From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 2 20:25:34 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA08693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jun 1996 20:25:34 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA08688 for ; Sun, 2 Jun 1996 20:25:26 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ab26232; 2 Jun 96 11:25 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa29114; 2 Jun 96 11:25 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 10:53:15 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: Liz Stevenson Subject: Test MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Where did everyone go? Has something gone wrong or has no-one anything to say? I'll write a proper article in a day or so but I have received nothing for a couple of days. If this comes back I shall be reassured: if not, then, where's the black hole? Cheers David -- Who's nicked my sig? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 3 04:46:28 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 04:46:28 +1000 Received: from emout14.mail.aol.com (emout14.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA17920 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 04:46:22 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout14.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA26422 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 2 Jun 1996 14:45:49 -0400 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 14:45:49 -0400 Message-ID: <960602144548_208869566@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Test Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems like other things take precedence on the weekend, David. I suppose it's possible that we all realize that we are now in total agreement on every issue so there is nothing further to discuss. NOT! I'll bet we are inundated come tomorrow. Take care, Alan. Alan LeBendig, Los Angeles (310)312-8899 Phone (310)312-8779 Fax From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 3 08:52:57 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 08:52:57 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA23887 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 08:52:45 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ap03610; 2 Jun 96 23:51 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa20848; 2 Jun 96 22:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 21:47:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Test In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Liz Stevenson writes > Where did everyone go? Has something gone wrong or has no-one >anything to say? I'll write a proper article in a day or so but I have >received nothing for a couple of days. > > If this comes back I shall be reassured: if not, then, where's the >black hole? > >Cheers David Well, it came back, but why did I use my wife's sig? Brain like mush, I expect. Be posting soon. -- Who's nicked my sig? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 5 08:04:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 08:04:45 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA00370 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 08:04:37 +1000 Received: from aarh4.pip.dknet.dk (aarh4.pip.dknet.dk [194.192.0.100]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA16990; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 00:04:27 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: Bridge Laws List Cc: Pernille Jakobsen Subject: Reports of possibly unethical actions Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 00:04:28 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <31b4b24b.6848737@pipmail.dknet.dk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I (and the Danish Bridge Federation) would like to know how other national bridge organizations out there handle reports from TDs of possibly unethical actions; i.e., reports of actions which do not necessarily indicate cheating, but which might do so if the actions were repeated by the same people. When I say "handle", I primarily mean handle in the physical way. Though it might seem obvious to just put such reports in a computer, we in Denmark at least have to find a way to not violate laws that restrict the keeping of computer files with personal information. Is this the case in other countries as well? if so, how do you keep information about possibly unethical behaviour? -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 5 21:02:13 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 21:02:13 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA04050 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 21:02:02 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ai19596; 5 Jun 96 11:54 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa04506; 5 Jun 96 11:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:33:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Reports of possibly unethical actions In-Reply-To: <31b4b24b.6848737@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <31b4b24b.6848737@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes >I (and the Danish Bridge Federation) would like to know how other >national bridge organizations out there handle reports from TDs of >possibly unethical actions; i.e., reports of actions which do not >necessarily indicate cheating, but which might do so if the actions >were repeated by the same people. > >When I say "handle", I primarily mean handle in the physical way. >Though it might seem obvious to just put such reports in a computer, >we in Denmark at least have to find a way to not violate laws that >restrict the keeping of computer files with personal information. Is >this the case in other countries as well? if so, how do you keep >information about possibly unethical behaviour? I am afraid we have a piece of paper in a file in a filing cabinet! If our Laws & Ethics committee wish to see them then photocopies will appear. In effect, Sandra Claridge, our L&EC Secretary, looks after them, and that makes them safe. It is not entirely obvious to me what it is that you wish to put in a computer. The main thing that appear in people's records are (a) complaints from someone else and (b) reports of hands from TDs. Both of those will normally be on pieces of paper originally and I should be most unhappy when serving on the L&EC to see a transcript rather than the original, or a photocopy thereof. Of course, in time, a few complaints and reports may come via electronic mail, but until that is the norm, I would still think that printing them out is correct. In England the laws on keeping personal information are much weaker when it is on paper than on computer so I do not think we have any difficulty. So there is the English solution: put it on paper! