woumd up -10 IMPs on the board The TD should have told him that the penalty would apply only to his side, and would be averaged with the score from the other side. This is what I would consider a TD error. If the offender on team B had been told about the halved penalty, he might have chosen to change his call. > >Now, is the following the correct way to rule under L82C here if there is > >more than one likely result? Say that both +110 and -100 for team B were > >likely. Team B's score is based on +110 and L25B, and thus the -3 > >IMPs. Team A's score is based on +100 without L25B, and thus -1 IMP. Net > >score: +1 IMP to team A. > > > >Alternatively, you could apply the non-balancing scores rule twice. Team B > >would get +110 for +1.5 IMPs assuming the most favorable likely result > >(averaging +6 and -3 as before), while team A would get +100 for +1 IMP > >assuming the most favorable likely result, and average *these* two scores > >for +0.25 IMPs to team B. This seems to be more fair; if the +110/-100 > >result was a coin flip, then team B would be equally likely to get +1.5 > or -1. At 08:46 AM 8/27/2002, David Stevenson wrote: > I am sorry, I have read this thrice, and my head is spinning. So I >shall give the answer without reference to what you wrote. Let us >assume you decide it was TD error. > > If the TD had told him about L86B he would have known that he could >have done better than -3 imps. So he would be more likely to use L25B >in K/O play. But he did, so there is no damage, so the result stands. >WTP? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 11:54:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7S1ruU22133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:53:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.1.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7S1rmK22125 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:53:48 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id BC8628F9D; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 21:53:06 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 21:52:55 -0400 To: "Roger Pewick" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: [BLML] Las Vegas case 17 Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 5:03 PM -0500 8/19/02, Roger Pewick wrote: >Thanks Adam for your efforts. I homed in on #17 and have a contrary >opinion. This part is addressed to everyone, not just Roger. Please change the subject in your reply if the original subject does not describe the content well. I have changed the subject here. I find it disappointing to read messages in the "Las Vegas Appeals Summary" thread which have nothing to do with the summary. >The one question whose answer is necessary to settle this case was >neither asked nor answered, at least satisfactorily: 'was the pause >for this player of normal length after the skip bid?' Taking about >10 seconds normally means within 7-15 seconds. That is to say it is >asking too much of a player who needs to think to expect him to >promptly rise from his library at ten seconds- to do so means he must >do two things: think bridge and calculate 10 seconds. If he does the >latter he was not doing the former. And what are we after? Of course >we are after the fair opportunity to think. > >When I first read the case it bothered me that a 15 second pause was >ruled UI because 15 seconds is scientifically within the limit of >error in estimating a 10 second pause. How so? I disagree, and I think most would. Players who have no problem are eager to have the auction continue -- they seldom if ever pause for fifteen seconds after a skip bid. Further, I don't think this line of reasoning is supportable. Without the skip bid warning we have cases where players usually hesitate two seconds or ten seconds, where in most auctions ten seconds indicates that they have a problem. That's a difference of eight seconds. In order to help deal with the problem we have introduced the stop card. If we consider that a player who hesitates fifteen seconds has indicated no more of a problem than a player who hesitates seven seconds we have allowed just as much unauthorized information as previously, and have delayed our auctions with no benefit. I'll grant that a player ought not to have to both estimate time and deal with a potential bidding problem, but that's what the ACBL's current procedure requires. In my view the WBF procedure, where a player may not make a call until the stop card is removed, is far superior. I played for ten days in Montreal, alas only one behind screens, and did not encounter a single tempo problem after a skip bid. -- 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 Wed Aug 28 11:54:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7S1ru822134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:53:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.1.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7S1rmK22126 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:53:48 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id D7FA68F97; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 21:53:05 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:30:43 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was Las Vegas) Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:35 AM +0000 12/17/01, David Stevenson wrote: > >The meaning can only be "or, for an offending side, the most >>unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not >>occurred." This is consonant with all of Edgar's examples. Why do the >>Laws not include the extra words? Because the repetition is (or ought >>to be!) unnecessary, and would sound awkward. I doubt the authors >>even dreamt that any other interpretation was possible. > > You may make such deductions if you like, and argue about it being >perverse. However, that is not what the text says, nor the way that we >generally interpret it, nor is it logical to interpret it your way. > > For Os the basis for adjustment is different from that for NOs. It is >thus perverse to assume that part of the NOs definition applies to the >Os when it does not say so. > > it is rare that it makes any difference, true. But that proves >nothing. Can you give me an example (real or hypothetical) when it does make a difference? I'm asking because this issue was discussed by the WBFLC today. No one present could or would provide an example, but in spite of that the sentiment was in favor of your interpretation. -- 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 Wed Aug 28 12:14:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7S2Dkt22182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:13:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7S2DUK22166 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:13:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17jsK5-000NgY-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 03:12:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:21:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] An online Laws question References: <200208271501.LAA02737@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200208271501.LAA02737@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes >> From: David Stevenson >> I know that. It is the suggestion that you penalise players if they >> discuss while they are putting the cards away that is ridiculous. >> >> Do you really think the Laws say that you may discuss a board when it >> is completed *unless* there are four passes, in which case you may not >> discuss it until partner calls on the next board? > >Well, *I* never made any such suggestion, and I agree it's ridiculous. > >It does seem to me that if there is discussion, there has almost >certainly been a "pause for thought," so L25A could not apply. > >Now that you bring it up, though, it looks to me as though L25B could >apply even after there has been some discussion of the passed-out >board. What a mess! Since you mention it, I think the mess is solely that the lawmakers have failed to notice a very rare possibility, and that most TDs would rule illegally, and not worry. Law 17E is clear enough, and it is difficult to apply L25 once the auction period is over. I have no objection to a TD applying L25 then, but I do not think they are doing so legally. As for the suggestion that you may not discuss after four passes, which I think both wrong and ridiculous, true, it was not you, but two other people!!! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 12:14:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7S2DkL22184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:13:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7S2DUK22165 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:13:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17jsK3-000NgX-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 03:12:47 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:17:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25B in KO play 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 > He didn't use L25B. Assuming I'm remembering correctly, the >result at table 1 was 2H+1 +140 NS, and at table 2 2H-4 -400 EW. David J. Grabiner writes >East dealer, both sides vulnerable, KO match > >B A B A >W N E S > P P >1NT P 2H! P (2H-announced as transfer) >P, Oops! > >The TD is called, and he rules that West had not made a mechanical error, >but since North has not yet bid, West is allowed to change his pass under >L25B, limiting team B's score to at most average-minus (-3 IMPs). West >uses the option to bid 2S, which ends the auction, and 2S makes for ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >+110. At the other table, Team B is +140, which would be +6 IMPs without >the L25B adjustment. I think that I am right: he did use L25B. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 12:14:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7S2DjO22180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:13:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7S2DUK22163 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:13:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17jsK2-000NgV-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 03:12:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:12:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke References: <200208271507.LAA02748@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200208271507.LAA02748@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 >> >The law (61B) is perfectly clear if you discard the fallacy that >> >anything not permitted is prohibited. > >> From: David Stevenson >> It is not a fallacy. The WBFLC has said so, and commonsense says so, >> and some of the most ridiculous arguments on BLML have proved it. > >Please don't bring up that old chestnut again. The WBF said the exact >opposite, and you know it. There are _three_ categories, not two: >permitted, prohibited, and extraneous. Anything not addressed is in >the third category, not the second. > >Show me one example where one has to read the laws in the fallacious >way you claim in order to avoid a genuine problem. You know that you are not allowed to read your oppos' CC when it is not your turn to call or play. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 12:14:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7S2Dpn22188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:13:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g7S2DhK22181 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:13:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17jsKJ-000NgX-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 03:13:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 03:11:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] ACBL alerts summary MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The ACBL alerts summary by Marvin French has been updated. The newest version is now available form my Lawspage in Wordpad, RTF or text formats, or may just be read online. It is at http://blakjak.com/acbl_alt.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 Aug 28 12:14:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7S2DlW22185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:13:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7S2DUK22164 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:13:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17jsK2-000NgW-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 03:12:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:14:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list References: <200208271456.KAA02709@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200208271456.KAA02709@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 >> "Forcing Stayman" is a name that has been around for many years. > >Indeed. > >> Sure, it means GF Stayman. > >That's not what Mr. Stayman thought when he wrote his book (probably >mid-60's, but I'd have to check). However, it might well be true >nowadays. Which book? The one I remember did not have Forcing Stayman in, it had minor-suit Stayman instead. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 12:50:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7S2obk22243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:50:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7S2oXK22239 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:50:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA05027 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:05:56 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:44:33 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:49:17 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 28/08/2002 12:44:05 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 g7S2oYK22240 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Case Nine Subject (Tempo): A New, Natural, Ace-Asking 4NT Convention Event: Blue Ribbon Pairs, 22 Nov 01, First Qualifying Session Bd: 15 Victor Markowicz Dlr: South Q107432 Vul: N/S A9 1084 K4 Robert White Michael Kovacich AK5 J98 Q86432 KJ J65 KQ73 8 AJ72 Victor Melman 6 1075 A92 Q109653 West North East South Pass Pass 2D(1) Dbl(2) Pass(3) 3H(4) Pass 4S Pass 4NT(5) Pass Pass Pass (1) Multi (2) 13-15 balanced or any good hand (complex defense, provided by N/S) (3) Diamond tolerance (4) Alerted; transfer to spades, invitational (5) Break in tempo The Facts: 4NT made five, +460 for E/W. The Director was called after West's 4NT bid. E/W both agreed to play the complex defense to Multi, but West misread the written defense N/S provided. The length of the pause was neither defined nor denied. The Director changed the contract to 4S down one, +100 for N/S. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling and were the only players to attend the hearing. When North opened Multi, N/S provided a printout of the ACBL approved defense. After East doubled and South passed, West asked South to show him where the continuation auctions were provided on the sheets. South was unable to comply. N/S suggested that "E/W just play bridge." West bid 3H, but East had already found the relevant section which said that 3H was invitational in spades, and jumped to 4S. West said he was convinced that North had a weak two-bid in spades and that he therefore could not pass. He thought about his alternatives and decided to bid 4NT. East said there was considerable confusion at the table and, because his partner was a passed hand, 4NT could not be Blackwood. The Committee Decision: The defensive material from the ACBL web site that was available at the tournament was truncated in width and badly formatted, making it confusing and difficult to navigate. When it took the Committee members about 10 minutes to find the relevant section on the sheets, they decided to spend some time considering whether players of a Mid-Chart convention have a responsibility to be familiar with the defense offered. While it was concluded that no such responsibility exists, there was considerable sentiment that it should. Having decided that N/S were not culpable for contributing to the problem, the Committee turned to the issues of law. [big snip] Stevenson: "The villain of the piece is without doubt the approved ACBL defense. While the Committee members thought N/S should have a responsibility to explain the defense, this would require a regulation. It does not seem unreasonable for the ACBL to provide a clear defense that can be used easily. The only equitable result here would be: N/S +100, E/W + 460, and charge the ACBL with the difference." Colker: "N/S can have +100 over my prostrate body - even if we charge it to the ACBL." Gerard: "That's not the main problem with the suggested defenses. They're totally ridiculous, as if the people who wrote them are laughing at you for agreeing to play those methods against their Multi, etc. Here, for example, East doubles to show what could be a strong distributional hand, yet West is asked to assume that East has 13-15 balanced. I'll bet there are no follow-up auctions after 3H. What does East do with a balanced 21 count? With a strong two-bid in spades? It's not N/S who contributed to the problem, it's the ACBL. Just as a for instance, I've long believed that one of the most effective defenses against Multi is to be able to overcall their weak 2D with 2H, natural, yet I'm sure that's nowhere to be found in the Defense Bible. This was a breakdown in procedure caused by the tournament organizers and E/W were rightly held not accountable for taking reasonable action." [snip] * * * Given the consensus that a prime cause of the problem was the ACBL-recommended defense, should the TD and AC have adjusted the score by ruling that the ACBL is a director, and therefore its flawed reg can be corrected by using L82C (Director's Error)? 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 Aug 28 13:20:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7S3JjG22265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:19:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7S3JeK22261 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:19:41 +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 g7S3ItC20781; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:18:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:17:21 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke 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 8/27/02, David Stevenson wrote: >No, but you seem to be confusing official with world-wide. Actually, I was under the impression that Sven might be doing that. :-) > In fact Duplicate Decisions from the ACBL says > > DUMMY MAY NOT QUESTION THE DEFENDERS [sic] > > The interesting point about this is that it is under L61 and *not* >L42. Sure, L42 has a reference, but not so clear, just a throwaway >remark, and not in capitals. > > Perhaps that means that L63B, which normally has no effect in Zone 2 >because defenders are permitted to ask each other, kicks in in Zone 2 >when dummy asks a defender? I don't know. I'll have to review DD - if I can find my copy. It seems to have gone missing. 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 Aug 28 13:33:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7S3XgW22278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:33:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.49]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7S3XaK22274 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:33:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from pavilion ([12.91.171.118]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020828033249.VMIK23721.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@pavilion> for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 03:32:49 +0000 From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] L25B in KO play Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:32:59 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-reply-to: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: David Stevenson > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 5:18 PM > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] L25B in KO play > > I think that I am right: he did use L25B. Having been present for the events, I assure you he did not. David Grabiner asked two questions (I believe). The first was hypothetical. Had the player used his L25B option, how would the score be made up? The second question was based on what did happen. Given that the TD bungled the explanation for how the score would be made up, can this be considered a TD error and dealt with accordingly? The player, understanding correctly, may have changed his bid. The purpose of the first question was to establish that the TD's explanation was wrong. I understand how that could have been confusing. Personally, I'm more interested to know whether a TD's misexplanation of the Law can be considered TD error due for redress than the details of L25B. -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 Wed Aug 28 14:18:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7S4IDW22305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:18:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7S4I8K22301 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:18:09 +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 OAA22442 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:33:31 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:12:10 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:02:27 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 28/08/2002 02:11:42 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 g7S4IAK22302 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk What should players, the TD and the AC do when the Law is an ass? The crux of Case Nine was the ACBL legalising the confusing Multi, and then legalising an even more confusing ACBL-recommended defence. [snip] Larry Cohen wrote: >>>Good work by the Committee in coming up with an equitable >>>solution. I'd bend over backwards to interpret the law in a way >>>that E/W don't get screwed by the confusing defense to Multi. [snip] >>>Sorry about not following the letter of the appeals law (which >>>is what we are supposed to do), but I consider these to be >>>special circumstances. Bobby Wolff wrote: [snip] >>If N/S think that the opponents' confusion is one of the >>reasons they play Multi, then they should rethink and apologize >>to the game itself. There are many that disagree with me and >>I'll continue to wear their disagreement as a badge of honor. >>Bridge is a gentleman's game encouraging strict high moral >>conduct, not a back yard melee with players trying for every >>edge. I'm disappointed that N/S didn't encourage the >>misunderstanding to be corrected (as best they could) at the >>table instead of doing the opposite. Replying to Bobby Wolff, Rich Colker wrote: >In case you didn't get it, reread that last sentence. That's >the obligation that not only the N/S pair here but every pair >that uses complex and/or unfamiliar methods owes to their >opponents. > >Read it, know it, live it. According to the above three respected authorities, I screw my opponents, lack strict high moral conduct, and fail to live up to my obligations. But when the Law is an ass, the fault is not with the players, but with the legislators. (The actual TD and AC agreed, as they found the Multi-using players innocent of any infraction.) * Larry Cohen's "solution" of the AC breaking the Law, or * Bobby Wolff's "solution" of the players breaking the Law, or * Rich Colker's "solution" of the players acting unnecessarily against their own interests all lead to the same result; the wrecking of Duplicate Contract Bridge as competitive contest of comparisons under uniform and enforced Laws. Call me the Secretary Bird, but I believe it is the ACBL CoC which has actually quacked up. 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 Aug 28 14:26:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7S4QRc22318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:26:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7S4QLK22314 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:26:22 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id DEF17488FD; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:25:39 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:25:30 -0400 To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: [BLML] Re: Las Vegas case 9 (was Appeals Summary) Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:49 PM +1000 8/28/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Having decided that N/S were not >culpable for contributing to the problem, >the Committee turned to the issues of >law. > >[big snip] You've snipped the reason we decided the case as we did. "... the Committee concluded that the slow 4NT bid conveyed no information as to whether it was to play or Blackwood, and that East was therefore not in possession of UI ..." I'd have expressed it differently, that the UI did not demonstrably suggest one call over another. Both expressions lead to the same ruling. >Given the consensus that a prime cause of >the problem was the ACBL-recommended defense, Not just that, also that the defense printed up by the ACBL staff was missing lines and had other lines truncated. There would likely have been no problem had the defense been printed as it appeared on the web page -- you could call this case a failure of WYSIWYG. >should the TD and AC have adjusted the score >by ruling that the ACBL is a director, and >therefore its flawed reg can be corrected >by using L82C (Director's Error)? We considered that course and decided there was no need for it. Since the pass of 4NT was not an infraction there was no reason to adjust the score. You could say that NS paid the price for not reviewing the defense they supplied to their opponents. Alternatively you could call this a rub of the green result for NS. EW would not have wished to be in 4N had each known the other's hand. -- 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 Wed Aug 28 15:18:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7S5I8r22356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:18:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7S5I3K22351 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:18:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7S5HLB18115 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:17:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00cb01c24e52$45a018c0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was Las Vegas) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:17:34 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Adam Wildavsky" (I don't know who wrote what here) > > >The meaning can only be "or, for an offending side, the most > >>unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not > >>occurred." This is consonant with all of Edgar's examples. Why do the > >>Laws not include the extra words? Because the repetition is (or ought > >>to be!) unnecessary, and would sound awkward. I doubt the authors > >>even dreamt that any other interpretation was possible. > > > > You may make such deductions if you like, and argue about it being > >perverse. However, that is not what the text says, nor the way that we > >generally interpret it, nor is it logical to interpret it your way. > > > > For Os the basis for adjustment is different from that for NOs. It is > >thus perverse to assume that part of the NOs definition applies to the > >Os when it does not say so. > > > > it is rare that it makes any difference, true. But that proves > >nothing. > > Can you give me an example (real or hypothetical) when it does make a > difference? I'm asking because this issue was discussed by the WBFLC > today. No one present could or would provide an example, but in spite > of that the sentiment was in favor of your interpretation. > We had a thread on this some years ago. Here's your example: A player uses UI to make a bid that pushes the other side into a very bad but not irrational contract. That push bid would have been badly defeated due to distribution. The NOS gets the most favorable result that was likely absent the infraction, i.e., the result if the push bid had not been made. The OS gets the most unfavorable result that was at all probable with or without the infraction, which is the push bid contract badly defeated. I argued the other way for a long time, based on the way English is sometimes used, but came to see that the lawmakers meant what they wrote (as is often the case). I bet the French translation has this right, but I can't find it at the moment. 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 Aug 28 15:27:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7S5RRB22374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:27:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail48.fg.online.no (mail48-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7S5RLK22370 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:27:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-2839.bb.online.no [80.212.219.23]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA02884 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 07:26:34 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002101c24e53$754f0440$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 07:26:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > On 8/27/02, David Stevenson wrote: > > >No, but you seem to be confusing official with world-wide. > > Actually, I was under the impression that Sven might be doing that. :-) I know perfectly well that the commentaries made by EBL are not binding on ACBL, still I concider those commentaries official (for the EBL area). Do I really have to elaborate on this with every post in order not to be suspected of mixing "official" with "world-wide"? Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 16:02:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7S62DZ22396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:02:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7S628K22392 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:02:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7S61QB03697 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:01:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00e201c24e58$6e5be540$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL alerts summary Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:49:14 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > > The ACBL alerts summary by Marvin French has been updated. The newest > version is now available form my Lawspage in Wordpad, RTF or text > formats, or may just be read online. > > It is at > > http://blakjak.com/acbl_alt.htm > Thanks, David, much appreciated.. If anyone wants a pretty WordPerfect version, just ask me for it. It is sort of humorous that my previous WordPerfect version fit on one page, a little tight but one page, while the new and supposedly simpler ACBL Alert Procedure of March 1, 2002, requires two full pages. There are some minor items that are debatable, but don't nitpick me. It's the best I could do with what I had to work with. 