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 5 23:15:42 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 23:15:42 +1000 Received: from emout13.mail.aol.com (emout13.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA04633 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 23:15:37 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout13.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07114 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 09:15:04 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 09:15:04 -0400 Message-ID: <960605091504_407689739@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Reports of possibly unethical actions Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-06-04 18:10:34 EDT, Jesper writes: >When I say "handle", I primarily mean handle in the physical way. >Though it might seem obvious to just put such reports in a computer, >we in Denmark at least have to find a way to not violate laws that >restrict the keeping of computer files with personal information. Is >this the case in other countries as well? if so, how do you keep >information about possibly unethical behaviour? That is handled by our Recorder system. Any suspicions by any players are submitted on a Player Memo which goes directly to the Recorder. These may also be submitted by a TD. When the Recorder gets a PM he investigates it to verify facts and to get any additional evidence from the party charged. If he finds the charges to be inaccurate or unfounded it will be destroyed. If he finds that there is some reason to be suspicious, he will start a file on the player/pair involved or add it to an existing file. If it is felt that it deserves immediate attention the Recorder may call for a Conduct and Ethics Committee which is how we deal with problems of this nature. We have already tried several pairs of ethics violations and convicted them based on an accumulation of PMs. These may have accumulated for a few years. It is rare that any one hand is evidence of cheating, as we all know. However, when you have recurring themes over a period of time, we have determined that an accumulation of circumstantial evidence is sufficient to judge a pair. These cases are usually handled by our Ethical Oversight Committee which was established for exactly that purpose. I have prosecuted four pairs for cheating based on an accumulation of evidence and each pair has been convicted. A very important function of the Recorder is to educate players when they think something has happened and it hasn't. It is critical that the Recorder get back to each complainant and notify them of the disposition of their PM. It takes a very special person(s) to do this job well. Their files must be kept closed unless further action is required. As this system has expanded, players have gotten better about putting their suspicions in writing rather than gossip about it. I have explained time and time again that telling someone about it will never do any good. It must be in writing. I hope that answers your question, Jesper. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 5 23:37:40 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 23:37:40 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA04784 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 23:37:34 +1000 Received: from JESPER (cph61.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.61]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA14351; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 15:37:27 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: Pernille Jakobsen Subject: Re: Reports of possibly unethical actions Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 15:37:28 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <31b584a9.1361167@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David, Thanks for your answer; that is precisely the kind of answer I was looking for. On Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:33:49 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > In England the laws on keeping personal information are much weaker >when it is on paper than on computer so I do not think we have any >difficulty. That is also the case in Denmark. > So there is the English solution: put it on paper! And that will probably have to be our solution also. I agree that the original paper is important to keep; what might be nice to have in a computer is primarily records of the existence of the original paper (and theoretically, perhaps also a picture of the paper). -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 00:45:31 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 00:45:31 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA07936 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 00:45:24 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA03523 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 10:45:20 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 10:45:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Reports of possibly unethical actions In-Reply-To: <31b584a9.1361167@pipmail.dknet.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > On Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:33:49 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: > > In England the laws on keeping personal information are much weaker > >when it is on paper than on computer so I do not think we have any > >difficulty. > > That is also the case in Denmark. > > > So there is the English solution: put it on paper! > > And that will probably have to be our solution also. > > I agree that the original paper is important to keep; what might be > nice to have in a computer is primarily records of the existence of > the original paper (and theoretically, perhaps also a picture of the > paper). I don't claim to know anything about Danish computer law, but surely if it is legal to have personal information of this sort stored on paper but not in computer storage, it must be legal to have a computer-stored index to the paper documents. Such an index would contain no personal information that could be compromised, which is presumably the point of the distinction between paper and computer storage. I can see where storing a picture of the paper might be illegal, but can't see how storing a record of its existence would be. I'd be interested in learning more about this. /eric Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 01:08:52 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA08140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 01:08:52 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA08135 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 01:08:45 +1000 Received: from JESPER (cph6.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.6]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA16825; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 17:08:37 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Cc: Pernille Jakobsen Subject: Re: Reports of possibly unethical actions Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 17:08:38 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <31b5a18d.8757402@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 5 Jun 1996 10:45:20 -0400 (EDT), Eric Landau wrote: >I don't claim to know anything about Danish computer law, but surely if it >is legal to have personal information of this sort stored on paper but not >in computer storage, it must be legal to have a computer-stored index to >the paper documents. Such an index would contain no personal information >that could be compromised, which is presumably the point of the >distinction between paper and computer storage. I can see where storing a >picture of the paper might be illegal, but can't see how storing a record >of its existence would be. I'd be interested in learning more about this. >/eric I have to admit that I don't know much about these laws. There is definite risk that I will get to know them before we've determined what to do about reports in the future, and I will certainly get back to you at that time. The difference between paper and computer files is that it is easier to find the information with the computer. It does not seem unnatural to me to forbid using computer indexes to find sensitive personal data on paper. In addition, the computer file will normally contain _some_ data about the contents of the paper (such as "report of incident in Danish championships 1996"); if it didn't, it would not be very useful. -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 04:36:49 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 04:36:49 +1000 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.177.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA10479 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 04:36:43 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.102.7]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA08336 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:36:06 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id LAA06609; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:42:05 -0700 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:42:05 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199606051842.LAA06609@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: cheating Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Moving along a tangent from "possibly unethical" to "known cheats," I have been musing about a judgment question: once an organization determines that a player or pair is cheating, ought the organization publicize the results? The ACBL has chosen not to. They try to keep all cheating incidents as secret as possible. I believe the opposite. I think cheating ought to be brought out into the open and dealt with in public. There is no worse punitive measure than to let everyone know that someone is a cheat. I think such action will be the strongest deterrent there is; permanent expulsion just doesn't seem to be an adequate deterrent. After all, at least in the ACBL, it isn't permanent. American baseball had a big problem with cheating about 75 years ago. Until then, their method of handling such things was to keep everything secret. That turned out not to work for them; the throwing of the world series was just the culmination of a series of events, not an isolated case. Baseball chose then to stop hiding it, to make everything public. At the same time, they instituted a mechanism for handling such problems and a central authority who could punish offenders, so it's not possible to infer from their experience if openness about cheating was the main deterrent. We do know that the incidence rate of cheating in baseball immediately went from very common to very rare. (As far as I know, there have been no cases of cheating at the level of throwing games since then. There are lesser cheats, like corked bats and spitballs, but those are not handled well, in my opinion. Oh, and recently, the central authority has been removed.) It's quite possible that a 5-year suspension from baseball is the deterrent; that effectively ends a player's career. In bridge, that is not the case. As I see it, the pros and cons of being open about cheating cases are: Pros: it's a huge deterrent. When a conviction occurs, those who believe that there is cheating feel as if bridge organizations are doing something to keep clean. Cons: mistakes cannot be corrected; overt apology will not restore someone's reputation. Folks who belive that there is no cheating in bridge will become disabused of that notion. It's bad publicity for the world to hear