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 Aug 28 16:03:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7S63Kj22408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:03:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7S63FK22404 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:03:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7S62YB04042 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:02:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00ea01c24e58$96a0bbc0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200208271456.KAA02709@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:02:19 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" < > Steve Willner writes > >> From: David Stevenson > >> "Forcing Stayman" is a name that has been around for many years. > > > >Indeed. > > > >> Sure, it means GF Stayman. > > > >That's not what Mr. Stayman thought when he wrote his book (probably > >mid-60's, but I'd have to check). However, it might well be true > >nowadays. > > Which book? The one I remember did not have Forcing Stayman in, it > had minor-suit Stayman instead. > The definitive book, I would say, is Stayman's *High Road to Winning Bridge* 1965, 1970. The 2C bidder's next bid of 2H/2S is forcing, hence "Forcing Stayman," which is not Game-Forcing Stayman. In his much earlier version of the convention 2H/2S was invitational, not forcing. In this book 2H/2S is "forcing to two notrump or three of a major." People say that Stayman 2C promises a major, but Stayman never said that. He said it asks for a major, not that it promises one. He has an example hand with 2=2=3=6 distribution with which he suggests a 2C response to 1NT, to give the impression that a major is held. 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 Aug 28 16:16:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7S6G9822425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:16:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7S6G4K22421 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:16:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA18106 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:31:27 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:10:05 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas Appeals Summary To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:15:12 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 28/08/2002 04:09:37 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 g7S6G6K22422 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In his editorial on Case 13, Rich Colker wrote: [snip] >The logic of the auction suggests 3H was not >game forcing. West's statements and his 3S bid >all confirm that he bid as though neither 3H >nor 3S was forcing. The UI from the slow 3S bid >demonstrably suggested further action. And >East's hand, after a 3H bid that logically and >inferentially could have been only a game try, >is not a clear-cut 4S bid. Thus, I would not >allow East to bid 4S, even though his hand >makes allowing it tempting. I'd adjust the >contract to 3S made four, +170, for E/W. So far, so good. If Rich Colker was TD, and Rich Colker TD determined those facts, then Rich Colker TD has given a correct ruling. (And of course an AC might reverse Colker's ruling if the AC took a different view of the facts.) Rich Colker continued: >A more difficult decision is whether to adjust >the score reciprocally for N/S. I prefer the >reciprocal adjustment, but could be convinced >to allow the table result to stand. Whoa! A non-reciprocal adjustment (N/S -620 and E/W +170) is not difficult, but impossible. Colker is announcing that he "could be convinced" to allow an illegal Reveley ruling. On the other hand, I am convinced: * If L16 does not apply (because only one LA, to raise to 4S, exists), then the score is 620 for _both_ sides. * If L16 does apply (because two LAs, including Pass, exist), then the score is 170 for _both_ sides. 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 Aug 28 18:58:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7S8vgj22499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:57:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7S8vaK22495 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:57:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id KAA26098; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:54:39 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id KAA17258; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:56:52 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020828110627.00a6e170@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:06:42 +0200 To: "Sven Pran" , "Bridge Laws Submissions" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke In-Reply-To: <017e01c24cfc$30c5e3a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <002701c24bb7$52043120$6400a8c0@WINXP> <5.1.0.14.0.20020826121230.00a6d750@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020826140703.00a7acb0@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 14:29 26/08/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > >From the official English edition: > >Law 43B3 If dummy after violation of the limitations listed in A2 preceeding >is the first to draw attention to a defender's irregularity, no penalty >shall be >imposed. If the defenders benefit directly through their irregularity, the >director shall award an adjusted score to both sides to restore equity. > >Does that match your 43B2c? AG : that's 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 Aug 28 19:00:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7S90UJ22515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:00:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7S90OK22511 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:00:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id KAA26714; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:57:27 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id KAA19745; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:59:39 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020828110805.00a6cdb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:09:28 +0200 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke In-Reply-To: <200208261958.PAA26164@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 15:58 26/08/2002 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: David Stevenson > > L61B does not allow dummy to ask a defender whether he has shown out. > > So the defender did not discover "legally" that he had revoked, but > > through a breach of L61B. > > > Sven Pran writes > > >Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987 > > >specifically states under 63.5: > > > > > >"Note: An enquiry by dummy of defender is a violation of Law 42B1, > > >not of Law 61B" > > > I suppose this is the answer, though I do wish the Law was clearer ... > >The law (61B) is perfectly clear if you discard the fallacy that >anything not permitted is prohibited. > >L61B makes no mention of dummy asking a defender. Our response should >_not_ be to jump to the conclusion that this is an infraction but >rather to look for a different law to apply. Of course in this case, >as Sven points out, we will eventually come to L42B1, so dummy asking a >defender _is_ in infraction, but it is not one that triggers L63B. AG : it triggers L43C (English version)(no penalty), but only (see 43B) if Dummy has lost his rights. Logicians will interpret it as meaning there will still be a penalty (of course, that of MPC) when he has not. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 19:09:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7S99CV22527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:09:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (Comix-files.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7S996K22523 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:09:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id LAA28971; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:06:05 +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 LAA28182; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:08:22 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020828111624.00a6fad0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:18:11 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained In-Reply-To: <3D6B2A93.5020505@skynet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@pop.ulb.ac.be> <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:30 27/08/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >really David, I would have expected more from you. >There is a dilemma here, and if you cannot see that, you are just plain >stupid. >You too are breaking a Law : L75D2. AG : and my opinion is that you should rather break L75D2, because the harm is already done by partner, while if you break L40, you are violating a second law. Strength of various laws is not important here ; but I'm sure that *not* violating a second law is the right attitude. Put me with the DwScholars. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 19:15:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7S9FIR22544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:15:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7S9FCK22540 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:15:13 +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 LAA00143; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:12:15 +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 LAA03679; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:14:29 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020828112109.00a72d90@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:24:18 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained In-Reply-To: <004a01c24e08$93626800$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@pop.ulb.ac.be> <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4.3.2.7.0.20020827083511.00aae7e0@pop.starpower.net> <3D6B836A.8050308@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 13:30 27/08/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >From: "Herman De Wael" < > > > Still I prefer to see my name spelt De Wael, two words, two capital > > letters, alphabetized under "D". > > >And "Wael" rhymes with "Wall." AG : wrong. Flemish 'ae' is rather like English 'ah' or Irish 'agh'. (or Hungarian a-acute, but I guess I'm not helping you here) > I'm sure Herman would not like to be >called Herman da Whale. AG : which is how most French would call him. But there would be no mischief in it, because they don't know a single word of English :-S -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 19:28:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7S9SKq22560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:28:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7S9SEK22556 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:28:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id LAA04832; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:25:17 +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 LAA16296; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:27:31 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020828113416.00a71e20@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:37:20 +0200 To: "David J. Grabiner" , BLML From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20020826204132.00b45630@mail.comcast.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826113300.00a6ee40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00b301c24c55$a47b9990$239c68d5@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 20:42 26/08/2002 -0400, David J. Grabiner wrote: >At 05:39 AM 8/26/2002, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>It could be fun to answer "13" in the "min. # cards" for a Pass, but I'm >>afraid to be penalized for wrong information above the ordinary >>consequences for not having noticed I've got only 12 %-) > >Along similar lines, the ACBL convention card has a box for you to play >Lebensohl (a 2NT relay to 3C) over a takeout double of a 3-bid. > >Are there any other useless boxes on the cards? There was one in the old Belgian CC. It read so (with # meaning "checkbox") Jump overcall : Weak # Strong # Two-suiter : Intermediate # Of course, it was a typo : there should have been an indentation of the second line and a checkbox after 'two-suiter". But many were left wondering what was an intermediate two-suiter. 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 Aug 28 19:31:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7S9VkK22572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:31:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7S9VeK22568 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:31:41 +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 LAA06187; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:28:43 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id LAA19488; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:30:56 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020828113929.00a76450@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:40:46 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list In-Reply-To: <006b01c24d75$5c8aae20$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <200208262015.QAA26196@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 19:41 26/08/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: > > > > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > > > What a great idea! A standard convention card; with checkboxes; > > > and every section must be completed. > > > > Be careful what you wish for! The ACBL convention card is very bad > > indeed for any methods other than mainstream American bidding. There > > is, for example, no good place to describe opening minor suit one-bids, > >Just Alert them if the meaning is conventional, unusual, or unexpected. >WTP? AG : TP is, the opponents have every right to be pre-alerted about such a common bid. I use 1D as always unbalanced, using 1C for balanced hands out of 1NT range. How do I mention 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 Wed Aug 28 20:06:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SA5k422594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:05:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SA5fK22590 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:05:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by system.wewnetrzny9 (Mailserver) with SMTP id 5E1FE5B22 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:04:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 22CA35ACD; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:04:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 437A75B1F for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:04:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <009001c24e7a$6f565260$727e870a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@pop.ulb.ac.be> <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4.3.2.7.0.20020827083511.00aae7e0@pop.starpower.net> <3D6B836A.8050308@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020828112109.00a72d90@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:03:03 +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 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 142be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Marvin L. French" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained > At 13:30 27/08/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >From: "Herman De Wael" < > > > > > Still I prefer to see my name spelt De Wael, two words, two capital > > > letters, alphabetized under "D". > > > > >And "Wael" rhymes with "Wall." > > AG : wrong. Flemish 'ae' is rather like English 'ah' or Irish 'agh'. (or > Hungarian a-acute, but I guess I'm not helping you here) > You are helping me. What about "W"? Is it pronounced "w" or "v"? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ty i ja, co Ty na to? >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1641 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 20:15:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SAFnh22611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:15:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SAFiK22607 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:15:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be ([217.136.147.238]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7SAExo15909 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:14:59 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D6CA2AE.7020306@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:15:10 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@pop.ulb.ac.be> <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <5.1.0.14.0.20020828111624.00a6fad0@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 09:30 27/08/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> really David, I would have expected more from you. >> There is a dilemma here, and if you cannot see that, you are just >> plain stupid. >> You too are breaking a Law : L75D2. > > > AG : and my opinion is that you should rather break L75D2, because the > harm is already done by partner, while if you break L40, you are > violating a second law. Strength of various laws is not important here ; > but I'm sure that *not* violating a second law is the right attitude. > Put me with the DwScholars. > I am quite certain that Alain mixed up L75D2 and L40 in the above sentence. > > > > -- 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 Aug 28 20:17:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SAHZj22623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:17:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from vador.skynet.be (vador.skynet.be [195.238.3.236]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SAHTK22619 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:17:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be ([217.136.147.238]) by vador.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7SAGfD12155 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:16:42 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D6CA314.6090000@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:16:52 +0200 From: Herman De Wael User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@pop.ulb.ac.be> <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4.3.2.7.0.20020827083511.00aae7e0@pop.starpower.net> <3D6B836A.8050308@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020828112109.00a72d90@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 Sorry Alain, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 13:30 27/08/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >> From: "Herman De Wael" < >> >> > Still I prefer to see my name spelt De Wael, two words, two capital >> > letters, alphabetized under "D". >> > >> And "Wael" rhymes with "Wall." > > > AG : wrong. Flemish 'ae' is rather like English 'ah' or Irish 'agh'. (or > Hungarian a-acute, but I guess I'm not helping you here) > wrong - dutch wael rhymes with German Wahl but Antwerpish dialect wael sounds remarkedly like english wall. but then Alain is not supposed to know that. > >> I'm sure Herman would not like to be >> called Herman da Whale. > > > AG : which is how most French would call him. But there would be no > mischief in it, because they don't know a single word of English :-S > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- 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 Aug 28 20:49:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SAmk722644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:48:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SAmeK22640 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:48:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be ([217.136.147.238]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7SAljI10313 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:47:45 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D6CAA5C.3020001@skynet.be> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:47:56 +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] DwS explained References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@pop.ulb.ac.be> <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4.3.2.7.0.20020827083511.00aae7e0@pop.starpower.net> <3D6B836A.8050308@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020828112109.00a72d90@pop.ulb.ac.be> <009001c24e7a$6f565260$727e870a@krackow.gradient.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > You are helping me. What about "W"? Is it pronounced > "w" or "v"? > like french oui, a bit like a polish L > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ty i ja, co Ty na to? >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1641 > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://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 Aug 28 21:00:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SAxup22657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:59:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7SAxoK22653 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:59:51 +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 MAA29031; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:56:48 +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 MAA10977; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:59:03 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020828130842.00a2a0d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:08:53 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained In-Reply-To: <3D6CA2AE.7020306@skynet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@pop.ulb.ac.be> <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <5.1.0.14.0.20020828111624.00a6fad0@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 12:15 28/08/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>At 09:30 27/08/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>>really David, I would have expected more from you. >>>There is a dilemma here, and if you cannot see that, you are just plain >>>stupid. >>>You too are breaking a Law : L75D2. >> >>AG : and my opinion is that you should rather break L75D2, because the >>harm is already done by partner, while if you break L40, you are >>violating a second law. Strength of various laws is not important here ; >>but I'm sure that *not* violating a second law is the right attitude. Put >>me with the DwScholars. > > >I am quite certain that Alain mixed up L75D2 and L40 in the above sentence. AG : oops. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 21:11:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SBB3W22684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:11:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7SBAtK22672 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:10:56 +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 17k0iB-0003kF-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:10:13 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 03:24:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was Las Vegas) References: <200111302001.MAA21315@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ab01c17a0c$0deb3880$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky writes >At 10:35 AM +0000 12/17/01, David Stevenson wrote: >> >The meaning can only be "or, for an offending side, the most >>>unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not >>>occurred." This is consonant with all of Edgar's examples. Why do the >>>Laws not include the extra words? Because the repetition is (or ought >>>to be!) unnecessary, and would sound awkward. I doubt the authors >>>even dreamt that any other interpretation was possible. >> >> You may make such deductions if you like, and argue about it being >>perverse. However, that is not what the text says, nor the way that we >>generally interpret it, nor is it logical to interpret it your way. >> >> For Os the basis for adjustment is different from that for NOs. It is >>thus perverse to assume that part of the NOs definition applies to the >>Os when it does not say so. >> >> it is rare that it makes any difference, true. But that proves >>nothing. > >Can you give me an example (real or hypothetical) when it does make a >difference? I'm asking because this issue was discussed by the WBFLC >today. No one present could or would provide an example, but in spite >of that the sentiment was in favor of your interpretation. Sadly, while there have been cases in the past, I do not remember any of them. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 21:11:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SBB2L22683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:11:02 +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-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 g7SBAsK22670 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:10:54 +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 17k0iA-0003kD-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:10:11 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 03:21:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke References: <200208272055.QAA03021@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200208272055.QAA03021@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 >> > Show me one example where one has to read the laws in the fallacious >> > way you claim in order to avoid a genuine problem. > >> From: "Marvin L. French" >> Well, there is the law regarding CCs. You are permitted by L40E2 to refer >> to an opponent's CC when it's your turn to bid or play. >> >> Looking at other times is not extraneous, it is forbidden, and any other >> interpretation is ridiculous. > >Sorry, Marv, but the WBFLC doesn't agree with you. > >Besides, I asked for a genuine problem, not a mere statement that >"It's illegal." What problems does it cause if someone looks at an >opponent's CC at an "improper" time? > >The obvious one is communicating something to partner, but that is >forbidden by L73A1 and L73B1. > >Care to try again? It does not matter what problems it causes: it's illegal. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 21:31:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SBVFO22703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:31:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7SBV9K22699 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:31:09 +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 NAA06014; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:28:10 +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 NAA08149; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:30:25 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020828131810.00a4c080@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:39:02 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained In-Reply-To: <3D6CAA5C.3020001@skynet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@pop.ulb.ac.be> <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4.3.2.7.0.20020827083511.00aae7e0@pop.starpower.net> <3D6B836A.8050308@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020828112109.00a72d90@pop.ulb.ac.be> <009001c24e7a$6f565260$727e870a@krackow.gradient.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:47 28/08/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >>You are helping me. What about "W"? Is it pronounced >>"w" or "v"? > > >like french oui, a bit like a polish L AG : seems like we will never agree. English W, Dutch W, French OU in 'oui' are labiovelar approximants, which means their realization needs slight stricture of the tongue at the soft-palate level, and of lips. Polish L-dashed (there exists another L, more like ours), like English dark L, is a palatal lateral, which means its realization needs contact of the tongue with the forward part of the palate, the flow of air going round it. The fact that those sounds, when heard, have some similarities is incidental. To understant the differences, pronounce French 'pouah' and ask a Polish person to pronounce a word beginning with [P-Ldash](if such exists). The second articulation is quite difficult because the tougne will need to move quickly. German W is another bird species altogether. Best regaerds, 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 Aug 28 21:39:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SBddI22717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:39:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SBdYK22713 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:39:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by system.wewnetrzny9 (Mailserver) with SMTP id F38725C3E for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:38:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id BDD265C3C; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:38:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id DBA5F5C36 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:38:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <00fb01c24e87$8e21da90$727e870a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@pop.ulb.ac.be> <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4.3.2.7.0.20020827083511.00aae7e0@pop.starpower.net> <3D6B836A.8050308@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020828112109.00a72d90@pop.ulb.ac.be> <009001c24e7a$6f565260$727e870a@krackow.gradient.ie> <3D6CAA5C.3020001@skynet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:34:11 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 142be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 12:47 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > > > You are helping me. What about "W"? Is it pronounced > > "w" or "v"? > > > > > like french oui, a bit like a polish L I guess you mean "l dashed", right? ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ Regular l is pronounced similarly to "l" in French. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ty i ja, co Ty na to? >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1641 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 22:11:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SCAIt22789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:10:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7SCACK22785 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:10:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-126.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.126] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #6) id 17k1dZ-0002sQ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:09:29 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020828080600.00aaf680@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:13:06 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20020827171907.028205f0@mail.fscv.net> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020827164613.00aad100@pop.starpower.net> <007e01c24d79$91b90ac0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <00b301c24c55$a47b9990$239c68d5@SCRAP> <5.1.1.6.0.20020826204132.00b45630@mail.comcast.net> <007e01c24d79$91b90ac0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:22 PM 8/27/02, Walt wrote: >At 04:56 PM 27/08/2002 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >>... the ACBL CC has had a checkbox for "forcing Stayman" for so many >>years as to pre-date the use of GF Stayman, and GF Stayman, other >>than as part of "2-way Stayman" remains virtually unheard of in >>ACBL-land ... > >I've played 2-way Stayman in strong club systems ever since I started >playing them in 1976. Does the ACBL's checkoff for forcing Stayman >really predate that? Yes. I'm working from memory, but I believe there were "forcing" and "non-forcing" boxes for 2C before the checkbox for 2D Stayman was added, which happened after I started playing in the early sixties. I also recall that the "Green Card" (mid-70s, for special "natural bidding" events) gave you the option of 2C F or NF Stayman, but didn't allow 2D as Stayman. "Forcing Stayman", as Mr. Stayman described it and as it was played "back then", meant that 1NT-P-2C-P-2D-P-2H/S was a one-round force, but not GF. 