that people cheat at cards. (No, really? C'mon...:)) I want to be quite clear, by the way, that this question applies only to *convicted* cheats. Unsubstantiated accusations must still not be tolerated. I suspect that the latter will be reduced by the availability of real cheats for those who want to talk about cheating. I'm not sure, but if that's so, it's a plus for openness. What are your organizations' experiences/choices? How do you feel about this topic? --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 04:50:42 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 04:50:42 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA12565 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 04:49:58 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aa26749; 5 Jun 96 18:39 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa03426; 5 Jun 96 19:31 +0100 Message-ID: <+r5H1QAPwYtxEwQv@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 14:30:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: An easy one! MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The bidding was simple: N E S W 1H NB 1S 2C 2H NB 2S 3C 3C Oh dear, an insufficient bid. Over to you: how do you rule? [North- South have an agreement that *any* bid of an opponents suit below 3NT says "Have you a stopper in this suit? If so then bid 3NT.] It's nice to have an easy one for a change, isn't it? Located the lost sig as you can see. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 05:03:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 05:03:36 +1000 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.177.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA14687 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 05:03:31 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.102.7]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id MAA08596 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 12:02:58 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id MAA06648; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 12:08:58 -0700 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 12:08:58 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199606051908.MAA06648@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ | The bidding was simple: | | N E S W | 1H NB 1S 2C | 2H NB 2S 3C | 3C | | Oh dear, an insufficient bid. Over to you: how do you rule? [North- |South have an agreement that *any* bid of an opponents suit below 3NT |says "Have you a stopper in this suit? If so then bid 3NT.] | | It's nice to have an easy one for a change, isn't it? First, ask East if he wishes to accept 3C. He won't, of course. Then, tell North he can substitute any non-double call for 3C, but South will be barred. Let him choose. Let the bidding end normally. Then look at North's hand and decide if he could have known that forcing partner to pass caused damage to E/W, If so, and if it did damage them, adjust the score. There might be circumstances that might change the ruling: do we think North did this intentionally? Could 3C have been meant as natural, North's not hearing 2C or 3C? This is too easy...there must be a catch. --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 05:35:16 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA17068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 05:35:16 +1000 Received: from mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk (mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA17063 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 05:35:09 +1000 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Wed, 5 Jun 1996 20:34:00 +0100 Received: from isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk (isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk [147.150.219.16]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id UAA07262 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 20:29:22 +0100 Received: by isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <31B5EE3D@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Wed, 05 Jun 96 20:29:49 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Reports of possibly unethical actions Date: Wed, 05 Jun 96 20:23:00 GMT Message-ID: <31B5EE3D@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 31 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: I (and the Danish Bridge Federation) would like to know how other national bridge organizations out there handle reports from TDs of possibly unethical actions; i.e., reports of actions which do not necessarily indicate cheating, but which might do so if the actions were repeated by the same people. When I say "handle", I primarily mean handle in the physical way. Though it might seem obvious to just put such reports in a computer, we in Denmark at least have to find a way to not violate laws that restrict the keeping of computer files with personal information. Is this the case in other countries as well? if so, how do you keep information about possibly unethical behaviour? Our practice in England is to keep records of psychic bids and "unusual" sequences in paper form. These are reviewed from time to time, as are all our appeals committee decisions. Should a pattern of bidding be detected which appears to indicate partnership agreements contrary to Law 40, the pair is asked to satisfy us that no such agreement in fact exists. This procedure is not used very often - in the vast majority of cases, a gentle semi-official warning suffices. We also have laws about what we can keep on computers. Fortunately, we don't know how to use computers, so these laws do not affect us. David Burn dburn@lnhdent.agw.bt.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 6 06:24:32 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 06:24:32 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA17236 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 06:24:26 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp41.monmouth.com [205.164.220.73]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA23000 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 16:20:04 -0400 Message-Id: <199606052020.QAA23000@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 16:22:49 +0000 Subject: Re: Easy one X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > >From David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ > > | The bidding was simple: > | > | N E S W > | 1H NB 1S 2C > | 2H NB 2S 3C > | 3C > | > | Oh dear, an insufficient bid. Over to you: how do you rule? [North- > |South have an agreement that *any* bid of an opponents suit below 3NT > |says "Have you a stopper in this suit? If so then bid 3NT.] > | > | It's nice to have an easy one for a change, isn't it? > > First, ask East if he wishes to accept 3C. He won't, of course. > Then, tell North he can substitute any non-double call for 3C, > but South will be barred. Let him choose. Let the bidding > end normally. Then look at North's hand After the play, of course. >and decide if he could > have known that forcing partner to pass caused damage to E/W, > If so, and if it did damage them, adjust the score. There might > be circumstances that might change the ruling: do we think North > did this intentionally? Could 3C have been meant as natural, > North's not hearing 2C or 3C? > You forgot to mention lead penalties, should NS end up on defense. > This is too easy...there must be a catch. What happened, David? Did North choose a bid that happened to be the right contract that the field wasn't getting to, or did he right-side the 3NT, and E-W said that they had been damaged by the irregularity? Did North pass and set 3C a lot of tricks when N-S couldn't make anything? Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 7 06:22:39 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA09903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 06:22:39 +1000 Received: from mail.hamburg.netsurf.de (root@trance.isys.net [194.64.236.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA09896 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 06:22:27 +1000 Received: from mail.isys.net[193.96.224.33] by mail.hamburg.netsurf.de with smtp (/\==/\ Smail3.1.28.1 #28.1); id m0uRlU0-000PDJC; Thu, 6 Jun 96 22:16 GMT+0200 Received: from meckwell.local.net by mail.isys.net with smtp (/\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.6); id ; Thu, 6 Jun 96 22:14 MESZ Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 22:21:40 +0100 (GMT+0100) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell.local.net Reply-To: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: An easy one! In-Reply-To: <+r5H1QAPwYtxEwQv@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, David Stevenson wrote: > The bidding was simple: > > N E S W > 1H NB 1S 2C > 2H NB 2S 3C > 3C > > Oh dear, an insufficient bid. Over to you: how do you rule? [North- > South have an agreement that *any* bid of an opponents suit below 3NT > says "Have you a stopper in this suit? If so then bid 3NT.] 1) East gets the option to accept 3C. If not, then we turn to 27B. 2) The 3C bid is conventional, so 27B2 applies, N may bid whatever he likes but his partner is barred. 3) If E/W end up playing the hand, then 26 applies, for clubs. The withdrawn call referred to that suit, though I'm not sure if the lawmakers have realized that when they wrote 26. 4) After the hand is over, check if 23A applies. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de (home) henk@desy.de (work) WWW: http://zow00.desy.de:8000/~uijter/TOP.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 7 11:29:09 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 11:29:09 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA12300 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 11:28:40 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ab19570; 6 Jun 96 20:05 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa22193; 6 Jun 96 18:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 17:08:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: cheating In-Reply-To: <199606051842.LAA06609@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199606051842.LAA06609@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV>, Jeff Goldsmith writes >Moving along a tangent from "possibly unethical" to >"known cheats," I have been musing about a judgment >question: once an organization determines that a >player or pair is cheating, ought the organization >publicize the results? > >The ACBL has chosen not to. They try to keep all >cheating incidents as secret as possible. > >I believe the opposite. I think cheating ought to >be brought out into the open and dealt with in public. >There is no worse punitive measure than to let everyone >know that someone is a cheat. I think such action will >be the strongest deterrent there is; permanent expulsion >just doesn't seem to be an adequate deterrent. After >all, at least in the ACBL, it isn't permanent. > >American baseball had a big problem with cheating about >75 years ago. Until then, their method of handling such >things was to keep everything secret. That turned out >not to work for them; the throwing of the world series >was just the culmination of a series of events, not an >isolated case. Baseball chose then to stop hiding it, >to make everything public. At the same time, they instituted >a mechanism for handling such problems and a central >authority who could punish offenders, so it's not possible >to infer from their experience if openness about cheating >was the main deterrent. We do know that the incidence >rate of cheating in baseball immediately went from very >common to very rare. (As far as I know, there have been >no cases of cheating at the level of throwing games since >then. There are lesser cheats, like corked bats and spitballs, >but those are not handled well, in my opinion. Oh, and recently, >the central authority has been removed.) It's quite possible >that a 5-year suspension from baseball is the deterrent; >that effectively ends a player's career. In bridge, that >is not the case. > >As I see it, the pros and cons of being open about cheating >cases are: > >Pros: it's a huge deterrent. When a conviction occurs, > those who believe that there is cheating feel as if > bridge organizations are doing something