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 Aug 28 22:12:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SCC7922805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:12:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 10.4.10.65 (ws.aegon.nl [193.79.56.97]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g7SCC1K22801 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:12:02 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020828135752.00db1800@MDWexc1> X-Sender: s.f.kuipers@ngi.nl (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:10:54 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Simon Kuipers Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke In-Reply-To: <3D3815AF00009FC0@ocpmta3.be.tiscali.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [David] >Steve Willner writes > >> > Show me one example where one has to read the laws in the fallacious > >> > way you claim in order to avoid a genuine problem. > > > >> From: "Marvin L. French" > >> Well, there is the law regarding CCs. You are permitted by L40E2 to refer > >> to an opponent's CC when it's your turn to bid or play. > >> > >> Looking at other times is not extraneous, it is forbidden, and any other > >> interpretation is ridiculous. > > > >Sorry, Marv, but the WBFLC doesn't agree with you. > > > >Besides, I asked for a genuine problem, not a mere statement that > >"It's illegal." What problems does it cause if someone looks at an > >opponent's CC at an "improper" time? > > > >The obvious one is communicating something to partner, but that is > >forbidden by L73A1 and L73B1. > > > >Care to try again? > > It does not matter what problems it causes: it's illegal. Suppose the following: we meet another pair, and they start bidding. LHO opens 1NT, partner bids 2C. Now we do have the convention to play Landy against 15/17 NT, but against 12/14 NT we play 2C natural. Should I alert 2C or not? I do not know the strenght of 1NT without asking - not yet allowed - or looking at the CC - this is not allowed too. But not alerting while I should do this (or the other way round - I don't know yet) seems to me a bigger violation of the Law than looking at the CC at the wrong time. Simon -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 22:30:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SCUho22864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:30:43 +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-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 g7SCUZK22856 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:30:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17k1xF-000MNi-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:29:52 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:30:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25B in KO play References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch writes >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Stevenson >> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 5:18 PM >> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25B in KO play >> >> I think that I am right: he did use L25B. > > Having been present for the events, I assure you he did not. OK, anything may have happened, and no doubt you are right. But when we answer a question here, it is not unreasonable that we answer the question *as asked*. If something different happened at the table then it is hardly surprising if we fail to get it right when we have not been told about it. >David Grabiner asked two questions (I believe). Not in his first post, to which I have been replying. Recently he has changed it, but it is not surprising that I did not realise that he meant a second question that he failed to ask. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 22:30:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SCUiR22865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:30:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SCUZK22857 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:30:36 +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 17k1xF-000MNl-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:29:53 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:33:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL alerts summary References: <00e201c24e58$6e5be540$1c981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00e201c24e58$6e5be540$1c981e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> >> The ACBL alerts summary by Marvin French has been updated. The newest >> version is now available form my Lawspage in Wordpad, RTF or text >> formats, or may just be read online. >> >> It is at >> >> http://blakjak.com/acbl_alt.htm >> > >Thanks, David, much appreciated.. If anyone wants a pretty WordPerfect >version, just ask me for it. Actually, when I said Wordpad I think I meant WordPerfect. Is that not the third version? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 22:37:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SCbDa22883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:37:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from poczta.interia.pl (naos.interia.pl [217.74.65.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SCb7K22879 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:37:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (naos.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by system.wewnetrzny9 (Mailserver) with SMTP id 008027E99 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:36:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id C18327CB9; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:36:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 669357C96 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:36:16 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <011501c24e8f$963fab00$727e870a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@pop.ulb.ac.be> <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4.3.2.7.0.20020827083511.00aae7e0@pop.starpower.net> <3D6B836A.8050308@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020828112109.00a72d90@pop.ulb.ac.be> <009001c24e7a$6f565260$727e870a@krackow.gradient.ie> <5.1.0.14.0.20020828131810.00a4c080@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:30:54 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 142be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > At 12:47 28/08/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > >>You are helping me. What about "W"? Is it pronounced > >>"w" or "v"? > > > > > >like french oui, a bit like a polish L > > AG : seems like we will never agree. English W, Dutch W, French OU in 'oui' > are labiovelar approximants, which means their realization needs slight > stricture of the tongue at the soft-palate level, and of lips. Polish > L-dashed (there exists another L, more like ours), like English dark L, is > a palatal lateral, which means its realization needs contact of the tongue > with the forward part of the palate, No, it doesn't. The tongue doesn't touch the palate at all. There is though a so-called "smooth l" in Polish which is pronounced very much like Russian "l" or "dark l" in English where the tongue does indeed touch the palate (pretty much like you described) but this is only a way in which the "l-dashed" was traditionally pronounced on the stage (in the theater) until the end of the fifties of this century; very old actors still do pronounce "l-dashed" as "smooth l" but only on the stage and in the movies; never in real life. Nowadays "smooth l" amost died. Today "l dashed" on the stage, in the movies and in songs is pronounced like it has always been in real life: very close to the French "ou" in "oui" (or "pouah") so Herman was right. We don't have in Polish anything that sounds like "dark l" in English, "l" in Polish is a hard consonant; close to "l" in German or French. >the flow of air going round it. The > fact that those sounds, when heard, have some similarities is incidental. > To understant the differences, pronounce French 'pouah' and ask a Polish > person to pronounce a word beginning with [P-Ldash](if such exists). It does. E.g. pLaski (L = l dashed) which means "flat" > The > second articulation is quite difficult because the tougne will need to move > quickly. The second articulation is almost identical to the first one. Only if you try to pronounce this as it used to be pronounced in the theater will you hear the difference - in that case you would be right. >German W is another bird species altogether. > True. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ty i ja, co Ty na to? >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1641 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 28 22:53:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SCqqU22900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:52:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SCqkK22896 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:52:47 +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 MAA16853 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:51:57 GMT To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.07a May 14, 2001 Message-ID: From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:52:21 +0200 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Jazz/Meteo-France/FR(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 28.08.2002 12:51:56, Serialize complete at 28.08.2002 12:51:56 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 g7SCqnK22897 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Simon Kuipers Envoyé par : owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au 28/08/02 14:10 Pour : bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au cc : Objet : Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke [David] >Steve Willner writes > >> > Show me one example where one has to read the laws in the fallacious > >> > way you claim in order to avoid a genuine problem. > > > >> From: "Marvin L. French" > >> Well, there is the law regarding CCs. You are permitted by L40E2 to refer > >> to an opponent's CC when it's your turn to bid or play. > >> > >> Looking at other times is not extraneous, it is forbidden, and any other > >> interpretation is ridiculous. > > > >Sorry, Marv, but the WBFLC doesn't agree with you. > > > >Besides, I asked for a genuine problem, not a mere statement that > >"It's illegal." What problems does it cause if someone looks at an > >opponent's CC at an "improper" time? > > > >The obvious one is communicating something to partner, but that is > >forbidden by L73A1 and L73B1. > > > >Care to try again? > > It does not matter what problems it causes: it's illegal. Suppose the following: we meet another pair, and they start bidding. LHO opens 1NT, partner bids 2C. Now we do have the convention to play Landy against 15/17 NT, but against 12/14 NT we play 2C natural. Should I alert 2C or not? I do not know the strenght of 1NT without asking - not yet allowed - or looking at the CC - this is not allowed too. But not alerting while I should do this (or the other way round - I don't know yet) seems to me a bigger violation of the Law than looking at the CC at the wrong time. *** why to invent problems where there are none? you alert partner's 2C and, if asked, explain what i have cut and pasted from your text "Now we do have the convention to play Landy against 15/17 NT, but against 12/14 NT we play 2C natural"; opponents will have the same knowledge as you about your agreements and will know, like you, that you may be in the middle of a misunderstanding if they happen to play 13-16 NT. jp rocafort *** Simon __________________________________________________ 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 Aug 28 23:05:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SD5cd22917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:05:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7SD5XK22913 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:05:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-126.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.126] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #6) id 17k2V9-0002Hm-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:04:51 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020828090425.00b3dd60@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:08:28 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL alerts summary In-Reply-To: References: <00e201c24e58$6e5be540$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <00e201c24e58$6e5be540$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:33 AM 8/28/02, David wrote: > >From: "David Stevenson" > >> > >> The ACBL alerts summary by Marvin French has been updated. The > newest > >> version is now available form my Lawspage in Wordpad, RTF or text > >> formats, or may just be read online. > > Actually, when I said Wordpad I think I meant WordPerfect. Is that >not the third version? It is; I downloaded it. Unfortunately, my outdated version of WordPerfect (6.2, for Windows 3.x) couldn't quite handle it. The RTF version loaded into Word 2000 just fine. 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 Aug 29 00:08:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SE7oO22945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:07:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SE7iK22941 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:07:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g7SE77G12077 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:07:07 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:38:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke References: <3D3815AF00009FC0@ocpmta3.be.tiscali.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020828135752.00db1800@MDWexc1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020828135752.00db1800@MDWexc1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <4.3.2.7.2.20020828135752.00db1800@MDWexc1>, Simon Kuipers writes >[David] > >>Steve Willner writes >> >> > Show me one example where one has to read the laws in the fallacious >> >> > way you claim in order to avoid a genuine problem. >> > >> >> From: "Marvin L. French" >> >> Well, there is the law regarding CCs. You are permitted by L40E2 to refer >> >> to an opponent's CC when it's your turn to bid or play. >> >> >> >> Looking at other times is not extraneous, it is forbidden, and any other >> >> interpretation is ridiculous. >> > >> >Sorry, Marv, but the WBFLC doesn't agree with you. >> > >> >Besides, I asked for a genuine problem, not a mere statement that >> >"It's illegal." What problems does it cause if someone looks at an >> >opponent's CC at an "improper" time? >> > >> >The obvious one is communicating something to partner, but that is >> >forbidden by L73A1 and L73B1. >> > >> >Care to try again? >> >> It does not matter what problems it causes: it's illegal. > >Suppose the following: we meet another pair, and they start bidding. LHO >opens 1NT, partner bids 2C. Now we do have the convention to play Landy >against 15/17 NT, but against 12/14 NT we play 2C natural. > >Should I alert 2C or not? I do not know the strenght of 1NT without asking >- not yet allowed - or looking at the CC - this is not allowed too. But not >alerting while I should do this (or the other way round - I don't know yet) >seems to me a bigger violation of the Law than looking at the CC at the >wrong time. > >Simon > > You alert, and if asked you say "We play Landy against stong and nat against weak" wtp? Or don't you want to give full disclosure? >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 29 00:22:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SELwb22962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:21:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SELqK22958 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:21:53 +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 g7SELDG12106 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:21:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:52:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@pop.ulb.ac.be> <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4.3.2.7.0.20020827083511.00aae7e0@pop.starpower.net> <3D6B836A.8050308@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020828112109.00a72d90@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3D6CA314.6090000@skynet.be> In-Reply-To: <3D6CA314.6090000@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 <3D6CA314.6090000@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Sorry Alain, > >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> At 13:30 27/08/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >> >>> From: "Herman De Wael" < >>> >>> > Still I prefer to see my name spelt De Wael, two words, two capital >>> > letters, alphabetized under "D". >>> > >>> And "Wael" rhymes with "Wall." >> >> >> AG : wrong. Flemish 'ae' is rather like English 'ah' or Irish 'agh'. (or >> Hungarian a-acute, but I guess I'm not helping you here) >> > > >wrong - dutch wael rhymes with German Wahl >but Antwerpish dialect wael sounds remarkedly like english wall. >but then Alain is not supposed to know that. > slightly more open than Wall and slightly aspirated is my hearing of it. > >> >>> I'm sure Herman would not like to be >>> called Herman da Whale. New name for Herman: "Melville". YAY! -- 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 Aug 29 00:25:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SEPJ722975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:25:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SEPCK22971 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:25:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g7SEOZG12113 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:24:35 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:56:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020827105536.00d95af0@MDWexc1> <00f301c24db3$0516f2f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> In-Reply-To: <00f301c24db3$0516f2f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <00f301c24db3$0516f2f0$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >From: "Simon Kuipers" > >> [Herman] >> >> >No Sir, I have a full understanding of this Law [L40B} AND of Law 75D2. >> >And I see that these two laws conflict. >> >> L40B is about a special partnership understanding and its (prohibited) >> concealment. L75D2 is about a mistaken explanation - I would say: a >> partnership misunderstanding. How could those two Laws be in conflict with >> each other, the subjects being different?? >> >> Simon > >I shall leave it for Herman to answer for himself, but the way >I understand him he considers it more important to conceal >from partner the fact that he has made a wrong explanation >than to reveal the true agreements within the partnership to >opponents. > >This of course is a matter of opinion, and where I (and I >believe several others) disagree with Herman. as indeed do I. But we allow him his idiosyncrasy. He has much else of value to offer. =P > >Sven > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 29 00:28:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SESc122987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:28:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SESXK22983 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:28:33 +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 g7SERuG12120 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:27:56 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:59:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] penalty card, or is it? References: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A5FD@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> In-Reply-To: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A5FD@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A5FD@obelix.spase.nl.206.168 .192.in-addr.ARPA>, Martin Sinot writes >Steve Willner [mailto:willner@cfa.harvard.edu] wrote: > >> > >Dummy, North, wins a trick. South is holding his played card >> > >face up and says -- or mumbles, depending on whom you believe >> > >-- "Cards?" East hears "Heart," and puts a heart spot card >> > >face up on the table. >> >> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >> > 1. As TD, my determination of the facts, under the balance of >> > probabilities, is that South mumbled "cards". >> > >> > 2. I rule that South's mumbling is not an infraction of L73D2. >> > >> > 3. Since South was not calling for a card from dummy, I rule >> > that there has been no violation of the "clearly state" >> > provision of L46A. >> > >> > 3. For the same reason, I rule that L47E1 does not apply. >> > >> > 4. Therefore, I would apply L53. If South does not accept the >> > lead out of turn, then East's heart spot card becomes a major >> > penalty card under L50. >> >> All fine, but it seems to leave out the most important step. Why are >> you ruling that the heart spot was a "lead to the next trick" (L57A) >> and not "exposed inadvertently" (L50C)? > >East played the card, and had every intention of playing it. It was >not exposed inadvertently (as in dropping the card, or playing two at >the same time). That East falsely thought that it was his turn to play >is a different matter. > I'd rule it was a played card, but I'd adjust to restore equity. -- 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 Aug 29 00:53:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SErEd23007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:53:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.49]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SEr9K23003 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:53:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from webmail.worldnet.att.net ([204.127.135.30]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020828145221.EPIU23721.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@webmail.worldnet.att.net>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:52:21 +0000 Received: from [204.101.102.18] by webmail.worldnet.att.net; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:52:17 +0000 From: joanandron@att.net To: "Marvin L. French" Cc: Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was Las Vegas) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:52:17 +0000 X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (May 28 2002) Message-Id: <20020828145221.EPIU23721.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@webmail.worldnet.att.net> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From Grattan Endicott, Secretary WBFLC Whilst I have not the slightest interest in discussing the decision, I and colleagues on the WBF Laws Committee strongly deprecate the action of Mr. Wildavsky in disclosing material from a meeting of the committee at which he was an invited guest. We consider it improper to do so before the minutes have been prepared, much less before they have been ratified by the Executive of the WBF. > > From: "Adam Wildavsky" > > (I don't know who wrote what here) > > > > >The meaning can only be "or, for an offending side, the most > > >>unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not > > >>occurred." This is consonant with all of Edgar's examples. Why do the > > >>Laws not include the extra words? Because the repetition is (or ought > > >>to be!) unnecessary, and would sound awkward. I doubt the authors > > >>even dreamt that any other interpretation was possible. > > > > > > You may make such deductions if you like, and argue about it being > > >perverse. However, that is not what the text says, nor the way that we > > >generally interpret it, nor is it logical to interpret it your way. > > > > > > For Os the basis for adjustment is different from that for NOs. It > is > > >thus perverse to assume that part of the NOs definition applies to the > > >Os when it does not say so. > > > > > > it is rare that it makes any difference, true. But that proves > > >nothing. > > > > Can you give me an example (real or hypothetical) when it does make a > > difference? I'm asking because this issue was discussed by the WBFLC > > today. No one present could or would provide an example, but in spite > > of that the sentiment was in favor of your interpretation. > > > We had a thread on this some years ago. Here's your example: > > A player uses UI to make a bid that pushes the other side into a very bad > but not irrational contract. That push bid would have been badly defeated > due to distribution. The NOS gets the most favorable result that was > likely absent the infraction, i.e., the result if the push bid had not > been made. The OS gets the most unfavorable result that was at all > probable with or without the infraction, which is the push bid contract > badly defeated. > > I argued the other way for a long time, based on the way English is > sometimes used, but came to see that the lawmakers meant what they wrote > (as is often the case). > > I bet the French translation has this right, but I can't find it at the > moment. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 29 01:03:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SF2rW23024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:02:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (brussels2000.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SF2mK23020 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:02:48 +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 QAA09689; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:59:47 +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 RAA08373; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:02:04 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020828170725.00a82720@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:11:53 +0200 To: Simon Kuipers , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020828135752.00db1800@MDWexc1> References: <3D3815AF00009FC0@ocpmta3.be.tiscali.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 14:10 28/08/2002 +0200, Simon Kuipers wrote: >[David] > >>Steve Willner writes >> >> > Show me one example where one has to read the laws in the fallacious >> >> > way you claim in order to avoid a genuine problem. >> > >> >> From: "Marvin L. French" >> >> Well, there is the law regarding CCs. You are permitted by L40E2 to refer >> >> to an opponent's CC when it's your turn to bid or play. >> >> >> >> Looking at other times is not extraneous, it is forbidden, and any other >> >> interpretation is ridiculous. >> > >> >Sorry, Marv, but the WBFLC doesn't agree with you. >> > >> >Besides, I asked for a genuine problem, not a mere statement that >> >"It's illegal." What problems does it cause if someone looks at an >> >opponent's CC at an "improper" time? >> > >> >The obvious one is communicating something to partner, but that is >> >forbidden by L73A1 and L73B1. >> > >> >Care to try again? >> >> It does not matter what problems it causes: it's illegal. > >Suppose the following: we meet another pair, and they start bidding. LHO >opens 1NT, partner bids 2C. Now we do have the convention to play Landy >against 15/17 NT, but against 12/14 NT we play 2C natural. > >Should I alert 2C or not? I do not know the strenght of 1NT without asking >- not yet allowed - or looking at the CC - this is not allowed too. But >not alerting while I should do this (or the other way round - I don't know >yet) seems to me a bigger violation of the Law than looking at the CC at >the wrong time. AG : two cases are possible : 1) either 12-14 or 15-17 is alertable (the former in Belgium ; the latter in New Zealand). Since they didn't alert, treat as the non-alertable version. If it isn't, so that they get a wrong information because they first gave one, they are responsible. 2) none is alertable. You alert, and if asked, you answer 'please tell me your NT range, so that I can answer you'. Since their bid came before yours, the explanations must also come brfore yours. Of course, I haven't the faintest idea of how partner knew the range ... Let's assume he looked at their CC. Of course, it is now possible that 2C was not alertable from the beginning, but WTH ? Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 29 01:11:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SFAYj23039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:10:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7SFASK23035 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:10:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id RAA09440; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:07:28 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id RAA14924; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:09:44 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020828171241.00a6c290@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:19:33 +0200 To: "Konrad Ciborowski" , "Bridge Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained In-Reply-To: <011501c24e8f$963fab00$727e870a@krackow.gradient.ie> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@pop.ulb.ac.be> <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4.3.2.7.0.20020827083511.00aae7e0@pop.starpower.net> <3D6B836A.8050308@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020828112109.00a72d90@pop.ulb.ac.be> <009001c24e7a$6f565260$727e870a@krackow.gradient.ie> <5.1.0.14.0.20020828131810.00a4c080@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 14:30 28/08/2002 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > > > At 12:47 28/08/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >No, it doesn't. The tongue doesn't touch the palate at all. > >There is though a so-called "smooth l" in Polish which is pronounced >very much like Russian "l" or "dark l" in English where the tongue does >indeed >touch the palate (pretty much like you described) >but this is only a way in which the "l-dashed" >was traditionally pronounced on the stage (in the theater) until the end >of the fifties of this century; very old >actors still do pronounce "l-dashed" as "smooth l" >but only on the stage and in the movies; never in real life. > >Nowadays "smooth l" amost died. > >Today "l dashed" on the stage, in the movies and in songs >is pronounced like it has always been in real life: >very close to the French "ou" in "oui" (or "pouah") >so Herman was right. AG : I will take it as granted. It seems that most books and courses in phonetics and phonology are more than 50 years old - or maybe the writers listened at old actors. Thank you for the information. Just one more word : in the "new" articulation for L-dashed, where is the tip of the tongue ? a) forward, near the lower incisors (standard French OU - labiovelar approximant) b) retracted, in the middle of the mouth (Nilotic U - alveolar or palatal approximant) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 29 01:33:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SFXYQ23056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:33:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.1.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SFXTK23052 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:33:29 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 4C4BA910A; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:32:47 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20020828145221.EPIU23721.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@webmail.worldnet.att. net> References: <20020828145221.EPIU23721.