to keep clean. > >Cons: mistakes cannot be corrected; overt apology will not > restore someone's reputation. Folks who belive that > there is no cheating in bridge will become disabused > of that notion. It's bad publicity for the world to > hear that people cheat at cards. (No, really? C'mon...:)) > >I want to be quite clear, by the way, that this question >applies only to *convicted* cheats. Unsubstantiated accusations >must still not be tolerated. I suspect that the latter will >be reduced by the availability of real cheats for those who >want to talk about cheating. I'm not sure, but if that's so, >it's a plus for openness. > >What are your organizations' experiences/choices? How do >you feel about this topic? I agree you have put the pros and cons well. We have few examples of cheating but there are other disciplinary hearings. Until a few months ago, if a player or person was found guilty, then the hearing would discuss (a) what the punishment should be and (b) whether to publish the name(s) with the punishment: the fact of the punishment is always published so long as suspension is involved. In English Bridge some months ago there were two reports of suspensions. One named the player involved: the other did not. The general feeling was that the named player's actions were not as bad as the unnamed. There were the normal complaints ("No-one but an idiot ..."; "I have organised ... for thirty years and I can think of no reason why ..."; "This is another example of lack of thought and sense"): I am sure you know the sort of thing. Of course the reason for one being named and the other not is not in the public domain so we could not explain (and I cannot tell you) but it led us to reconsider the question of publication. It may not be much of a change but because of this we have changed (b) from 'whether to publish the name(s) with the punishment' to 'whether there is any particular reason not to publish the name(s) with the punishment', in other words it is now considered the norm to publish. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 7 11:30:57 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 11:30:57 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA12352 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 11:30:45 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id an19570; 6 Jun 96 20:06 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa22214; 6 Jun 96 18:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 17:14:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Easy one In-Reply-To: <199606052020.QAA23000@shell.monmouth.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199606052020.QAA23000@shell.monmouth.com>, Stefanie Rohan writes >Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > >> >From David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ >> >> | The bidding was simple: >> | >> | N E S W >> | 1H NB 1S 2C >> | 2H NB 2S 3C >> | 3C >> | >> | Oh dear, an insufficient bid. Over to you: how do you rule? [North- >> |South have an agreement that *any* bid of an opponents suit below 3NT >> |says "Have you a stopper in this suit? If so then bid 3NT.] >> | >> | It's nice to have an easy one for a change, isn't it? >> >> First, ask East if he wishes to accept 3C. He won't, of course. >> Then, tell North he can substitute any non-double call for 3C, >> but South will be barred. Let him choose. Let the bidding >> end normally. Then look at North's hand > >After the play, of course. > >>and decide if he could >> have known that forcing partner to pass caused damage to E/W, >> If so, and if it did damage them, adjust the score. There might >> be circumstances that might change the ruling: do we think North >> did this intentionally? Could 3C have been meant as natural, >> North's not hearing 2C or 3C? No, it wasn't. I told you it is an easy one! No possible reason for an adjustment. Oh, by the way, why did you not allow him to bid 4C without penalty? > > >You forgot to mention lead penalties, should NS end up on defense. Well, they did, so you better mention them. What lead penalties? > >> This is too easy...there must be a catch. > >What happened, David? Did North choose a bid that happened to be >the right contract that the field wasn't getting to, or did he >right-side the 3NT, and E-W said that they had been damaged by the >irregularity? Did North pass and set 3C a lot of tricks when N-S >couldn't make anything? I just wanted a nice easy one for you all. (smirk) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 7 11:54:52 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 11:54:52 +1000 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.177.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA12538 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 11:54:44 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.102.7]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id SAA19355 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 18:53:52 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id SAA09399; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 18:59:52 -0700 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 18:59:52 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199606070159.SAA09399@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: an "easy" one Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Quoth David Stephenson: |In article <199606052020.QAA23000@shell.monmouth.com>, Stefanie Rohan | writes | |>Jeff Goldsmith wrote: |> |>> >From David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ |>> |>> | The bidding was simple: |>> | |>> | N E S W |>> | 1H NB 1S 2C |>> | 2H NB 2S 3C |>> | 3C |>> | |>> | Oh dear, an insufficient bid. Over to you: how do you rule? [North- |>> |South have an agreement that *any* bid of an opponents suit below 3NT |>> |says "Have you a stopper in this suit? If so then bid 3NT.] |>> | |>> | It's nice to have an easy one for a change, isn't it? |>> |>> First, ask East if he wishes to accept 3C. He won't, of course. |>> Then, tell North he can substitute any non-double call for 3C, |>> but South will be barred. Let him choose. Let