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@webmail.worldnet.att. net> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:32:24 -0400 To: joanandron@att.net, "Grattan Endicott" , David Stevenson , David Stevenson From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was Las Vegas) Cc: "Marvin L. French" , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 2:52 PM +0000 8/28/02, joanandron@att.net wrote: > >From Grattan Endicott, >Secretary WBFLC >Whilst I have not the slightest interest in discussing >the decision, I and colleagues on the WBF Laws Committee >strongly deprecate the action of Mr. Wildavsky in >disclosing material from a meeting of the committee at >which he was an invited guest. We consider it improper >to do so before the minutes have been prepared, much >less before they have been ratified by the Executive of >the WBF. My sincere apologies to all. I sent a message to David which was intended to be private. I neglected to indicate to him that he ought to reply to me only, and not the BLML. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 29 02:07:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SG74723079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 02:07:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SG6xK23075 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 02:06:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id MAA17922 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:06:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA07923 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:06:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:06:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208281606.MAA07923@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > You know that you are not allowed to read your oppos' CC when it is > not your turn to call or play. "Not allowed" is a clever phrase that is literally accurate but misleading. In some cases the action is prohibited, and in others it is extraneous. So yes, it is never "allowed," but sometimes it is extraneous rather than prohibited. I notice you do not produce an example where looking at the CC when it is "not allowed" is harmful but does not violate some other law. On the other hand, we just had a clear example where reading a different law your way leads to a ridiculous result. > It does not matter what problems it causes: it's illegal. Well, that's not what the WBFLC said, and I don't think mere repetition strengthens your 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 Thu Aug 29 02:15:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SGEok23096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 02:14:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.1.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SGEjK23092 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 02:14:46 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 4FE9E8FC7; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:14:03 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:13:20 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas case 13 (was Appeals Summary) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 4:15 PM +1000 8/28/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Rich Colker continued: > >>A more difficult decision is whether to adjust >>the score reciprocally for N/S. I prefer the >>reciprocal adjustment, but could be convinced >>to allow the table result to stand. > >Whoa! A non-reciprocal adjustment (N/S -620 >and E/W +170) is not difficult, but impossible. > >Colker is announcing that he "could be convinced" >to allow an illegal Reveley ruling. On the other >hand, I am convinced: > >* If L16 does not apply (because only one LA, to > raise to 4S, exists), then the score is 620 > for _both_ sides. > >* If L16 does apply (because two LAs, including > Pass, exist), then the score is 170 for _both_ > sides. I agree with you that that's how 12C2 ought to be interpreted, but Rich Colker does not. He takes what we in the States call the Weinstein position, which seems to permit Reveley rulings. 12C2 begins "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity..." The (Howard) Weinstein position holds that in a UI case the irregularity referred to is a combination of the transmission of UI and the choice of a logical alternative that was demonstrably suggested. I believe that interpretation is contrary to the intent of the authors and also bad for the game, but I'll grant that the text seems ambiguous. I've been considering asking the ACBL Laws Commission to take this up at their next meeting. Any suggestions? -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 29 02:31:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SGUnl23109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 02:30:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SGUiK23105 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 02:30:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id MAA19266 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:30:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA07957 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:30:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:30:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208281630.MAA07957@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Las Vegas case 9 (was Appeals Summary) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Wildavsky > Not just that, also that the defense printed up by the ACBL staff was > missing lines and had other lines truncated. One thing wasn't clear from the writeup. Was the written defense supplied by NS the badly-printed version? Or did they bring a clean copy from home, as they should have? If NS failed to supply a clean copy of the approved defense, then in my opinion they were using an illegal convention (having failed to comply with the conditions for using 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 Thu Aug 29 02:41:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SGf2Q23126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 02:41:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.49]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SGeuK23118 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 02:40:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from pavilion ([12.91.170.31]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020828164008.HXGC23721.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@pavilion> for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:40:08 +0000 From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] L25B in KO play Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:40:18 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: David Stevenson > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 7:31 AM > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] L25B in KO play > > >David Grabiner asked two questions (I believe). > > Not in his first post, to which I have been replying. > Recently he has > changed it, but it is not surprising that I did not > realise that he > meant a second question that he failed to ask. Your mail reader must thread differently than mine. I'm two levels into posts from David Grabiner. Here are the relevant excerpts from his 2nd post and your response to that. David Grabiner >>In the actual situation, the TD informed West that if he changed his call, >>his side would play for at most average-minus, which is -3 IMPs. West >>didn't change his call. That is probably a TD error which should have led ^^^^^^ >>to an adjusted score under L82C, assuming that West would have changed his >>bid had he been given the correct information that the penalty was halved. David Stevenson > It is arguable whether this is TD error, since it is correct. But it >could certainly have been better expressed. [snip] > If the TD had told him about L86B he would have known that he could >have done better than -3 imps. So he would be more likely to use L25B >in K/O play. But he did, so there is no damage, so the result stands. >WTP? The problem is that the player didn't. So, is it still arguable that it's TD error? Is the player entitled to redress? The player is told he would be playing for -3 imps, but he would actually have won 1.5-2 imps had he changed his call. -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 Thu Aug 29 02:50:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SGoMx23139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 02:50:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SGoHK23135 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 02:50:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id MAA20138 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:49:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA07985 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:49:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:49:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208281649.MAA07985@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] penalty card, or is it? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Martin Sinot > East played the card, and had every intention of playing it. It was > not exposed inadvertently This looks right to me. I now see "exposed through deliberate play" in L50B, which seems clear enough. I was fixated on whether or not the exposure of the card could be considered a lead. In this case, I think it cannot, and thus L57 does not apply. Bottom line: major penalty card but nothing else. > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > I'd rule it was a played card, but I'd adjust to restore equity. It does seem equitable to offer some protection, but the only thing I see is L73F2. Am I missing something else? As far as I can tell, defenders have to be very careful to confirm what declarer has done whenever there is doubt. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 29 03:00:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SH0kg23169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 03:00:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SH0fK23165 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 03:00:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id MAA20688 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:59:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA08003 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:59:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:59:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208281659.MAA08003@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > The definitive book, I would say, is Stayman's *High Road to Winning > Bridge* 1965, 1970. The one I have is _Do You Play Stayman_. I forgot to check the date. I'm a little surprised to hear that the non-forcing version came earlier. In the book above, Mr. Stayman recommends the forcing version opposite strong NT, non-forcing opposite weak. > People say that Stayman 2C promises a major, but Stayman never said that. > He said it asks for a major, not that it promises one. He has an example > hand with 2=2=3=6 distribution with which he suggests a 2C response to > 1NT, to give the impression that a major is held. Also, 2C followed by 3C was the standard way to sign off in clubs; a direct jump to 3C was forcing. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 29 03:20:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SHJoV23217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 03:19:50 +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.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca ([132.156.11.189]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SHJiK23213 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 03:19:45 +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 g7SHIxvu025921 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:18:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id NAA10644 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:20:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200208281720.NAA10644@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:20:45 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <200208281659.MAA08003@cfa183.harvard.edu> from "Steve Willner" at Aug 28, 2002 12:59:58 PM 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 Steve Willner writes: > > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > The definitive book, I would say, is Stayman's *High Road to Winning > > Bridge* 1965, 1970. > > The one I have is _Do You Play Stayman_. I forgot to check the date. > > I'm a little surprised to hear that the non-forcing version came > earlier. In the book above, Mr. Stayman recommends the forcing version > opposite strong NT, non-forcing opposite weak. > Well Stayman did play weak NT with a lot of partners. In the 1956 Bermuda Bowl he played strong NT only with Solomon. Weak NT with both Field and Kahn. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 29 03:20:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SHJQf23211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 03:19:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.1.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SHJLK23207 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 03:19:22 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 0CDB68EA5; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:18:39 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200208281630.MAA07957@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200208281630.MAA07957@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:18:31 -0400 To: Steve Willner From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Las Vegas case 9 (was Appeals Summary) Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:30 PM -0400 8/28/02, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Adam Wildavsky >> Not just that, also that the defense printed up by the ACBL staff was >> missing lines and had other lines truncated. > >One thing wasn't clear from the writeup. Was the written defense >supplied by NS the badly-printed version? Yes. >Or did they bring a clean copy from home, as they should have? They did not. The ACBL staff "helpfully" supplied some printed versions for those who hadn't got the message that they needed to provide their own. >If NS failed to supply a clean copy of the approved defense, then in my >opinion they were using an illegal convention (having failed to comply >with the conditions for using it). Perhaps, but the ACBL was certainly complicit. Once we applied the law to the case at hand, though, we found we didn't need to examine that aspect. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 29 05:14:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SJDHg23282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 05:13:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7SJDAK23278 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 05:13:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-0997.bb.online.no [80.212.211.229]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA25148 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:12:19 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001d01c24ec6$d0530cb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020828135752.00db1800@MDWexc1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:12:11 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Simon Kuipers" ..... > Suppose the following: we meet another pair, and they start bidding. LHO > opens 1NT, partner bids 2C. Now we do have the convention to play Landy > against 15/17 NT, but against 12/14 NT we play 2C natural. > > Should I alert 2C or not? I do not know the strenght of 1NT without asking > - not yet allowed - or looking at the CC - this is not allowed too. But not > alerting while I should do this (or the other way round - I don't know yet) > seems to me a bigger violation of the Law than looking at the CC at the > wrong time. In Norway this is no problem. We have the rule that you shall alert also when you do not know whether partners call is strictly alertable or not. I do not know if other administrations considers it a violation to alert when not required, but we say that the alert simply means: "You may want to ask". Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 29 05:34:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SJYBE23295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 05:34:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7SJY6K23291 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 05:34:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7SJXO920919 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003a01c24ec9$da8a87a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas case 13 (was Appeals Summary) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:20:25 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Adam Wildavsky" > > 12C2 begins "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in > place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity..." The > (Howard) Weinstein position holds that in a UI case the irregularity > referred to is a combination of the transmission of UI and the choice > of a logical alternative that was demonstrably suggested. I believe > that interpretation is contrary to the intent of the authors and also > bad for the game, but I'll grant that the text seems ambiguous. > > I've been considering asking the ACBL Laws Commission to take this up > at their next meeting. Any suggestions? > Howard's reasoning is unreasonable, although deliberate transmission of UI to partner is of course an infraction. That sort of thing would be difficult to prove, but if it can be proved then we can probably apply L73B2. An attempt to penalize a pair because one member acted out of tempo and the other took a suggested action that turned out to be harmless is contrary to the game of bridge that I have known for 57 years. You deal with the problem, if there is one, outside of the game, not on the score sheet. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 29 06:41:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SKf5N23328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 06:41:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7SKf0K23323 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 06:41:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-126.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.126] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #6) id 17k9bs-0001zY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:40:16 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020828163428.00b2dd20@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:43:54 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas case 13 (was Appeals Summary) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:13 PM 8/28/02, Adam wrote: >At 4:15 PM +1000 8/28/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >>Rich Colker continued: >> >>>A more difficult decision is whether to adjust >>>the score reciprocally for N/S. I prefer the >>>reciprocal adjustment, but could be convinced >>>to allow the table result to stand. >> >>Whoa! A non-reciprocal adjustment (N/S -620 >>and E/W +170) is not difficult, but impossible. >> >>Colker is announcing that he "could be convinced" >>to allow an illegal Reveley ruling. On the other >>hand, I am convinced: >> >>* If L16 does not apply (because only one LA, to >> raise to 4S, exists), then the score is 620 >> for _both_ sides. >> >>* If L16 does apply (because two LAs, including >> Pass, exist), then the score is 170 for _both_ >> sides. > >I agree with you that that's how 12C2 ought to be interpreted, but >Rich Colker does not. He takes what we in the States call the >Weinstein position, which seems to permit Reveley rulings. > >12C2 begins "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in >place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity..." The >(Howard) Weinstein position holds that in a UI case the irregularity >referred to is a combination of the transmission of UI and the choice >of a logical alternative that was demonstrably suggested. I believe >that interpretation is contrary to the intent of the authors and also >bad for the game, but I'll grant that the text seems ambiguous. > >I've been considering asking the ACBL Laws Commission to take this up >at their next meeting. Any suggestions? I'm not sure I follow Mr. Weinstein's argument. How does the fact that "the irregularity... is a combination of the transmission of UI and the choice of a logical alternative..." lead to Reveley rulings? The argument I have heard that does -- I don't much like it, but it seems to be an arguable interpretation of L12 -- is as follows: L12A says, "The Director may award an adjusted score... when these laws empower him to do so..." The key word here is "may". L12C2 says "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained..." That means that the director may legally choose to award an AssAS to one side, while choosing not to do so -- letting the table result stand -- for the other side. 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 Aug 29 07:27:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SLQTK23354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:26:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SLQOK23350 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:26:24 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 6ABF8488CF; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:25:41 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020828163428.00b2dd20@pop.starpower.net> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020828163428.00b2dd20@pop.starpower.net> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:23:19 -0400 To: Eric Landau From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas case 13 (was Appeals Summary) Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List , Rich Colker , Howard M Weinstein Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 4:43 PM -0400 8/28/02, Eric Landau wrote: >I'm not sure I follow Mr. Weinstein's argument. How does the fact >that "the irregularity... is a combination of the transmission of UI >and the choice of a logical alternative..." lead to Reveley rulings? Remember that I do not agree, but here it is as I understand it. Take one of my favorite examples: You hold S-KQ10763 H- 4 D-K7 C-QJ82, vulnerable versus not, and LHO opens 4H, partner takes 25 seconds to pass, RHO passes, and it's up to you. Assume that you agree that Pass in a LA - if not, weaken the hand until it is. Assume further that a good player would bid 4S most of the time had partner passed in tempo. Assume further that 4S was cold for +650 and that 4H would have been set two tricks routinely. I would say "4S is illegal, an irregularity. Had this hand passed the likely and most unfavorable results are clear -- 4H down 2 for both sides." I think Howard would say "The hesitation is an irregularity, as is the 4S bid. What would have happened in the absence of these irregularities? The most favorable result that was likely for the NOS is 4S making five, while the most unfavorable result that's at all probable is 4H down two for the OS. Howard's approach seems to be an attempt to avoid giving windfalls to the allegedly undeserving NOS. I don't buy that. They deserve the result they'd have achieved against ethical opponents, and they have earned that result by calling the director. If we don't adjust for the NOS in such cases players will learn not to bother calling the director, and we'll have no chance to adjust the score of the OS. The editorial containing the hand above is available at http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=article_sampler&f=samed.html -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 29 07:42:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SLgFR23371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:42:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7SLg9K23367 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:42:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.149.73]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020828214124.JWDG28874.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:41:24 +0100 Message-ID: <00ce01c24edb$b4532f30$d39568d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <200208271507.LAA02748@cfa183.harvard.edu> <003c01c24e07$c1aa5b60$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: [BLML] Lookeing at opponent's card Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:41:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L French: Well, there is the law regarding CCs. You are permitted by L40E2 to refer to an opponent's CC when it's your turn to bid or play. Looking at other times is not extraneous, it is forbidden, and any other interpretation is ridiculous. NG: What happens if you and opponents both play the same system? e.g. in America you are both playing SAYC but you have forgotten what your partner's opening 2D bid means and what responses are? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 21/08/2002 -- ======================================================================== (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 Aug 29 09:15:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SNEwj23417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:14:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7SNEoK23409 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:14:50 +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 g7SNDvC25033; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:13:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:01:31 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke To: Sven Pran , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <002101c24e53$754f0440$6400a8c0@WINXP> 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 8/28/02, Sven Pran wrote: >I know perfectly well that the commentaries made by EBL are not binding >on ACBL, still I concider those commentaries official (for the EBL area). > >Do I really have to elaborate on this with every post in order not to >be suspected of mixing "official" with "world-wide"? IIRC, the bit about the commentaries was in response to a post of mine. If not, I'm still pretty sure it was in response to my position on the question. So you responded to a general question on the laws, to a person in Zone 2, citing as your authority one that has no force in this Zone. So I might ask this counter-question: Do I really have to examine every response in every thread, particularly to my own postings, with an eye toward trying to decide whether they are really responses to me, or are something else? Or, to give a one word answer to *your* question, yes. :-) 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 Aug 29 09:15:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7SNF3a23418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:15:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (syr-24-92-226-125.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7SNEoK23410 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:14:51 +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 g7SNDqC24913; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:13:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:13:54 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke To: Alain Gottcheiner cc: Simon Kuipers , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020828170725.00a82720@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 8/28/02, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >AG : two cases are possible : You left one out: (3) both cases are alertable (as in the ACBL). Okay, announceable, but it amounts to the same thing. On reflection, I suppose this amounts to the same thing as your case (2) - although a bridge lawyer could probably make a case for calling the director, since he *knows* there's been a failure to alert (announce). :-) 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 Aug 29 10:40:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7T0da423475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:39:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7T0dTK23465 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:39:29 +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 17kDKd-000Nqx-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:38:44 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:07:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke References: <3D3815AF00009FC0@ocpmta3.be.tiscali.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020828135752.00db1800@MDWexc1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020828135752.00db1800@MDWexc1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Simon Kuipers writes >[David] > >>Steve Willner writes >> >> > Show me one example where one has to read the laws in the fallacious >> >> > way you claim in order to avoid a genuine problem. >> > >> >> From: "Marvin L. French" >> >> Well, there is the law regarding CCs. You are permitted by L40E2 to refer >> >> to an opponent's CC when it's your turn to bid or play. >> >> >> >> Looking at other times is not extraneous, it is forbidden, and any other >> >> interpretation is ridiculous. >> > >> >Sorry, Marv, but the WBFLC doesn't agree with you. >> > >> >Besides, I asked for a genuine problem, not a mere statement that >> >"It's illegal." What problems does it cause if someone looks at an >> >opponent's CC at an "improper" time? >> > >> >The obvious one is communicating something to partner, but that is >> >forbidden by L73A1 and L73B1. >> > >> >Care to try again? >> >> It does not matter what problems it causes: it's illegal. > >Suppose the following: we meet another pair, and they start bidding. LHO >opens 1NT, partner bids 2C. Now we do have the convention to play Landy >against 15/17 NT, but against 12/14 NT we play 2C natural. > >Should I alert 2C or not? I do not know the strenght of 1NT without asking >- not yet allowed - or looking at the CC - this is not allowed too. But not >alerting while I should do this (or the other way round - I don't know yet) >seems to me a bigger violation of the Law than looking at the CC at the >wrong time. Just alert, and tell them you do not know because: they will tell you the answer quick enough. We do need a FAQ, don't we? There are a few difficulties caused by the effects of certain Laws: you cannot deduce that the Law means something else because of 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 Thu Aug 29 10:40:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7T0dbL23476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:39:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7T0dUK23467 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:39:31 +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 17kDKe-000Nqy-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:38:47 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:08:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g7T0dWK23472 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk writes >Simon Kuipers >Envoyé par : owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >28/08/02 14:10 > > > Pour : bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > cc : > Objet : Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke > > >[David] > >>Steve Willner writes >> >> > Show me one example where one has to read the laws in the >fallacious >> >> > way you claim in order to avoid a genuine problem. >> > >> >> From: "Marvin L. French" >> >> Well, there is the law regarding CCs. You are permitted by L40E2 to >refer >> >> to an opponent's CC when it's your turn to bid or play. >> >> >> >> Looking at other times is not extraneous, it is forbidden, and any >other >> >> interpretation is ridiculous. >> > >> >Sorry, Marv, but the WBFLC doesn't agree with you. >> > >> >Besides, I asked for a genuine problem, not a mere statement that >> >"It's illegal." What problems does it cause if someone looks at an >> >opponent's CC at an "improper" time? >> > >> >The obvious one is communicating something to partner, but that is >> >forbidden by L73A1 and L73B1. >> > >> >Care to try again? >> >> It does not matter what problems it causes: it's illegal. > >Suppose the following: we meet another pair, and they start bidding. LHO >opens 1NT, partner bids 2C. Now we do have the convention to play Landy >against 15/17 NT, but against 12/14 NT we play 2C natural. > >Should I alert 2C or not? I do not know the strenght of 1NT without asking > >- not yet allowed - or looking at the CC - this is not allowed too. But >not >alerting while I should do this (or the other way round - I don't know >yet) >seems to me a bigger violation of the Law than looking at the CC at the >wrong time. > >*** >why to invent problems where there are none? you alert partner's 2C and, >if asked, explain what i have cut and pasted from your text "Now we do >have the convention to play Landy >against 15/17 NT, but against 12/14 NT we play 2C natural"; opponents will >have the same knowledge as you about your agreements and will know, like >you, that you may be in the middle of a misunderstanding if they happen to >play 13-16 NT. So alert! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 29 11:42:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7T1fkn23514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:41:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta02bw.bigpond.com (mta02bw.bigpond.com [139.134.6.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7T1ffK23510 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:41:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from New ([144.135.24.81]) by mta02bw.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 mta02bw May 23 2002 23:53:28) with SMTP id H1L0O400.8NL; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:40:52 +1000 Received: from 203.40.245.80 ([203.40.245.80]) by bwmam05.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0n 38/10886181); 29 Aug 2002 11:39:51 From: "Canberra Bridge Club" To: "Adam Wildavsky" , "Eric Landau" Cc: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Rich Colker" , "Howard M Weinstein" Subject: RE: [BLML] Las Vegas case 13 (was Appeals Summary) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:44:19 +1000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk So let me get this right. As an ethical player I may not chose from logical alternatives (3h) and the result would be 170 to both sides. However only by chosing to bid on (3H), having my opponents going to appeal and having my score adjusted (and not theirs) will an "equitable result" be obtained. HMMMMMM. Sean Mullamphy -----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, 29 August 2002 7:23 AM To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List; Rich Colker; Howard M Weinstein Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas case 13 (was Appeals Summary) At 4:43 PM -0400 8/28/02, Eric Landau wrote: >I'm not sure I follow Mr. Weinstein's argument. How does the fact >that "the irregularity... is a combination of the transmission of UI >and the choice of a logical alternative..." lead to Reveley rulings? Remember that I do not agree, but here it is as I understand it. Take one of my favorite examples: You hold S-KQ10763 H- 4 D-K7 C-QJ82, vulnerable versus not, and LHO opens 4H, partner takes 25 seconds to pass, RHO passes, and it's up to you. Assume that you agree that Pass in a LA - if not, weaken the hand until it is. Assume further that a good player would bid 4S most of the time had partner passed in tempo. Assume further that 4S was cold for +650 and that 4H would have been set two tricks routinely. I would say "4S is illegal, an irregularity. Had this hand passed the likely and most unfavorable results are clear -- 4H down 2 for both sides." I think Howard would say "The hesitation is an irregularity, as is the 4S bid. What would have happened in the absence of these irregularities? The most favorable result that was likely for the NOS is 4S making five, while the most unfavorable result that's at all probable is 4H down two for the OS. Howard's approach seems to be an attempt to avoid giving windfalls to the allegedly undeserving NOS. I don't buy that. They deserve the result they'd have achieved against ethical opponents, and they have earned that result by calling the director. If we don't adjust for the NOS in such cases players will learn not to bother calling the director, and we'll have no chance to adjust the score of the OS. The editorial containing the hand above is available at http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=article_sampler&f=samed.html -- 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 Thu Aug 29 15:02:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7T519O23585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:01:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.wanadoo.nl (smtp2.wanadoo.nl [194.134.35.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7T514K23581 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:01:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from compaq5286 (95dyn29.com21.casema.net [62.234.26.29]) by smtp2.wanadoo.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id A01661FF38 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:00:15 +0200 (MEST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020829065117.00ad4d10@pop3.tiscali.nl> X-Sender: synte076@pop3.tiscali.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 06:58:26 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Simon Kuipers Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020828135752.00db1800@MDWexc1> <3D3815AF00009FC0@ocpmta3.be.tiscali.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020828135752.00db1800@MDWexc1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > We do need a FAQ, don't we? Yes, that would be helpful. You cannot expect newbies to go back several years in the archives. Not with the large mass of messages that's arriving here:-). But my question was not on its own - I replied to a continued asking for an example. Maybe the wrong one, but I did not see anybody else trying. Simon -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 29 15:22:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7T5MUM23602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:22:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from out012.verizon.net (out012pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.137]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7T5MOK23598 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:22:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from jayapfelbaum ([151.201.237.2]) by out012.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.09 201-253-122-126-109-20020611) with SMTP id <20020829052136.ZOTJ18399.out012.verizon.net@jayapfelbaum> for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:21:36 -0500 Message-ID: <004001c24f1b$b8c00b20$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> From: "Jay Apfelbaum" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: Subject: [BLML] Ethics Question Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:19:57 -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 IMP's Board: 12 VUL: N/S You are West, and hold: S - x x H - 10 8 x x x D - Q x C - x x x x Auction West North East South Pass 1S 1NT 2S 2NT* Pass 3NT Double 4C Pass Pass Double Pass Pass 4D Pass Pass Double All Pass * Lebensohl (relay to 3C) East does not alert 2NT. Please understand that I am not asking about the merit of bidding 2NT (intending to sign off in 3H). We were behind in the match and needed a swing. When 3NT was doubled, I decided that I could not possibly have enough strength to pass. My question deals with ethics. I felt that I could not bid hearts on this auction because of the failure to alert 2NT. The 3NT bid, without this unauthorized information, showed a long suit (I thought) with the potential to produce tricks. When partner bid 4D, that suggested he held a long diamond suit. So much for valid interpretations of the 3NT and 4D bids. The unauthorized information suggests (I thought) a very different picture. Partner would have a maximum NT overcall and does not need any length in diamonds. My question is: Does the failure to alert 2NT demonstrably suggest that 4H will be a better contract than 4D, and is pass of 4D a logical alternative? Many thanks for your comments and suggestions. Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 29 16:28:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7T6Rmg23631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:27:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7T6RgK23627 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:27:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7T6QkP01444 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 02:26:46 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200208290626.g7T6QkP01444@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ethics Question To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 02:26:46 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Jay Apfelbaum" at Aug 29, 2002 01:19:57 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I usually use the test of "what would it have meant if partner had correctly alerted/not alerted?" If partner had alerted 2NT, then bid 3NT, and then pulled 4C-X to 4D, I would expect 4D to be a reasonable place to play with Qx, pard might even have a stiff heart. So, I think that PASS is most definitely a LA and any other action is wrong. Partner could easily by 3163 for that bid. There is nothing in the auction other than the failure to alert that suggests that 4H would be a better place to play than 4D. -Ted. > From: "Jay Apfelbaum" > Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:19:57 -0400 > > IMP's > Board: 12 > VUL: N/S > > You are West, and hold: > > S - x x > H - 10 8 x x x > D - Q x > C - x x x x > > Auction > > West North East South > Pass 1S 1NT 2S > 2NT* Pass 3NT Double > 4C Pass Pass Double > Pass Pass 4D Pass > Pass Double All Pass > > * Lebensohl (relay to 3C) > > East does not alert 2NT. > > Please understand that I am not asking about the merit of bidding 2NT > (intending to sign off in 3H). We were behind in the match and needed a > swing. When 3NT was doubled, I decided that I could not possibly have enough > strength to pass. > > My question deals with ethics. I felt that I could not bid hearts on this > auction because of the failure to alert 2NT. The 3NT bid, without this > unauthorized information, showed a long suit (I thought) with the potential > to produce tricks. When partner bid 4D, that suggested he held a long > diamond suit. > > So much for valid interpretations of the 3NT and 4D bids. The unauthorized > information suggests (I thought) a very different picture. Partner would > have a maximum NT overcall and does not need any length in diamonds. > > My question is: Does the failure to alert 2NT demonstrably suggest that 4H > will be a better contract than 4D, and is pass of 4D a logical alternative? > > Many thanks for your comments and suggestions. > > Jay Apfelbaum > Pittsburgh, PA > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 29 18:26:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7T8Pkp23678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:25:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7T8PgK23674 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:25:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA19656 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:41:04 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:19:40 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Ethics Question To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:18:16 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 29/08/2002 06:19:12 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] >My question deals with ethics. I felt that I could >not bid hearts on this auction because of the failure >to alert 2NT. The 3NT bid, without this unauthorized >information, showed a long suit (I thought) with the >potential to produce tricks. When partner bid 4D, that >suggested he held a long diamond suit. > >So much for valid interpretations of the 3NT and 4D >bids. The unauthorized information suggests (I thought) >a very different picture. Partner would have a maximum >NT overcall and does not need any length in diamonds. > >My question is: Does the failure to alert 2NT >demonstrably suggest that 4H will be a better contract >than 4D, and is pass of 4D a logical alternative? > >Many thanks for your comments and suggestions. > >Jay Apfelbaum >Pittsburgh, PA If I was TD or AC, my answers to your two questions would be yes and yes. However, whether the Pass of 4D is a logical alternative is a borderline decision, on which a different TD or AC might give a different ruling. I admire your at-the-table decision to avoid straying across the border for a better result (hoping to get lucky in TD or AC). Vis-a-vis grey or borderline ethics issues, too many other players find it all too easy to give themselves the benefit of all possible doubts. 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 Aug 29 18:31:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7T8VRZ23690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:31:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7T8VLK23686 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:31:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from WINXP (ti211310a080-1617.bb.online.no [80.212.214.81]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA04883 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:30:32 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006501c24f36$51e9cba0$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:30:23 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > On 8/28/02, Sven Pran wrote: > > >I know perfectly well that the commentaries made by EBL are not binding > >on ACBL, still I concider those commentaries official (for the EBL > area). > > > >Do I really have to elaborate on this with every post in order not to > >be suspected of mixing "official" with "world-wide"? > > IIRC, the bit about the commentaries was in response to a post of mine. > If not, I'm still pretty sure it was in response to my position on the > question. So you responded to a general question on the laws, to a > person in Zone 2, citing as your authority one that has no force in this > Zone. So I might ask this counter-question: Do I really have to examine > every response in every thread, particularly to my own postings, with an > eye toward trying to decide whether they are really responses to me, or > are something else? > > Or, to give a one word answer to *your* question, yes. :-) OK, let us go back to square one: The problem was that dummy asked defender about a possible revoke, not in so many words, but in a way that WBF(!) long since have established is a question as understood in law 61B (etc.). Does this question constitute a violation of Law 61B so that the revoke becomes established under Law 63B? Zone 2: No, There was no break of Law 61B because the last clause of this law (defender asking defender) does not apply in zone 2 anyway, and Law 61B says nothing about dummy asking a defender. EBL: No, Although the entire Law 61B applies, there is still nothing in this law about dummy asking a defender, furthermore EBL has issued their official (!) commentary clarifying the fact that a question by dummy to a defender is a violation, not of Law 61B but of Law 42B1. Final conclution (universal!): A question by dummy cannot itself result in the revoke by defender becoming established. You may of course disregard the EBL commentaries entirely on the ground that they have no status in the ACBL area, or you may treat these commentaries as guidelines how EBL has interpreted the laws and judge for yourself whether you will accept such interpretations also in the ACBL area. If our roles had been reversed I would certainly not have disregarded ACBL recommendations, but I would have judged them against issues from EBL (and my Norwegian authorities). I think you ought to do the same, and maybe you would find that EBL isn't that much off? regareds Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 29 18:35:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7T8ZWs23702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:35:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7T8ZSK23698 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:35:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA21296 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:50:50 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:29:25 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Ethics Question To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:36:01 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 29/08/2002 06:28:57 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Matchpoint pairs Dlr: E Vul: NS Pard: Expert WEST NORTH EAST You 2S(1) 3H Pass 4D(2) Pass ? (1) Weak (2) Natural and game-forcing, but also tempo-break You, South, hold: void AKJxx AJxxx xxx Question 1: Is a bidding plan which results in a 5D contract an LA? Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is yes, what does pard's tempo demonstrably suggest? At the table I was South, and bashed 6D (on the grounds that pard's tempo-break suggested that his game-force was minimal). But when I opened the travelling scoresheet to enter +1390 I guiltily noticed that the rest of the field was scoring +620 or +640 in 5D. How would you rule? Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 29 19:25:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7T9PA023733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:25:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7T9P4K23729 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:25:05 +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 LAA18011; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:22:05 +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 LAA20464; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:24:18 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020829113207.00a86860@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:34:09 +0200 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke In-Reply-To: <200208281606.MAA07923@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 12:06 28/08/2002 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: David Stevenson > > You know that you are not allowed to read your oppos' CC when it is > > not your turn to call or play. > >"Not allowed" is a clever phrase that is literally accurate but >misleading. In some cases the action is prohibited, and in others it >is extraneous. So yes, it is never "allowed," but sometimes it is >extraneous rather than prohibited. > >I notice you do not produce an example where looking at the CC when >it is "not allowed" is harmful but does not violate some other law. AG : it seems strange that it is not explicitly allowed to look at your opponent's CC before the beginning of the round, ie to decide your countermeasures. Since it is not yet your turn to act, you are, according to the letter, not allowed to do 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 Thu Aug 29 19:38:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7T9cTo23745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:38:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (Comix-files.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7T9cNK23741 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:38:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id LAA11037; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:35:20 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id LAA03934; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:37:36 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020829114146.00a2b130@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:47:28 +0200 To: Ted Ying , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Ethics Question In-Reply-To: <200208290626.g7T6QkP01444@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:26 29/08/2002 -0400, Ted Ying wrote: >I usually use the test of "what would it have meant if partner >had correctly alerted/not alerted?" > >If partner had alerted 2NT, then bid 3NT, and then pulled 4C-X >to 4D, I would expect 4D to be a reasonable place to play with >Qx, pard might even have a stiff heart. So, I think that PASS >is most definitely a LA and any other action is wrong. Partner >could easily by 3163 for that bid. AG : except perhaps, but only perhaps, that a 3163 pattern doesn't make 1NT a valid bid in Jay's system; And except that he would never think of pulling out of clubs with 3 cards in that suit. Okay, majbe the hand 3262 if you wish. Another element needs consideration : what did partner think of the pullout to 4C ? The sequence is strange enough to give him the right to remember they were playing lebensohl. Thus he should assume that partner has a 6-card club suit and weak hand (or perhaps partner was gambling that 3NT would fetch with his KJxxxxx clubs if partner had a max, and now had second thoughts). So, IMOBO, it is partner's 4D bid which is quite strange. For all it's worth, Jay could have had 2317 pattern. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 29 20:18:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7TAIgQ23772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:18:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from poczta.interia.pl (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7TAIaK23768 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:18:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nyx.poczta.fm [127.0.0.1]) by system.wewnetrzny9 (Mailserver) with SMTP id 434226172 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:17:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver, from userid 555) id 25039616F; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:17:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from kavanagh (unknown [217.153.105.20]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 27DFC6165 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:17:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <009101c24f45$64b0eed0$727e870a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020826105447.00a65900@pop.ulb.ac.be> <011901c24cee$038217a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4.3.2.7.0.20020827083511.00aae7e0@pop.starpower.net> <3D6B836A.8050308@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020828112109.00a72d90@pop.ulb.ac.be> <009001c24e7a$6f565260$727e870a@krackow.gradient.ie> <5.1.0.14.0.20020828131810.00a4c080@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020828171241.00a6c290@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS explained Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:18:15 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-EMID: 142be2c0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > AG : I will take it as granted. It seems that most books and courses in > phonetics and phonology are more than 50 years old - or maybe the writers > listened at old actors. Thank you for the information. Just one more word : > in the "new" articulation for L-dashed, where is the tip of the tongue ? > a) forward, near the lower incisors (standard French OU - labiovelar > approximant) > b) retracted, in the middle of the mouth (Nilotic U - alveolar or palatal > approximant) > a) Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ty i ja, co Ty na to? >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1641 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 30 01:09:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7TF86s23993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:08:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7TF81K23989 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:08:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix Mast-Sol 0.5) with ESMTP id LAA09856 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:07:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA13865 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:07:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:07:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208291507.LAA13865@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Alain Gottcheiner > AG : it seems strange that it is not explicitly allowed to look at your > opponent's CC before the beginning of the round, ie to decide your > countermeasures. Since it is not yet your turn to act, you are, according > to the letter, not allowed to do it ... This is another good example of the fallacy of "anything not permitted is prohibited." L40E2 says "During the auction and play...," and thus it neither permits nor forbids anything before the auction period begins. So we have to look at other Laws and regulations. As far as I can tell, there is no explicit Law about looking at your opponents' CC before the auction begins, but SO's are allowed to make regulations under L40E1. Thus in the EBU, it is probably a (mild) infraction _not_ to look at the opponents' CC. (Or perhaps I'm mis- remembering the rule -- anyway, the principle is right: an SO _could_ adopt such a rule). Absent such a rule, and unless I'm missing something, looking at an opponent's CC (or one's own!) before the auction is neither permitted nor prohibited and is therefore in the third category: extraneous. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 30 01:35:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7TFZOq24011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:35:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7TFZJK24007 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:35:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-126.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.126] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #6) id 17kRJa-0002xj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:34:34 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020829112538.00b2f970@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:38:12 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Ethics Question In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:36 AM 8/29/02, richard.hills wrote: >Matchpoint pairs >Dlr: E >Vul: NS >Pard: Expert > >WEST NORTH EAST You > 2S(1) 3H >Pass 4D(2) Pass ? > >(1) Weak >(2) Natural and game-forcing, but also tempo-break > >You, South, hold: > >void >AKJxx >AJxxx >xxx > >Question 1: Is a bidding plan which results in a > 5D contract an LA? Yes. >Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is yes, > what does pard's tempo demonstrably > suggest? Well, it surely doesn't suggest 6D over 5D, at least not unless you have some very odd agreements. Rather the opposite, I should think. With 4D forcing and unlimited, partner cannot hold a marginally overstrength hand -- there is no such thing. That it makes it likely that his huddle (assuming he had a "bridge reason" for it) was based on marginal weakness, that he either was considering passing but decided to bid, or, with heart support, was considering 4H but decided to bid a stronger-sounding 4D, to be followed by supporting hearts above the four-level. >At the table I was South, and bashed 6D (on the >grounds that pard's tempo-break suggested that >his game-force was minimal). Exactly right. >But when I opened the travelling scoresheet to >enter +1390 I guiltily noticed that the rest of >the field was scoring +620 or +640 in 5D. > >How would you rule? No problem, no adjustment. 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 Aug 30 01:41:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7TFf7t24028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:41:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7TFf2K24024 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:41:02 +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 IAA30568; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:40:14 -0700 Message-Id: <200208291540.IAA30568@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:34:09 +0200." <5.1.0.14.0.20020829113207.00a86860@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:40:16 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 12:06 28/08/2002 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: David Stevenson > > > You know that you are not allowed to read your oppos' CC when it is > > > not your turn to call or play. > > > >"Not allowed" is a clever phrase that is literally accurate but > >misleading. In some cases the action is prohibited, and in others it > >is extraneous. So yes, it is never "allowed," but sometimes it is > >extraneous rather than prohibited. > > > >I notice you do not produce an example where looking at the CC when > >it is "not allowed" is harmful but does not violate some other law. > > AG : it seems strange that it is not explicitly allowed to look at your > opponent's CC before the beginning of the round, ie to decide your > countermeasures. Since it is not yet your turn to act, you are, according > to the letter, not allowed to do it ... No, the letter of the law doesn't say that. I assume we're talking about L40E2 here, which begins "During the auction and play". Those are the only times the law applies, and the law doesn't apply at all to the time before the beginning of the round. The auction period begins for a side when either member of that side looks at his cards (L17A). I often look over the opponents' convention card before pulling my cards out of the board. So does my partner. I suppose that if partner finishes looking first and pulls out his cards and looks at them, if I'm not yet done looking and continue to look at their CC, I'm technically violating the law. But not before then (even if an opponent has already made a call as dealer). -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 30 02:25:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7TGOcf24052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 02:24:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (adsl-66-126-103-122.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [66.126.103.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7TGOXK24047 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 02:24:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from simba.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@simba.irvine.com [192.160.8.19]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA30906; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:23:46 -0700 Message-Id: <200208291623.JAA30906@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Ethics Question In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:19:57 EDT." <004001c24f1b$b8c00b20$017cfea9@jayapfelbaum> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:23:48 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jay Apfelbaum wrote: > IMP's > Board: 12 > VUL: N/S > > You are West, and hold: > > S - x x > H - 10 8 x x x > D - Q x > C - x x x x > > Auction > > West North East South > Pass 1S 1NT 2S > 2NT* Pass 3NT Double > 4C Pass Pass Double > Pass Pass 4D Pass > Pass Double All Pass > > * Lebensohl (relay to 3C) > > East does not alert 2NT. > > Please understand that I am not asking about the merit of bidding 2NT > (intending to sign off in 3H). Good. > We were behind in the match and needed a swing. > When 3NT was doubled, I decided that I could not possibly have enough > strength to pass. > > My question deals with ethics. I felt that I could not bid hearts on this > auction because of the failure to alert 2NT. The 3NT bid, without this > unauthorized information, showed a long suit (I thought) with the potential > to produce tricks. When partner bid 4D, that suggested he held a long > diamond suit. My feeling is that although you could come up with a valid interpretation for 3NT, this bid is so off-the-wall (opposite a Lebensohl 2NT) that it makes the information that partner forgot the meaning of 2NT authorized. Or at least it comes awfully close. Others will probably disagree. I congratulate you on your desire to be scrupulously ethical, but I'm not sure you needed to bend over backward this far. This reminds me of a hand I had a number of years ago, where LHO opened 2C (strong), partner doubled, showing reds or blacks (CRASH), I alerted, and partner's facial expression made it obvious to me that he forgot we were playing CRASH. Later in the auction, I decided to bend over backward and saved in diamonds, one of the suits he had to have---of course, he was void in diamonds and we went for -2300 or something. On reflection, and after discussing it with others, I think the right thing to do would have been to go quietly, reasoning that saving wasn't really a LA even if partner had his double, and then call the TD on myself at some point to explain what had happened and let him rule on whether I had violated the Laws. I think I might have done the same thing here---pulled to 4H and then called the TD on myself, explaining why I thought I hadn't broken the Law but why it might be possible to see it differently. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 30 02:31:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7TGVFk24064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 02:31:15 +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 g7TGVAK24060 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 02:31:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.156.28]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020829163023.VXQA25423.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:30:23 +0100 Message-ID: <00a801c24f79$60906c70$1c9c68d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL alerts summary Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:30:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson: The ACBL alerts summary by Marvin French has been updated. The newest version is now available form my Lawspage in Wordpad, RTF or text formats, or may just be read online. It is at http://blakjak.com/acbl_alt.htm Nigel: A model of lucidity but I unfair to those most in need of it -- foreigners and tyros. You would have a more level playing field, if you had to alert deviations and additions to a single internationally agreed system. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 21/08/2002 -- ======================================================================== (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 Aug 30 03:13:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7THDBN24120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 03:13:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (mta07-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7THD5K24116 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 03:13:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from SCRAP ([213.104.148.211]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020829171217.DUDG13709.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@SCRAP> for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:12:17 +0100 Message-ID: <017601c24f7f$3baab7c0$1c9c68d5@SCRAP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" References: <00b301c24c55$a47b9990$239c68d5@SCRAP> <005701c24d50$f0d0e6a0$1c9868d5@SCRAP> Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:12:12 +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 Nigel: {Convention[ Card banning is another rule I have never heard of being enforced. David Stevenson: Have you called the TD in such a case? Nigel2: (1) At the Welsh teams, The TD was called against because we had 0-10 as a range for weak twos. The TD insisted we change this to a narrower range. I guessed this request was ultra vires and protested mildly before complying. Later, the TD consulted his crib and said our original card was OK. (2) I once called the TD against a pair whose nonstandard card made no mention of leads, signals, or discards. The harassed TD accepted their explanation that they had no such agreements. Opponents messed up the defence and as I left the table, I heard "Why didn't you switch to hearts, when I asked you." (3) Often, at national events, a pair has only one card, having mislaid the other, but IMO it would be churlish to call the TD. (4) I have never heard of anybody else ever calling the TD to object to a faulty or missing card. If they did it would be surprising if the TD forced the offenders to play "simple system" --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 21/08/2002 -- ======================================================================== (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 Aug 30 03:33:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7THWas24136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 03:32:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7THWVK24132 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 03:32:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-126.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.126] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #6) id 17kT90-0000WJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:31:46 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020829131236.00b2d100@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:35:25 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL alerts summary In-Reply-To: <00a801c24f79$60906c70$1c9c68d5@SCRAP> 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 12:30 PM 8/29/02, Nigel wrote: >David Stevenson: The ACBL alerts summary by Marvin French has been >updated. > The newest version is now available form my Lawspage in Wordpad, RTF or >text >formats, or may just be read online. It is at >http://blakjak.com/acbl_alt.htm > >Nigel: A model of lucidity but I unfair to those most in need of it -- > foreigners and tyros. It is not written for foreigners or tyros. It assumes a working knowledge of Standard American bidding, which is by far the dominant bidding system in the ACBL. If it didn't do that, it would be several orders of magnitude more complicated, to the point of being impossible for many even experienced players to understand and master. > You would have a more level playing field, if you had to alert > deviations and additions to a single internationally agreed > system. For a foreigner who doesn't know Standard American to understand the details of the ACBL alert policy requires learning an unfamiliar bidding system, which is not easy. Fortunately in practice, the foreigners who come to play in ACBL events but who aren't at least somewhat familiar with Standard American are few in number and dedicated enough that they manage to make the extra effort required. It is, admittedly, a burden and an obstacle to those dedicated few. If the policy called for alerting "deviations and additions to a single internationally agreed system", that same burden and obstacle would be imposed on the entire field. Everyday players do not share the level of motivation that drives those dedicated souls who travel to distant countries where unfamiliar bidding system predominate in order to enter bridge events. For them, the burden would be intolerable. Fairer? Perhaps. Workable? No way. Nigel's "level playing field" would be achieved by flattening the peak of a difficult-to-climb mountain to create a perfectly level plateau that would hold no more than a very small number of bridge tables. 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 Aug 30 04:29:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7TITRo24164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 04:29:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7TITMK24160 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 04:29:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7TIScj11525 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:28:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005701c24f89$fa6608e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020829113207.00a86860@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:21:17 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > AG : it seems strange that it is not explicitly allowed to look at your > opponent's CC before the beginning of the round, ie to decide your > countermeasures. Since it is not yet your turn to act, you are, according > to the letter, not allowed to do it ... It is allowed, because that is not "During the auction or play." A BL might argue that this prohibits looking before the auction starts, but that is not a reasonable interpretation. Declarer should be exempt from this law, and a violation by declarer is sensibly never penalized. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 30 05:42:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7TJfqq24210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 05:41:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (adsl-66-126-103-122.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [66.126.103.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7TJflK24206 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 05:41:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from simba.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@simba.irvine.com [192.160.8.19]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA00348; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:40:59 -0700 Message-Id: <200208291940.MAA00348@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:21:17 PDT." <005701c24f89$fa6608e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:41:03 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > > > AG : it seems strange that it is not explicitly allowed to look at your > > opponent's CC before the beginning of the round, ie to decide your > > countermeasures. Since it is not yet your turn to act, you are, > according > > to the letter, not allowed to do it ... > > It is allowed, because that is not "During the auction or play." A BL > might argue that this prohibits looking before the auction starts, but > that is not a reasonable interpretation. > > Declarer should be exempt from this law, and a violation by declarer is > sensibly never penalized. I agree with this last. There have been problems in the past where leader leads, say, a king, and declarer asks something like "What do you lead from ace-king?" when he's holding the ace, and the defenders have complained about violations of L73F2. IMHO, one of the best ways to forestall such complaints is for declarer to look at the lead section of the opponents' CC as soon as the auction is over. That's what I try to do (if I haven't already looked at it previously or don't remember what was there). It never occurred to me that this would be illegal. L40E2 should be rewritten to allow declarer (or presumed declarer---see L41A) to look at the opponents' CC at any time after he becomes the presumed declarer. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 30 06:09:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7TK9Pa24262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:09:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7TK92K24225 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:09:03 +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 17kVaR-0007VB-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:08:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:06:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25B in KO play References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch writes >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Stevenson >> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 7:31 AM >> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25B in KO play >> >> >David Grabiner asked two questions (I believe). >> >> Not in his first post, to which I have been replying. >> Recently he has >> changed it, but it is not surprising that I did not >> realise that he >> meant a second question that he failed to ask. > > Your mail reader must thread differently than mine. I'm two >levels into posts from David Grabiner. > > Here are the relevant excerpts from his 2nd post and your >response to that. > >David Grabiner >>>In the actual situation, the TD informed West that if he changed >his call, >>>his side would play for at most average-minus, which is -3 IMPs. >West >>>didn't change his call. That is probably a TD error which >should have led > ^^^^^^ >>>to an adjusted score under L82C, assuming that West would have >changed his >>>bid had he been given the correct information that the penalty >was halved. > >David Stevenson >> It is arguable whether this is TD error, since it is correct. >But it >>could certainly have been better expressed. > >[snip] > >> If the TD had told him about L86B he would have known that he >could >>have done better than -3 imps. So he would be more likely to use >L25B >>in K/O play. But he did, so there is no damage, so the result >stands. >>WTP? > > The problem is that the player didn't. So, is it still arguable >that it's TD error? Is the player entitled to redress? The >player is told he would be playing for -3 imps, but he would >actually have won 1.5-2 imps had he changed his call. OK, let's forget the original question, which said he bid 2S, whatever may have happened since. It still comes down to the judgement as to whether it is TD error when he says something correct but misunderstood by the player. Perhaps it depends on the TD's phrasing. After all, he could just have read L25B out and the Law would have told the player he was playing for average minus. So, does it constitute TD error that he did not go on to explain L86B? If it did, do we assume he would have changed his call? L12C3 would be a great help here! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 30 06:09:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7TK9Q924263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:09:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7TK92K24224 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:09:03 +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 17kVaQ-0007V7-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:08:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:47:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke References: <002101c24e53$754f0440$6400a8c0@WINXP> 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 8/28/02, Sven Pran wrote: > >>I know perfectly well that the commentaries made by EBL are not binding >>on ACBL, still I concider those commentaries official (for the EBL >area). >> >>Do I really have to elaborate on this with every post in order not to >>be suspected of mixing "official" with "world-wide"? > >IIRC, the bit about the commentaries was in response to a post of mine. >If not, I'm still pretty sure it was in response to my position on the >question. So you responded to a general question on the laws, to a >person in Zone 2, citing as your authority one that has no force in this >Zone. So I might ask this counter-question: Do I really have to examine >every response in every thread, particularly to my own postings, with an >eye toward trying to decide whether they are really responses to me, or >are something else? > >Or, to give a one word answer to *your* question, yes. :-) We are trying to understand the Laws here [ok, some of us are :)]. It is helpful when authorities make pronouncements. Strangely enough, it is even helpful when an authority from elsewhere from yourself makes a pronouncement. It is difficult to find a better commentary on the Laws than the EBL TD Guide, and it is reasonable to quote it. Duplicate Decisions is also worth looking at. It really does not matter for the purposes of our discussion whether such publications have any force in the part of the world from which someone has asked a question, so long as it is relevant. Regulars on BLML surely know the limitations of these publications: they cannot be used for alerting, or what systems are permissible, because regulations are different in different places. Furthermore, there are known different interpretations [eg an LA] and Zonal options. But we know all this. So, if we have a problem, why not use any publication that moves us forward. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 30 06:09:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7TK9U824264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:09:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7TK94K24228 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:09:05 +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 17kVaR-0007V9-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:08:19 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:02:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25B in KO play References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch writes >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Stevenson >> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 7:31 AM >> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25B in KO play >> >> >David Grabiner asked two questions (I believe). >> >> Not in his first post, to which I have been replying. >> Recently he has >> changed it, but it is not surprising that I did not >> realise that he >> meant a second question that he failed to ask. > > Your mail reader must thread differently than mine. I'm two >levels into posts from David Grabiner. > > Here are the relevant excerpts from his 2nd post and your >response to that. > >David Grabiner >>>In the actual situation, the TD informed West that if he changed >his call, >>>his side would play for at most average-minus, which is -3 IMPs. >West >>>didn't change his call. That is probably a TD error which >should have led > ^^^^^^ >>>to an adjusted score under L82C, assuming that West would have >changed his >>>bid had he been given the correct information that the penalty >was halved. > >David Stevenson >> It is arguable whether this is TD error, since it is correct. >But it >>could certainly have been better expressed. > >[snip] > >> If the TD had told him about L86B he would have known that he >could >>have done better than -3 imps. So he would be more likely to use >L25B >>in K/O play. But he did, so there is no damage, so the result >stands. >>WTP? > > The problem is that the player didn't. So, is it still arguable >that it's TD error? Is the player entitled to redress? The >player is told he would be playing for -3 imps, but he would >actually have won 1.5-2 imps had he changed his call. > >-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/ -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 30 06:10:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7TK9Wn24265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:09:32 +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-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 g7TK97K24239 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:09:08 +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 17kVaR-0007VC-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:08:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:08:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 12C2 Interpretation (was Las Vegas) References: <20020828145221.EPIU23721.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@webmail.worldnet.att.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 Adam Wildavsky writes >At 2:52 PM +0000 8/28/02, joanandron@att.net wrote: >> >From Grattan Endicott, >>Secretary WBFLC >>Whilst I have not the slightest interest in discussing >>the decision, I and colleagues on the WBF Laws Committee >>strongly deprecate the action of Mr. Wildavsky in >>disclosing material from a meeting of the committee at >>which he was an invited guest. We consider it improper >>to do so before the minutes have been prepared, much >>less before they have been ratified by the Executive of >>the WBF. > >My sincere apologies to all. I sent a message to David which was >intended to be private. I neglected to indicate to him that he ought >to reply to me only, and not the BLML. As a matter of good Netiquette I do not quote other people's emails without permission. However, the email you sent to me you *also* copied to BLML. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 30 06:10:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7TK9Yj24267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:09:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7TK9AK24247 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:09:11 +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 17kVaX-0007V9-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:08:25 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:28:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke References: <200208281606.MAA07923@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200208281606.MAA07923@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 know that you are not allowed to read your oppos' CC when it is >> not your turn to call or play. > >"Not allowed" is a clever phrase that is literally accurate but >misleading. In some cases the action is prohibited, and in others it >is extraneous. So yes, it is never "allowed," but sometimes it is >extraneous rather than prohibited. > >I notice you do not produce an example where looking at the CC when >it is "not allowed" is harmful but does not violate some other law. What other Law? You are permitted to look at certain times, not others. Who cares about other Laws? >On the other hand, we just had a clear example where reading a >different law your way leads to a ridiculous result. > >> It does not matter what problems it causes: it's illegal. > >Well, that's not what the WBFLC said, and I don't think mere repetition >strengthens your argument. It is not what the WBFLC said, and repeating this does not strengthen your argument. They have never said that you may look at your CC when it is not your turn to bid or play. Your continued assertion that they have is not acceptable. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 30 06:10:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7TK9ZV24266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:09:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7TK99K24243 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:09:09 +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 17kVaX-0007VB-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:08:24 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:17:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas case 13 (was Appeals Summary) References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020828163428.00b2dd20@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 Adam Wildavsky writes >At 4:43 PM -0400 8/28/02, Eric Landau wrote: >>I'm not sure I follow Mr. Weinstein's argument. How does the fact >>that "the irregularity... is a combination of the transmission of UI >>and the choice of a logical alternative..." lead to Reveley rulings? > >Remember that I do not agree, but here it is as I understand it. Take >one of my favorite examples: > > You hold S-KQ10763 H- 4 D-K7 C-QJ82, vulnerable > versus not, and LHO opens 4H, partner takes > 25 seconds to pass, RHO passes, and it's up to you. > >Assume that you agree that Pass in a LA - if not, weaken the hand >until it is. Assume further that a good player would bid 4S most of >the time had partner passed in tempo. Assume further that 4S was cold >for +650 and that 4H would have been set two tricks routinely. > >I would say "4S is illegal, an irregularity. Had this hand passed the >likely and most unfavorable results are clear -- 4H down 2 for both >sides." > >I think Howard would say "The hesitation is an irregularity, as is >the 4S bid. What would have happened in the absence of these >irregularities? The most favorable result that was likely for the NOS >is 4S making five, while the most unfavorable result that's at all >probable is 4H down two for the OS. It seems to me that Howard's approach is wrong, since to hesitate is not an infraction, even though it may be an irregularity. >Howard's approach seems to be an attempt to avoid giving windfalls to >the allegedly undeserving NOS. I don't buy that. They deserve the >result they'd have achieved against ethical opponents, and they have >earned that result by calling the director. If we don't adjust for >the NOS in such cases players will learn not to bother calling the >director, and we'll have no chance to adjust the score of the OS. Windfalls for opponents are part of bridge, and should not be disallowed by TDs. If there had been no infraction then 4H-2 was possible: if it was not then there is no reason to adjust anyway. The NOS have lost the possibility of 4H-2 because of the 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 Aug 30 06:10:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7TK9b324269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:09:37 +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 g7TK9BK24250 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:09:11 +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 17kVaX-0007V8-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:08:26 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:55:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke References: <3D3815AF00009FC0@ocpmta3.be.tiscali.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020828135752.00db1800@MDWexc1> <5.1.0.14.0.20020828170725.00a82720@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020828170725.00a82720@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 >1) either 12-14 or 15-17 is alertable (the former in Belgium ; the latter >in New Zealand). Since they didn't alert, treat as the non-alertable >version. If it isn't, so that they get a wrong information because they >first gave one, they are responsible. >2) none is alertable. You alert, and if asked, you answer 'please tell me >your NT range, so that I can answer you'. Since their bid came before >yours, the explanations must also come brfore yours. Of course, I haven't >the faintest idea of how partner knew the range ... Let's assume he looked >at their CC. Of course, it is now possible that 2C was not alertable from >the beginning, but WTH ? Why not alert, and tell them what you are playing? If it is weak you play ..., and if it is strong you play ... -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 30 06:10:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7TK9cZ24270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:09:38 +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 g7TK98K24241 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:09:09 +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 17kVaW-0007V7-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:08:23 +0100 Message-ID: <2rXDKDCN8gb9EwQT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:09:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] penalty card, or is it? References: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A5FD@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> 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 <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A5FD@obelix.spase.nl.206.168 >.192.in-addr.ARPA>, Martin Sinot writes >>Steve Willner [mailto:willner@cfa.harvard.edu] wrote: >> >>> > >Dummy, North, wins a trick. South is holding his played card >>> > >face up and says -- or mumbles, depending on whom you believe >>> > >-- "Cards?" East hears "Heart," and puts a heart spot card >>> > >face up on the table. >>> >>> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >>> > 1. As TD, my determination of the facts, under the balance of >>> > probabilities, is that South mumbled "cards". >>> > >>> > 2. I rule that South's mumbling is not an infraction of L73D2. >>> > >>> > 3. Since South was not calling for a card from dummy, I rule >>> > that there has been no violation of the "clearly state" >>> > provision of L46A. >>> > >>> > 3. For the same reason, I rule that L47E1 does not apply. >>> > >>> > 4. Therefore, I would apply L53. If South does not accept the >>> > lead out of turn, then East's heart spot card becomes a major >>> > penalty card under L50. >>> >>> All fine, but it seems to leave out the most important step. Why are >>> you ruling that the heart spot was a "lead to the next trick" (L57A) >>> and not "exposed inadvertently" (L50C)? >> >>East played the card, and had every intention of playing it. It was >>not exposed inadvertently (as in dropping the card, or playing two at >>the same time). That East falsely thought that it was his turn to play >>is a different matter. >> >I'd rule it was a played card, but I'd adjust to restore equity. Under which 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 Aug 30 08:37:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7TMawb24372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 08:36:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7TMasK24368 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 08:36:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA25329 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 08:52:14 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 08:30:48 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Ethics Question To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 08:26:47 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 30/08/2002 08:30:20 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ted Ying wrote: >>I usually use the test of "what would it have meant if partner >>had correctly alerted/not alerted?" >> >>If partner had alerted 2NT, then bid 3NT, and then pulled 4C-X >>to 4D, I would expect 4D to be a reasonable place to play with >>Qx, pard might even have a stiff heart. So, I think that PASS >>is most definitely a LA and any other action is wrong. Partner >>could easily by 3163 for that bid. Alain Gottcheiner replied: >except perhaps, but only perhaps, that a 3163 pattern doesn't >make 1NT a valid bid in Jay's system; And except that he would >never think of pulling out of clubs with 3 cards in that suit. [snip] On AI to Jay, his partner may have opened 1NT tactically on a 2-2-7-2 shape, making both the 3NT and 4D calls sensible, and leaving Jay with an LA of Pass over his pard's 4D call. Alain continued: >Another element needs consideration : what did partner think >of the pullout to 4C? The sequence is strange enough to give >him the right to remember they were playing lebensohl. [snip] No, on the AI interpretation above, Jay's 4C call was correctable, saying that, "I want to play in your long minor," and 4D was saying, "My long minor is diamonds, not clubs." The fact that Jay's pard was in reality confused by the auction is Lawfully irrelevant. 