the bidding |>> end normally. Then look at North's hand |> |>After the play, of course. Right, although I personally believe (as opposed to the laws) that the director ought to look after the bidding and might as well stop play if he knows that there will need to be an adjustment. This really only applies to club games and cases where the table in question has fallen behind pace, since the play might be necessary in an appeal. If it is obvious that this will not happen, it seems reasonable to adjust then and there. |>>and decide if he could |>> have known that forcing partner to pass caused damage to E/W, |>> If so, and if it did damage them, adjust the score. There might |>> be circumstances that might change the ruling: do we think North |>> did this intentionally? Could 3C have been meant as natural, |>> North's not hearing 2C or 3C? | | No, it wasn't. I told you it is an easy one! No possible reason for |an adjustment. Oh, by the way, why did you not allow him to bid 4C |without penalty? 27B2 is express about that. Whether or not 27B2 says what it really ought to say is a point of possible long argument (...I mean "discussion" :)) but at least as of now, it's clear, right? |>You forgot to mention lead penalties, should NS end up on defense. | | Well, they did, so you better mention them. What lead penalties? 26B. If a call is withdrawn and not repeated (we can assume they aren't playing in clubs, no?) there's a huge penalty if the withdrawn call does not refer to any specific suit. Declarer may prohibit the lead of a suit of his choosing. That seems a little harsh to me in this case, but in others it tends to be pretty fair. | I just wanted a nice easy one for you all. Yeah, right. Anyone want to buy a bridge? I can only think of two arguments you were possibly starting... :) --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 7 16:57:34 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA13459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 16:57:34 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA13454 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 16:57:27 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp1.monmouth.com [205.164.220.33]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA10974 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 02:53:31 -0400 Message-Id: <199606070653.CAA10974@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 02:55:30 +0000 Subject: Re: an "easy" one X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > > Right, although I personally believe (as opposed to the > laws) that the director ought to look after the bidding > and might as well stop play if he knows that there will > need to be an adjustment. This really only applies to > club games and cases where the table in question has > fallen behind pace, since the play might be necessary > in an appeal. If it is obvious that this will not happen, > it seems reasonable to adjust then and there. > Wouldn't the director be taking on way too much responsibility if she were to do this? What if the offending side appeals? They are entitled to ask the AC to restore the table result, which is impossible if there is no table result with the irregularity in place. And we have all seen many split rulings where the AC has let the non-offending side keep the poor score they got if they earned it subsequently to the irregularity (for example, if the irregularity put them in a position to get a top but they played or defended very poorly and so got a bottom. Yes, I realize that the players are unlikely to appeal at a club game. But I don't think it's a good idea to make an adjustment before there is anything to adjust. Maybe the offenders will earn themselves a worse score than the adjustment would have given them! > 26B. If a call is withdrawn and not repeated (we > can assume they aren't playing in clubs, no?) there's > a huge penalty if the withdrawn call does not refer > to any specific suit. Declarer may prohibit the > lead of a suit of his choosing. That seems a little > harsh to me in this case, but in others it tends to be > pretty fair. Sounds like 26A to me. Doesn't a 3C call relate to clubs? In this case, it's not even an amorphous cuebid -- it actually does have something to do with clubs. Yes, it's asking about them, rather than telling. Still, the law says "relate" and a 3C bid asking about a club stopper certainly "relates" to clubs. Henk mentioned that perhaps the law-makers didn't anticipate this when they wrote law 26, but I think that they probably did; else, why "relating to a specific suit" rather than "showing" or "implying" a holding in a specific suit? Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 8 00:25:25 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA18159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 00:25:25 +1000 Received: from emout14.mail.aol.com (emout14.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA18152 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 00:25:16 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout14.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA00993 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:24:41 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:24:41 -0400 Message-ID: <960607102440_409253274@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au cc: Aliotta123@aol.com Subject: Re: cheating Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-06-05 14:49:38 EDT, Jeff writes: >Subj: cheating >Date: 96-06-05 14:49:38 EDT >From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >Moving along a tangent from "possibly unethical" to >"known cheats," I have been musing about a judgment >question: once an organization determines that a >player or pair is cheating, ought the organization >publicize the results? > >The ACBL has chosen not to. They try to keep all >cheating incidents as secret as possible. Not totally true, Jeff. However, you do need to search through the Board minutes to find out that something has been done. Since we always use names of parties disciplined, it's there. But you are quite correct that it isn't "publicized". >I