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 Aug 30 09:25:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7TNP3S24407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:25:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g7TNOwK24403 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:24:58 +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 17kYe2-0004PG-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:24:12 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 23:25:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list References: <00b301c24c55$a47b9990$239c68d5@SCRAP> <005701c24d50$f0d0e6a0$1c9868d5@SCRAP> <017601c24f7f$3baab7c0$1c9c68d5@SCRAP> In-Reply-To: <017601c24f7f$3baab7c0$1c9c68d5@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 >Nigel: {Convention[ Card banning is another rule I have never heard of > being enforced. >David Stevenson: Have you called the TD in such a case? >Nigel2: (1) At the Welsh teams, The TD was called against because we had > 0-10 as a range for weak twos. The TD insisted we change this > to a narrower range. I guessed this request was ultra vires and > protested mildly before complying. Later, the TD consulted his > crib and said our original card was OK. OK, the TD made a mistake. How does this affect things? Good gracious, even I have made mistakes! > (2) I once called the TD against a pair whose nonstandard card made > no mention of leads, signals, or discards. The harassed TD > accepted their explanation that they had no such agreements. > Opponents messed up the defence and as I left the table, > I heard "Why didn't you switch to hearts, when I asked you." The TD cannot rule on evidence he isn't given. If you had recalled me at such a time I would have hit them with a very sizeable penalty for lying [a] to opponents and [b] to the TD. Of course, not all TDs are the same standard, but good TDs are *very* loth to take no agreement as an argument for carding. In fact, if they did convince me I would probably remain at the table to watch a couple of hands. > (3) Often, at national events, a pair has only one card, having > mislaid the other, but IMO it would be churlish to call the TD. I agree. It is the pairs that do not bother to have a second that TDs like to deal with because they are not trying to follow the regs. Actually I was recently playing in a semi-national event with a partner who does annoy me. He never carries a watch, expecting to ask partner the time: he never carries a pen, expecting partner to provide one. He did not carry a CC, and I was *praying* that one of our oppos would complain to the TD. I am sure that the TD in charge, who reads this list occasionally, would have hit us with a penalty, and I was prepared then to nag partner about it. Unfortunately, all our oppos accepted we only had one card. > (4) I have never heard of anybody else ever calling the TD > to object to a faulty or missing card. If they did it would be > surprising if the TD forced the offenders to play "simple system" In many many of your posts you assume that EBU TDs will not do their job. If you have examples, then ok: but you often comment that you expect them not to do their job with no evidence to support it. I think this attitude unfortunate. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 30 09:26:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7TNQ5P24419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:26:05 +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 g7TNPxK24415 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:26:00 +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 g7SNon305248 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:50:49 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:23:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] penalty card, or is it? References: <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A5FD@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> <2rXDKDCN8gb9EwQT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <2rXDKDCN8gb9EwQT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <2rXDKDCN8gb9EwQT@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst writes >>In article <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A5FD@obelix.spase.nl.206.168 >>.192.in-addr.ARPA>, Martin Sinot writes >>>Steve Willner [mailto:willner@cfa.harvard.edu] wrote: >>> >>>> > >Dummy, North, wins a trick. South is holding his played card >>>> > >face up and says -- or mumbles, depending on whom you believe >>>> > >-- "Cards?" East hears "Heart," and puts a heart spot card >>>> > >face up on the table. >>>> >>>> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >>>> > 1. As TD, my determination of the facts, under the balance of >>>> > probabilities, is that South mumbled "cards". >>>> > >>>> > 2. I rule that South's mumbling is not an infraction of L73D2. >>>> > >>>> > 3. Since South was not calling for a card from dummy, I rule >>>> > that there has been no violation of the "clearly state" >>>> > provision of L46A. >>>> > >>>> > 3. For the same reason, I rule that L47E1 does not apply. >>>> > >>>> > 4. Therefore, I would apply L53. If South does not accept the >>>> > lead out of turn, then East's heart spot card becomes a major >>>> > penalty card under L50. >>>> >>>> All fine, but it seems to leave out the most important step. Why are >>>> you ruling that the heart spot was a "lead to the next trick" (L57A) >>>> and not "exposed inadvertently" (L50C)? >>> >>>East played the card, and had every intention of playing it. It was >>>not exposed inadvertently (as in dropping the card, or playing two at >>>the same time). That East falsely thought that it was his turn to play >>>is a different matter. >>> >>I'd rule it was a played card, but I'd adjust to restore equity. > > Under which Law? > 72b1. if I mumble something which causes my RHO to lead out of turn then I should expect to get shot. Of course I could have known that saying "It's your lead" to RHO will fetch an adjustment. I could also have known that mumbling something which causes him to lead out of turn will have the same effect. I'm quite happy for the guy *to* lead out of turn, he may get a better score as a result. -- 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 Aug 30 15:04:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7U53GC24606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:03:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7U53BK24602 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:03:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7U52Qj19585; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:02:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00ec01c24fe2$84f2c0e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: Subject: [BLML] Lower tops (long) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:02:17 -0700 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 If you're not intetested in this subject, you might want to hit the delete key. Here is Henry Bethe's proposal for handling different tops, presenting a clever method that looks better than Neuberg. Neuberg presumes that a group's scores would be mirrored with a larger top, with the same variance. Henry's method shrinks scores a bit more toward 50% than Neuberg does, which seems right because the larger group's variance would be less than that of the smaller group. He doesn't call it "Bethe," but I think that would be a good name. Henry is not a subscriber, so please Cc to him your comments, which he welcomes, to address hbethe@aol.com ###### Expected Value, An Approach to Fouled Boards and Score Conversions One of the persistent issues in scoring match point events is scoring boards that have been played a different number of times in the fairest manner possible. Another analogous problem is comparing session scores achieved on one top with those achieved on another. An Approach - Expected Value Matchpoints are an ordered ranking of a set of observations. Essentially this problem is to determine how the ordered set that is known would rank in a larger set of ordered observations. One conceptually attractive approach is to assume that the known group was drawn at random from the larger group. Since they are randomly drawn, all possible distributions within the larger set are equally likely. But the best guess is that the smaller set was equally distributed throughout the larger set. An equivalent problem is to determine what a new set of observations would do to the rankings of the existing set. To do this, assume there is an ordered group of m scores in the small group. One of those scores is the lowest; i.e. it gets a zero when matchpoints are assigned within the small group. What is its expected score when some number of random additional scores is added to the group? If there is one added score, there are m+1 positions in the augmented ordered group that it can occupy. One of those is the lowest, which would give the existing lowest score one matchpoint. The other m positions leave the existing lowest score with zero matchpoints. So the expected value of the zero in the original group is 1 matchpoint in m+1 possibilities, or 1/(m+1) matchpoints. If there are two new scores, it can be shown that there are (m+1)*(m+2)/2 possible positions the new scores can occupy in the new group of size m+2. One of those is the two bottom positions, in which case the old zero gets 2 matchpoints. Another m of them have one of them in the bottom position and the other somewhere other than the next-to-bottom, in which case the old zero gets 1 matchpoint. So the total matchpoints the old zero might get is m+2, and dividing that by the total number of cases, the expected value of the old zero is (m+2)/[(m+1)(m+2)/2] which can be simplified to 2/(m+1). This analysis can be extended to any number of new scores, and the expected value of the old zero is always (number of added scores)/(m+1). If the size of the augmented group is n and the original group is m, the number of added scores is (n-m), so this can be written as S(0) = (n-m)/(m+1) [Read: "the score of zero in the small set has an expected value of the new total number of observations in the set less the number of observations in the small set all divided by one plus the number of observations in the small set."] Of course the pair they were playing against had a top, and will now get the new top, n-1, less the points that the zero gets. That is S(m-1) = (n-1) - (n-m)/(m+1) = [(n-1)(m+1) - (n-m)]/(m+1) = (nm + n - m - 1 - n + m)/(m+1) = (nm-1)/(m+1) The difference between the score assigned to the old top and the score assigned to the old zero needs to be divided into m-1 (equal) segments to space the intermediate scores. This range is (n-1) - 2(n-m)/(m+1) = [nm+n-m-1-2n+2m]/(m+1) = [nm+m-n-1]/(m+1) = [m(n+1)-(n+1)]/(m+1) = [(m-1)(n+1)]/(m+1) and dividing the range by (m-1) the divisions are of size (n+1)/(m+1). More generally then S(p) = (p(n+1) + (n-m))/(m+1) The Formula in Action One interesting way to use this is to consider the re-matchpointing of a board that is played one fewer time than other boards, as would be the case in a game where there is a phantom pair. This would also apply when a pair is assigned a score such as average or average plus resulting in one fewer actual score on a board. Thus m is actually n-1. As an example, in a 14½ table game with 13 rounds and a sitout, there are two sets of boards that get played 13 times, thirteen sets that get played 12 times. It is desirable for each board to carry the same weight in the final scores, so these boards must be converted from the 11 top among the twelve actual scores to the 12 top of the boards played 13 times. Using Expected Value S(0) = (13-12)/(12+1) = 1/13 = .077 S(p) = (p*(13+1) +1)/(12+1) = (14p+1)/13 In general Expected Value will compress the percentage values of assigned scores. The larger the ratio between the large field and the small, the more difference there will be. The closer a particular score is to average, the less the difference. Score Conversion While the problem of fouled boards, assigned scores and boards that have been played different numbers of times because of sitouts is an old one, a newer problem brought about by new technology is comparison of games played on radically different tops. For example, in ACBL-wide and StaC events there may be a four- or five-table game in one location, a game with multiple fifteen-table sections in another. Another situation is in large qualifying events such as at NABCs where there may be a mix of different size groups on the first day. At present the solution in the multi-site events is to compare percentages. In the qualifying events the pairs playing on the lower top are factored up on a straight percentage basis. Thus 60% on a 51 top is simply multiplied by 64/51 to convert to a 64 top. For the same reason that it is inappropriate to factor up scores on a single board, it is inappropriate to factor up scores on a set of boards or to compare percentages of games played on different tops. It makes more sense to use a formula to convert all games to, say, a 12 top, 156 average, in StaCs or ACBL-wide events, and to the highest top in use in large qualifying events. (Whether using percentage of game to adjust for the number of boards played is the correct method is not within the scope of this inquiry.) Since the formula is linear, the top conversion can be made by using the average matchpoints per board played in place of p. This conversion can make quite a lot of difference when a very low top is converted to a much higher one and the score is far away from average. It will not matter much when the tops are fairly close in ratio or the score close to average. On the other hand I have been involved in six-session pair events where fractions of a matchpoint made a difference in placement, and one matchpoint on the first day is worth about a quarter of a matchpoint on the last. Start by considering an event with three sites. At one there is a four-table Howell. The winner there scores 60 on a 42 average, 71.4% playing 28 boards with a 3 top. At the second there is a 7 table Howell, and the winner scores 107.5 on a 78 average, 68.9% playing 26 boards on a 6 top. At the third there is a 14 table Mitchell, and the winner scores 208 on a 156 average, 66.7%, playing 26 boards on a 12 top. As we currently do things 71.4% would be first, 68.9% second and 66.7% third. If the scores were all converted to a 156 average, how would they finish? Using B for the number of boards played in the higher top game, P for the score on the lower top, b for the number of boards played on the lower top, t for the old top and T for the new top, the formula becomes S(P,t,T) = B((P/b)*(T+2) + (T-t))/(t+2) S(60,3,12) = 26((60/28)*14 + (12-3))/5 = 26(30 + 9)/5 = 202.8 (65.0%) S(107.5,6,12) = 26((107.5/26)*14 + (12-6))/8 = 26(57.88 + 6)/8 = 207.6 (66.5%) Since both of these are less than 208, using "Expected Value" would make the 208 first, the 107.5 a close second and the 60 third. This table summarizes these results: Game/Average Percentages Expected Value 60/42 First Third 107.5/78 Second Second 208/156 Third First In the recent LM Pairs there were eight qualifying groups on the first day. Four of them were made up of five sections playing on a 64 top, the other four of four sections playing on a 51 top. Two of the day's top scores came out of the 51-top groups, a 1640 (61.8%) and a 1622.5 (61.2%). These were factored on percentages respectively to 2058 and 2036 on a 64 top, which placed them second and fifth in the field. If the Expected Value method had been used instead, the scores would have been adjusted as follows: S(1640,51,64) = 52((1640/52)*66 + 13)/53 = 2055 S(1622.5,51,64) = 52((1622.5/52)*66+13)/53 = 2033.2 About 3 matchpoints difference in each case. These 3 matchpoints on the first day would have become about 0.75 matchpoint in the final standings. Several rankings could have been affected by a change that small. ######## -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 30 16:31:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7U6Uwl24643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:30:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7U6UrK24639 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:30:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA08643 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:46:14 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:24:47 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] L25B in KO play To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:47:14 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 30/08/2002 04:24:18 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [big snip] >So, does it constitute TD error that he did not go on to >explain L86B? > >If it did, do we assume he would have changed his call? L12C3 >would be a great help here! > >-- >David Stevenson The normal correction for a TD error is Ave+ or +3 imps for both sides (L82C). However, as David Stevenson implies, L82C has the caveat "if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally". But, the TD using L12C3 to determine *how much* the same TD has damaged a player by a fallacious Laws explanation seems IMHO problematic. In effect, the TD is saying, "Although my stupidity in mis- explaining the Laws damaged you, your stupidity in believing me means that you are still being hit with a percentage of the damage." :-) Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 30 17:18:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7U7IAi24673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:18:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7U7I5K24669 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:18:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA18128 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:33:26 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:11:58 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas case 13 (was Appeals Summary) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:55:55 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 30/08/2002 05:11:30 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] >An attempt to penalize a pair because one member acted >out of tempo and the other took a suggested action that >turned out to be harmless is contrary to the game of >bridge that I have known for 57 years. > >You deal with the problem, if there is one, outside of >the game, not on the score sheet. > >Marv Disagree. L90B7 specifically allows a PP for violation of Law. Violating L73C (even when the OS do not benefit from the violation) is an action that should *not* be condoned by the TD. However, I agree with Marv's implication that a Laws & Ethics Committee hearing is usually more effective than a mere score adjustment. Call me Madam Lash, but as TD I would be inclined to hit a blatant L73C violator with *both* a PP and a L&EC hearing. 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 Aug 30 17:35:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7U7Ytr24686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:34:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from c3po.skynet.be (c3po.skynet.be [195.238.3.237]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7U7YnK24682 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:34:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from skynet.be (130.62-136-217.adsl.skynet.be [217.136.62.130]) by c3po.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.20) with ESMTP id g7U7Xx607505; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:33:59 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3D6F1FF4.8030002@skynet.be> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:34:12 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: hbethe@aol.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Lower tops (long) References: <00ec01c24fe2$84f2c0e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Marvin, Henry, all. Marvin L. French wrote: > If you're not intetested in this subject, you might want to hit the delete > key. > > Here is Henry Bethe's proposal for handling different tops, presenting a > clever method that looks better than Neuberg. Neuberg presumes that a > group's scores would be mirrored with a larger top, with the same > variance. Henry's method shrinks scores a bit more toward 50% than Neuberg > does, which seems right because the larger group's variance would be less > than that of the smaller group. He doesn't call it "Bethe," but I think > that would be a good name. > > Henry is not a subscriber, so please Cc to him your comments, which > he welcomes, to address hbethe@aol.com > > ###### > Expected Value, An Approach to > Fouled Boards and Score Conversions > > One of the persistent issues in scoring match point events is scoring > boards that have been played a different number of times in the fairest > manner possible. Another analogous problem is comparing session scores > achieved on one top with those achieved on another. > > An Approach - Expected Value > Matchpoints are an ordered ranking of a set of observations. Essentially > this problem is to determine how the ordered set that is known would rank > in a larger set of ordered observations. One conceptually attractive > approach is to assume that the known group was drawn at random from the > larger group. Since they are randomly drawn, all possible distributions > within the larger set are equally likely. But the best guess is that the > smaller set was equally distributed throughout the larger set. > > An equivalent problem is to determine what a new set of observations would > do to the rankings of the existing set. To do this, assume there is an > ordered group of m scores in the small group. One of those scores is the > lowest; i.e. it gets a zero when matchpoints are assigned within the small > group. What is its expected score when some number of random additional > scores is added to the group? > > If there is one added score, there are m+1 positions in the augmented > ordered group that it can occupy. One of those is the lowest, which would > give the existing lowest score one matchpoint. The other m positions leave > the existing lowest score with zero matchpoints. So the expected value of > the zero in the original group is 1 matchpoint in m+1 possibilities, or > 1/(m+1) matchpoints. I have no problems with the maths that follows, but it seems to me to be strange that one should assume so readily that each nof these m+1 positions are equally likely. Suppose I have one bottom score. what position do you give the extra score that is equal to it (0 or 1 ?) Do you really believe that it in a set of scores half +420 and half -50 that the probability of scoring +590,-100 and +170 are equal ? > > -- 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 Aug 30 19:27:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7U9QWV24766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 19:26:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout08.sul.t-online.com (mailout08.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7U9QQK24762 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 19:26:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd06.sul.t-online.de by mailout08.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17ki26-0005gk-0A; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:25:38 +0200 Received: from jurgenr (520085598528-0001@[80.128.62.154]) by fwd06.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 17ki1p-0N0smOC; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:25:21 +0200 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) To: "Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Lower tops (long) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:25:14 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <00ec01c24fe2$84f2c0e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> X-Sender: 520085598528-0001@t-dialin.net 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 Marvin L. French > Sent: Freitag, 30. August 2002 07:02 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Cc: hbethe@aol.com > Subject: [BLML] Lower tops (long) > > > If you're not intetested in this subject, you might want to hit the delete > key. > > Here is Henry Bethe's proposal for handling different tops, presenting a > clever method that looks better than Neuberg. Neuberg presumes that a > group's scores would be mirrored with a larger top, with the same > variance. Henry's method shrinks scores a bit more toward 50% than Neuberg > does, which seems right because the larger group's variance would be less > than that of the smaller group. He doesn't call it "Bethe," but I think > that would be a good name. > > Henry is not a subscriber, so please Cc to him your comments, which > he welcomes, to address hbethe@aol.com > > ###### > Expected Value, An Approach to > Fouled Boards and Score Conversions > > One of the persistent issues in scoring match point events is scoring > boards that have been played a different number of times in the fairest > manner possible. Another analogous problem is comparing session scores > achieved on one top with those achieved on another. > > An Approach - Expected Value > Matchpoints are an ordered ranking of a set of observations. Essentially > this problem is to determine how the ordered set that is known would rank > in a larger set of ordered observations. One conceptually attractive > approach is to assume that the known group was drawn at random from the > larger group. > Since they are randomly drawn, all possible distributions > within the larger set are equally likely. This is an error. > But the best guess is that the > smaller set was equally distributed throughout the larger set. Also wrong. > > An equivalent problem is to determine what a new set of observations would > do to the rankings of the existing set. To do this, assume there is an > ordered group of m scores in the small group. One of those scores is the > lowest; i.e. it gets a zero when matchpoints are assigned within the small > group. What is its expected score when some number of random additional > scores is added to the group? > > If there is one added score, there are m+1 positions in the augmented > ordered group that it can occupy. One of those is the lowest, which would > give the existing lowest score one matchpoint. The other m positions leave > the existing lowest score with zero matchpoints. So the expected value of > the zero in the original group is 1 matchpoint in m+1 possibilities, or > 1/(m+1) matchpoints. > If there are two new scores, it can be shown that there are (m+1)*(m+2)/2 > possible positions the new scores can occupy in the new group of size m+2. > One of those is the two bottom positions, in which case the old zero gets > 2 matchpoints. Another m of them have one of them in the bottom position > and the other somewhere other than the next-to-bottom, in which case the > old zero gets 1 matchpoint. So the total matchpoints the old zero might > get is m+2, and dividing that by the total number of cases, the expected > value of the old zero is (m+2)/[(m+1)(m+2)/2] which can be simplified to > 2/(m+1). > This analysis can be extended to any number of new scores, and the > expected value of the old zero is always (number of added scores)/(m+1). > If the size of the augmented group is n and the original group is m, the > number of added scores is (n-m), so this can be written as > S(0) = (n-m)/(m+1) > [Read: "the score of zero in the small set has an expected value of the > new total number of observations in the set less the number of > observations in the small set all divided by one plus the number of > observations in the small set."] > Of course the pair they were playing against had a top, and will now get > the new top, n-1, less the points that the zero gets. > That is > S(m-1) = (n-1) - (n-m)/(m+1) > = [(n-1)(m+1) - (n-m)]/(m+1) > = (nm + n - m - 1 - n + m)/(m+1) > = (nm-1)/(m+1) > The difference between the score assigned to the old top and the score > assigned to the old zero needs to be divided into m-1 (equal) segments to > space the intermediate scores. This range is > (n-1) - 2(n-m)/(m+1) > = [nm+n-m-1-2n+2m]/(m+1) > = [nm+m-n-1]/(m+1) > = [m(n+1)-(n+1)]/(m+1) > = [(m-1)(n+1)]/(m+1) > and dividing the range by (m-1) the divisions are of size (n+1)/(m+1). > More generally then > S(p) = (p(n+1) + (n-m))/(m+1) > > The Formula in Action > One interesting way to use this is to consider the re-matchpointing of a > board that is played one fewer time than other boards, as would be the > case in a game where there is a phantom pair. This would also apply when a > pair is assigned a score such as average or average plus resulting in one > fewer actual score on a board. Thus m is actually n-1. > As an example, in a 14½ table game with 13 rounds and a sitout, there are > two sets of boards that get played 13 times, thirteen sets that get played > 12 times. It is desirable for each board to carry the same weight in the > final scores, so these boards must be converted from the 11 top among the > twelve actual scores to the 12 top of the boards played 13 times. > Using Expected Value > S(0) = (13-12)/(12+1) = 1/13 = .077 > S(p) = (p*(13+1) +1)/(12+1) = (14p+1)/13 > In general Expected Value will compress the percentage values of assigned > scores. The larger the ratio between the large field and the small, the > more difference there will be. The closer a particular score is to > average, the less the difference. > > Score Conversion > While the problem of fouled boards, assigned scores and boards that have > been played different numbers of times because of sitouts is an old one, a > newer problem brought about by new technology is comparison of games > played on radically different tops. For example, in ACBL-wide and StaC > events there may be a four- or five-table game in one location, a game > with multiple fifteen-table sections in another. Another situation is in > large qualifying events such as at NABCs where there may be a mix of > different size groups on the first day. > > At present the solution in the multi-site events is to compare > percentages. In the qualifying events the pairs playing on the lower top > are factored up on a straight percentage basis. Thus 60% on a 51 top is > simply multiplied by 64/51 to convert to a 64 top. > > For the same reason that it is inappropriate to factor up scores on a > single board, it is inappropriate to factor up scores on a set of boards > or to compare percentages of games played on different tops. It makes more > sense to use a formula to convert all games to, say, a 12 top, 156 > average, in StaCs or ACBL-wide events, and to the highest top in use in > large qualifying events. > (Whether using percentage of game to adjust for the number of boards > played is the correct method is not within the scope of this inquiry.) > Since the formula is linear, the top conversion can be made by using the > average matchpoints per board played in place of p. This conversion can > make quite a lot of difference when a very low top is converted to a much > higher one and the score is far away from average. It will not matter much > when the tops are fairly close in ratio or the score close to average. On > the other hand I have been involved in six-session pair events where > fractions of a matchpoint made a difference in placement, and one > matchpoint on the first day is worth about a quarter of a matchpoint on > the last. > Start by considering an event with three sites. At one there is a > four-table Howell. The winner there scores 60 on a 42 average, 71.4% > playing 28 boards with a 3 top. At the second there is a 7 table Howell, > and the winner scores 107.5 on a 78 average, 68.9% playing 26 boards on a > 6 top. At the third there is a 14 table Mitchell, and the winner scores > 208 on a 156 average, 66.7%, playing 26 boards on a 12 top. As we > currently do things 71.4% would be first, 68.9% second and 66.7% third. If > the scores were all converted to a 156 average, how would they finish? > Using B for the number of boards played in the higher top game, P for the > score on the lower top, b for the number of boards played on the lower > top, t for the old top and T for the new top, the formula becomes > S(P,t,T) = B((P/b)*(T+2) + (T-t))/(t+2) > S(60,3,12) = 26((60/28)*14 + (12-3))/5 > = 26(30 + 9)/5 = 202.8 (65.0%) > S(107.5,6,12) = 26((107.5/26)*14 + (12-6))/8 > = 26(57.88 + 6)/8 = 207.6 (66.5%) > Since both of these are less than 208, using "Expected Value" would make > the 208 first, the 107.5 a close second and the 60 third. > > This table summarizes these results: > > Game/Average Percentages Expected Value > 60/42 First Third > 107.5/78 Second Second > 208/156 Third First > > In the recent LM Pairs there were eight qualifying groups on the first > day. Four of them were made up of five sections playing on a 64 top, the > other four of four sections playing on a 51 top. Two of the day's top > scores came out of the 51-top groups, a 1640 (61.8%) and a 1622.5 (61.2%). > These were factored on percentages respectively to 2058 and 2036 on a 64 > top, which placed them second and fifth in the field. If the Expected > Value method had been used instead, the scores would have been adjusted as > follows: > S(1640,51,64) = 52((1640/52)*66 + 13)/53 = 2055 > S(1622.5,51,64) = 52((1622.5/52)*66+13)/53 = 2033.2 > About 3 matchpoints difference in each case. These 3 matchpoints on the > first day would have become about 0.75 matchpoint in the final standings. > Several rankings could have been affected by a change that small. > ######## > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 30 21:55:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7UBt8j24839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 21:55:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7UBsoK24835 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 21:54:51 +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 NAA22972; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:51:48 +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 NAA28465; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:54:02 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020830133741.00a896c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:03:57 +0200 To: "Nigel Guthrie" , "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list In-Reply-To: <017601c24f7f$3baab7c0$1c9c68d5@SCRAP> References: <00b301c24c55$a47b9990$239c68d5@SCRAP> <005701c24d50$f0d0e6a0$1c9868d5@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 18:12 29/08/2002 +0100, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >Nigel: {Convention[ Card banning is another rule I have never heard of > being enforced. >David Stevenson: Have you called the TD in such a case? >Nigel2: (1) At the Welsh teams, The TD was called against because we had > 0-10 as a range for weak twos. The TD insisted we change this > to a narrower range. I guessed this request was ultra vires and > protested mildly before complying. Later, the TD consulted his > crib and said our original card was OK. > (2) I once called the TD against a pair whose nonstandard card made > no mention of leads, signals, or discards. The harassed TD > accepted their explanation that they had no such agreements. > Opponents messed up the defence and as I left the table, > I heard "Why didn't you switch to hearts, when I asked you." AG : I would have called the TD back and asked the player to repeat this sentence. > (3) Often, at national events, a pair has only one card, having > mislaid the other, but IMO it would be churlish to call the TD. AG : since only one opponent at a time is allowed to look at it (we agreed on this defore), I don't see how it could deprive them of any of their rights. Making procedings slightly cumbersome isn't a very serious offence (though it is one, to L74A2). > (4) I have never heard of anybody else ever calling the TD > to object to a faulty or missing card. If they did it would be > surprising if the TD forced the offenders to play "simple system" > AG : if the card is obviously too scarcely filled, I suppose this is the TD's prerogative. For specific blanks, which could be inadvertant, I suppose MI could apply in many cases. I have more than once remarked to the opponents that their cards were incomplete and suggested them to fill the gaps, or that they had wrongly understood the way they should fill it (eg mentioning *their* preemptive bids in the box 'vs preemptive openings' ; not everybody knows what 'vs' stands for). When such a thing happens, calling them 'offenders' seems wrong. I just corrected a mistake on my own CC, where it was said that (1C)-2D meant 5 H plus 4 H ... (it should have been 5 H plus 4 S). _Errare humanulm est_ . However, if after being asked by the TD to put their CC in proper form, the players do not comply in a reasonable amount of time (say, for the next session), they might be deemed to voluntary conceal information and asked to play the local standard system. Best regards, Alain . >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 21/08/2002 > >-- >======================================================================== >(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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 30 22:10:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7UC9vT24906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 22:09:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7UC9pK24902 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 22:09:51 +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 OAA27765; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:06:47 +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 OAA11259; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:08:59 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020830140809.00a792d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:18:49 +0200 To: "John (MadDog) Probst" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] penalty card, or is it? In-Reply-To: References: <2rXDKDCN8gb9EwQT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <90A058367F88D6119867005004546915A5FD@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> <2rXDKDCN8gb9EwQT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 00:23 30/08/2002 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >72b1. if I mumble something which causes my RHO to lead out of turn >then I should expect to get shot. Of course I could have known that >saying "It's your lead" to RHO will fetch an adjustment. I could also >have known that mumbling something which causes him to lead out of turn >will have the same effect. I'm quite happy for the guy *to* lead out of >turn, he may get a better score as a result. AG : if RHO asks 'my lead ?', and simultaneously partner asks 'did you get your coffee ?', and I answer 'yes' to the latter question, would you apply L72B1 ? Dont think this is only a rhetorical question. I know of one occurrence where RHO asked, would-be-declarer stretched the hand out to reach his (eye)glasses, and RHO took this gesture as meaning 'please do'. The TD decided that there would be no penalty and restricted declarer's options to L54A and B, and that if the lead was impossible from the other side, he reserved the possibility to adjust the score. I don't see any Lawful ground for this decision, except for the most important of all : equity. To cut it short, he decided that no one was responsible for the problem. 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 Aug 30 23:34:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7UDWpt25012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:32:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7UDWkK25008 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:32:46 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 179FE48818; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:31:59 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020828163428.00b2dd20@pop.starpower.net> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:31:49 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas case 13 Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 1:17 PM +0100 8/29/02, David Stevenson wrote: >It seems to me that Howard's approach is wrong, since to hesitate is >not an infraction, even though it may be an irregularity. 1. Remember that this is Howard's approach as described by me -- it's possible I have it wrong. 2. 12c2 begin "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, ..." It refers to an irregularity, not an infraction. I agree that Howard's approach is wrong, but I believe the text could be read to support it. -- 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 Sat Aug 31 04:38:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7UIaXh25176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 04:36:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7UIaSK25172 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 04:36:28 +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 17kqcM-0002lP-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 19:35:40 +0100 Message-ID: <0exTnaHXo0b9EwSA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:33:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25B in KO play 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 writes > >[big snip] > >>So, does it constitute TD error that he did not go on to >>explain L86B? >> >>If it did, do we assume he would have changed his call? L12C3 >>would be a great help here! >The normal correction for a TD error is Ave+ or +3 imps for both >sides (L82C). No, it isn't. Read L82C again. It does not refer to an ArtAS: it just refers to an adjusted score. That takes you to L12, and thus to an assigned score if there has been a result on the board. it is bad directing to give Ave+ to both sides after a Director error - in fact it is a further Director error. >However, as David Stevenson implies, L82C has the caveat "if no >rectification will allow the board to be scored normally". > >But, the TD using L12C3 to determine *how much* the same TD has >damaged a player by a fallacious Laws explanation seems IMHO >problematic. > >In effect, the TD is saying, "Although my stupidity in mis- >explaining the Laws damaged you, your stupidity in believing me >means that you are still being hit with a percentage of the >damage." :-) Far, far, far better than your approach which says "Although my stupidity in mis-explaining the Laws damaged you, I am not prepared to make it good, but am doing a random adjustment in defiance of the laws which might in extreme cases damage you still further." -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 31 04:45:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7UIjNV25193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 04:45:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from MAIL32.hq.webvisie.net ([213.35.62.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7UIjDK25189 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 04:45:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.35.63.116] by MAIL32.hq.webvisie.net (NTMail 5.06.0016/NT8786.00.43305088) with ESMTP id mljcabaa for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:44:19 +0200 Message-ID: <001e01c25055$3d703040$743f23d5@cornelis> From: "Tom Cornelis" To: Subject: [BLML] half tables Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:44:05 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001B_01C25065.FB4ECE40" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C25065.FB4ECE40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, I'm having trouble finding a good title for this thread. I'm suggesting a manner to organize play in a more ethical way. This is how it works: Player A1 and A2 have to play against player B1 and B2, presumably at a = high level competition. Player A1 and B1 are seated North and East at one table (e.g. table 1A), = and A2 and B2 South and West at another (table 1B). At table 1A, South = and West are 'duplicators', i.e. they duplicate the bidding and play of = South and West at table 1B. At table 1B, North and East are duplicators. = Some technical equipment must be provided to ensure fast communication = between the two tables. A monitor as in a view-graph room should be = present to fulfill this requirement. The main disadvantage of this = system is the delay in play. In bidding, the delay will be negligible. = Even so, the overall delay won't be that big. The duplicators have the advantage that they can see expert players = play. So the cost for them should be minimal. Of course, twice the = number of tables and chairs would be needed. That's why I think this = method should only be used for high level competitions. (e.g. Bermuda Bowl quarter finals). The advantage is clear: players won't have the view of their partners = and UI will be minimized (also in play, when the thinking is occurring = at the non-dummy side). Calls and plays should be relayed only when both players at the same = table have made a call or play. It would work more or less in the same fashion as a view-graph. Instead of duplicators, one could use computers for displaying and = relaying calls and plays, operated by an operator. What's your opinion on this matter? Best regards, Tom. ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C25065.FB4ECE40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,
 
I'm having trouble finding a good title = for this=20 thread.
I'm suggesting a manner to organize = play in a more=20 ethical way.
 
This is how it works:
Player A1 and A2 have to play against = player B1 and=20 B2, presumably at a high level competition.
Player A1 and B1 are=20 seated North and East at one table (e.g. table 1A), and A2 and B2 South = and West=20 at another (table 1B).  At table 1A, South and West are = 'duplicators', i.e.=20 they duplicate the bidding and play of South and West at table 1B. At = table 1B,=20 North and East are duplicators. Some technical equipment must be = provided=20 to ensure fast communication between the two tables. A monitor as in a=20 view-graph room should be present to fulfill this requirement. The main=20 disadvantage of this system is the delay in play. In bidding, the delay = will be=20 negligible. Even so, the overall delay won't be that big.
The duplicators have the advantage that = they can=20 see expert players play. So the cost for them should be minimal. Of = course,=20 twice the number of tables and chairs would be needed. That's why I = think this=20 method should only be used for high level competitions.
(e.g. Bermuda Bowl quarter = finals).
The = advantage is=20 clear: players won't have the view of their partners and UI will be = minimized=20 (also in play, when the thinking is occurring at the non-dummy=20 side).
Calls and plays should be relayed only = when both=20 players at the same table have made a call or play.
It would work more or less in = the same=20 fashion as a view-graph.
Instead of duplicators, one could use = computers for=20 displaying and relaying calls and plays, operated by an = operator.
What's your opinion on this = matter?
 
Best regards,
 
Tom.
------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C25065.FB4ECE40-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 31 05:47:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7UJktF25249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 05:46:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from exch01.minfod.com (exchange.minfod.com [207.227.70.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7UJkkK25245 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 05:46:51 +1000 (EST) Received: by al21.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:54:57 -0500 Message-ID: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD223D@al21.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au '" Subject: RE: [BLML] half tables Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:54:57 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sounds like an extension of what happens when playing with screens. Take it a step further using computers. Only show a player the bids and plays of the other three players when it becomes his turn to play. There will still be times when it is clear that it was your partners hesitation that accounts for the long time between between your turns. -----Original Message----- From: Tom Cornelis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sent: 8/30/02 1:44 PM Subject: [BLML] half tables Hi all, I'm having trouble finding a good title for this thread. I'm suggesting a manner to organize play in a more ethical way. This is how it works: Player A1 and A2 have to play against player B1 and B2, presumably at a high level competition. Player A1 and B1 are seated North and East at one table (e.g. table 1A), and A2 and B2 South and West at another (table 1B). At table 1A, South and West are 'duplicators', i.e. they duplicate the bidding and play of South and West at table 1B. At table 1B, North and East are duplicators. Some technical equipment must be provided to ensure fast communication between the two tables. A monitor as in a view-graph room should be present to fulfill this requirement. The main disadvantage of this system is the delay in play. In bidding, the delay will be negligible. Even so, the overall delay won't be that big. The duplicators have the advantage that they can see expert players play. So the cost for them should be minimal. Of course, twice the number of tables and chairs would be needed. That's why I think this method should only be used for high level competitions. (e.g. Bermuda Bowl quarter finals). The advantage is clear: players won't have the view of their partners and UI will be minimized (also in play, when the thinking is occurring at the non-dummy side). Calls and plays should be relayed only when both players at the same table have made a call or play. It would work more or less in the same fashion as a view-graph. Instead of duplicators, one could use computers for displaying and relaying calls and plays, operated by an operator. What's your opinion on this matter? Best regards, Tom. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 31 06:11:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7UKB1625269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 06:11:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7UKAtK25263 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 06:10:56 +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 17ks5l-0001ix-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 21:10:07 +0100 Message-ID: <+XbBFIA$W8b9EwSD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:21:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas case 13 References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020828163428.00b2dd20@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 Adam Wildavsky writes >At 1:17 PM +0100 8/29/02, David Stevenson wrote: >>It seems to me that Howard's approach is wrong, since to hesitate is >>not an infraction, even though it may be an irregularity. > >1. Remember that this is Howard's approach as described by me -- it's >possible I have it wrong. > >2. 12c2 begin "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in >place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, ..." It >refers to an irregularity, not an infraction. I agree that Howard's >approach is wrong, but I believe the text could be read to support it. L12C2 does not tell you that you should assign an adjusted score, but how to do so. In a UI case, there has to have been an infraction and another Law applies [16 or 73] that sends the TD to this 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 Sat Aug 31 07:35:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7ULYR525311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 07:34:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7ULYMK25307 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 07:34:22 +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 RAA19148 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:33:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA20038 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:33:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:33:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200208302133.RAA20038@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > It is not what the WBFLC said, and repeating this does not strengthen > your argument. > > They have never said that you may look at your CC when it is not your > turn to bid or play. Nor have I ever said that they said any such thing. David, you don't like it when people misquote you. Please try to be more careful about misquoting others. The Lille minute seems to be on your Laws page, but it is in a format that I cannot easily download at the moment. Perhaps you would care to post the exact quote. The essence of what they said is that there are three categories: permitted, prohibited, and extraneous. Looking at your opponents' CC can be in any of these categories, depending on timing and circumstances. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 31 08:01:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7UM1M525336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:01:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7UM1HK25332 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:01:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7UM0V529506 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:00:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002701c25070$bdbaf260$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Las Vegas case (was Appeals Summary) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:35:04 -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 Richard Hills: > > [snip] > > >An attempt to penalize a pair because one member acted > >out of tempo and the other took a suggested action that > >turned out to be harmless is contrary to the game of > >bridge that I have known for 57 years. > > > >You deal with the problem, if there is one, outside of > >the game, not on the score sheet. > > > >Marv > > Disagree. L90B7 specifically allows a PP for violation > of Law. Violating L73C (even when the OS do not benefit > from the violation) is an action that should *not* be > condoned by the TD. What a colossal stretch!! > L90B7 7. Errors in Procedure errors in procedure (such as failure to count cards in one's hand, playing the wrong board, etc.) that require an adjusted score fo any contestant. And you interpret the "etc." to cover any violation of the Laws whatsoever. They even included in L90B7 a parenthetical statement to explain the sort of thing meant by it, just as L90B itself was meant to explain the intent of L90A. When the rules of duplicate bridge were first written, it was realized that the rubber bridge laws did not cover procedures that are peculiar to duplicate. So, they added PPs for violating procedures such as those listed in L90B, with an implied "or the like." Power-hungry TDs have taken the words "violates correct procedure" and "not limited to" to give themselves carte blanche to use PPs for actions that have nothing to do with duplicate bridge, feeling that the Laws do not penalize wrongdoers sufficiently on the score sheet. PPs have been in the Laws since the early 30s, but in my experience (ACBL-land) were not used in this manner until the 90s. One wonders why. Note to the WBFLC: Change L90 to read "...may also assess penalties for any offense whatsoever," since that has become the interpretation. >From The Scope of the Laws: The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage. Except for egregious offenses that are covered by L91 (e.g., Zero Tolerance crimes, drunkenness), offenses that do not affect the game (e.g., no-damage MI) should be handled outside of the game, not on the score sheet. I have had a monograph regarding this subject on my "to do" list for many years. I'll have to finish it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 31 09:57:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7UNusY25385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 09:56:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7UNunK25381 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 09:56:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7UNu2504472 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:56:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <009301c25080$e19b9120$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <00b301c24c55$a47b9990$239c68d5@SCRAP> <005701c24d50$f0d0e6a0$1c9868d5@SCRAP> <5.1.0.14.0.20020830133741.00a896c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Wish list Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:38:58 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > > (3) Often, at national events, a pair has only one card, having > > mislaid the other, but IMO it would be churlish to call the TD. > > AG : since only one opponent at a time is allowed to look at it (we agreed > on this defore), I don't see how it could deprive them of any of their > rights. Making procedings slightly cumbersome isn't a very serious offence > (though it is one, to L74A2). > I for one want to see an opposing CC on my side of the table, in plain sight, oriented in my direction. That way I can glance at it during the play to get some information that is of interest to me at the moment, without calling attention to my interest. That avoids UI to partner and AI to the opponents. Alice and I have a rule that we glance at the opposing CC whenever an unAlerted/unAnnounced call is made that has its meaning shown on the CC. No UI, no AI, but most opponents will not give us the option of doing that, as they are required to do. The alternative is to ask, "May I see your convention card?" after every such call, but that is cumbersome. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 31 10:27:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7V0Qxn25416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:26:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7V0QsK25412 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:26:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin2 (dt054n1c.san.rr.com [24.30.152.28]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g7V0Q7514577 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:26:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <009e01c25085$15389f60$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200208302133.RAA20038@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy asks defender about revoke Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:14:22 -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 Steve Willner wrote: > The Lille minute seems to be on your Laws page, but it is in a format > that I cannot easily download at the moment. Perhaps you would care to > post the exact quote. > > The essence of what they said is that there are three categories: > permitted, prohibited, and extraneous. Looking at your opponents' CC > can be in any of these categories, depending on timing and > circumstances. Steve, you should find and quote such things accurately. You are referring to item 7 of the Lille meeting, which reads: ####### The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. [e.g., looking at an opposing CC when not one's turn to call or play - mlf] The Committee ruled that this was not so; [Now that's enough for this thread, but the minutes went on to add a reference to unauthorized information that results, as follows - mlf] the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or in the play. ########## Other actions even if not expressly forbidden are not legitimate, Steve. The three categories are authorized, expressly forbidden, and illegitimate. Illegitimate means you can't do it. Just because using "information deriving from it" may be deemed an infraction of law doesn't mean that the action itself is not an infraction. Say I grab the opposing CC when it's Alice's turn to call. I get slapped with a PP, I hope, but that's not the end of it. If Alice appears to have used the UI from that action, it "may be deemed an infracion of law." "What is not authorized is not permitted" 10 to 1 it was Steve's BLML discussions that led Grattan to bring up item 7. :-)) Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 31 21:00:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g7VAxjq25710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 20:59:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g7VAxeK25706 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 20:59:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.92.67.23] (helo=mail18.svr.pol.co.uk) by cmailm1.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17l5xr-0006RA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 11:58:51 +0100 Received: from modem-216.blue-angel.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.234.216] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17l5xi-0000dj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 11:58:48 +0100 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17162; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 11:59:02 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: hbethe@aol.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Lower tops (long) References: <00ec01c24fe2$84f2c0e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 31 Aug 2002 11:58:07 +0100 In-Reply-To: "Marvin L. French"'s message of "Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:02:17 -0700" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 77 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" writes: > Here is Henry Bethe's proposal for handling different tops, presenting a > clever method that looks better than Neuberg. Neuberg presumes that a > group's scores would be mirrored with a larger top, with the same > variance. Henry's method shrinks scores a bit more toward 50% than Neuberg > does, which seems right because the larger group's variance would be less > than that of the smaller group. He doesn't call it "Bethe," but I think > that would be a good name. This method gives a "60% pair" (i.e., a pair who would score 60% on average in a large field) an average score of 56% in a 4-table movement (chosen at random from the large field). This compares with 57.5% for Neuberg/Ascherman, and 60% for "no scaling". The valid reason for applying a formula such as Neuberg (or "Bethe") is that in a smaller field the scores have a larger variance, and so you are more likely to score a lot more (or a lot less) than your average, and so are usually more likely to get a winning percentage without scaling. However, I think that it's clear that we're never going to decide from first principles what the appropriate scaling method is. This depends on a multitude of factors, many of which can only be estimated by experiment, and anyway will vary from event to event. For example (these are just a few that come to mind): The distribution of abilities of the players. The style of the players (do they adopt a "high variance" style?). The number of boards that you are scaling. Also, the best scaling method will depend on what exactly we are trying to achieve. For example: Choosing the winner fairly. Running a qualification event (in which case, do we want to: be as fair as possible to the better pairs, who may win the final? be as fair as possible to the pairs who are borderline qualifiers?) Assigning percentages fairly to go onto some kind of ladder. And, of course, "fairly" isn't a well-defined term. Worse still, being fair to one kind of player may involve being unfair to another kind. For example, if you are scaling the scores in a multi-section event with different sized sections, then a formula like Neuberg or "Bethe" may give average players in two different sections roughly equal chances of being lucky enough to win, but will penalize superstars in smaller sections, who don't need to be so lucky to win. > More generally then > S(p) = (p(n+1) + (n-m))/(m+1) Incidentally, as with Neuberg, this formula looks simpler if you express it in terms of the effect on the difference of a percentage from 50%, which it just multiplies by a factor of (n+1)(m-1) ---------- (m+1)(n-1) compared with n(m-1) ------ m(n-1) for Neuberg. Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/