believe the opposite. I think cheating ought to >be brought out into the open and dealt with in public. >There is no worse punitive measure than to let everyone >know that someone is a cheat. I think such action will >be the strongest deterrent there is; permanent expulsion >just doesn't seem to be an adequate deterrent. After >all, at least in the ACBL, it isn't permanent. I couldn't agree with you more. A few meetings ago, the Board passed a motion that specified that in the future there should be publicity in the Bulletin on anyone convicted of cheating. Obviously this would not appear until after any appeals had expired. Over two years ago I wrote a rather good article (you'll have to take my word for it) about the investigation and prosecution of the Haydens. This was the last pair that was charged with and convicted of cheating. There were some objections to publishing this article (I'm still not sure why) and it has still not been published. I haven't given up yet. I still think the public needs to see that we are active in this area and agree that this is the strongest deterrent. It is worth noting that we have not expelled anyone in quite a while for cheating. In the case of the Haydens, the Ethical Oversight Committee voted for five years suspension and the BOD changed the sentence to two years. In all recent cases (4-5) the pairs involved have been forbidden from playing together even after they are back in. >American baseball had a big problem with cheating about >75 years ago. Until then, their method of handling such >things was to keep everything secret. That turned out >not to work for them; the throwing of the world series >was just the culmination of a series of events, not an >isolated case. Baseball chose then to stop hiding it, >to make everything public. At the same time, they instituted >a mechanism for handling such problems and a central >authority who could punish offenders, so it's not possible >to infer from their experience if openness about cheating >was the main deterrent. We do know that the incidence >rate of cheating in baseball immediately went from very >common to very rare. (As far as I know, there have been >no cases of cheating at the level of throwing games since >then. There are lesser cheats, like corked bats and spitballs, >but those are not handled well, in my opinion. Oh, and recently, >the central authority has been removed.) It's quite possible >that a 5-year suspension from baseball is the deterrent; >that effectively ends a player's career. In bridge, that >is not the case. >As I see it, the pros and cons of being open about cheating >cases are: > >Pros: it's a huge deterrent. When a conviction occurs, > those who believe that there is cheating feel as if > bridge organizations are doing something to keep clean. I couldn't agree more. Players are extremely interested and really like knowing we are doing something. What's more, very few know that we are now able to try someone based on an accumulation of Recorder incidents. I think this will improve the effectiveness of the Recorder system if we publicize that. >Cons: mistakes cannot be corrected; overt apology will not > restore someone's reputation. Folks who belive that > there is no cheating in bridge will become disabused > of that notion. It's bad publicity for the world to > hear that people cheat at cards. (No, really? C'mon...:)) As long as we wait until any and all appeals have expired, no apologies will ever be necessary. When I speak to random people and mention I am involved in bridge, one of their earliest questions is frequently about cheating. I believe the 'world' assumes it goes on. I only worry about our 'world' and believe that as long as we handle it cleanly we have nothing to be concerned about. >I want to be quite clear, by the way, that this question >applies only to *convicted* cheats. Unsubstantiated accusations >must still not be tolerated. I suspect that the latter will >be reduced by the availability of real cheats for those who >want to talk about cheating. I'm not sure, but if that's so, >it's a plus for openness. I have had much trouble getting players to stop gossiping and put there suspicions on a Player Memo. Publicity will help them know that it really does do some good. >What are your organizations' experiences/choices? How do >you feel about this topic? Alan LeBendig, Los Angeles (310)312-8899 Phone (310)312-8779 Fax From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 8 01:04:27 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA18959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 01:04:27 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA18953 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 01:04:04 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA18796 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 11:03:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 11:03:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: an "easy" one In-Reply-To: <199606070653.CAA10974@shell.monmouth.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Sounds like 26A to me. Doesn't a 3C call relate to clubs? In this > case, it's not even an amorphous cuebid -- it actually does have > something to do with clubs. Yes, it's asking about them, rather > than telling. Still, the law says "relate" and a 3C bid asking about > a club stopper certainly "relates" to clubs. > > Henk mentioned that perhaps the law-makers didn't anticipate this when > they wrote law 26, but I think that they probably did; else, why > "relating to a specific suit" rather than "showing" or "implying" a > holding in a specific suit? Perhaps David's "easy one" was pointing us to a subtle problem in the current laws. To rule here, we apply Law 27 ("Insufficient Bid") and Law 26 ("Call Withdrawn, Lead Penalties"). The application of Law 27 depends on whether or not the offending bid "may have been conventional." The application of Law 26 depends on whether or not it "related to a specific suit or suits." If we takes these qualifiers at face value, we should rule that 3C cannot be corrected to 4C without penalty (because 3C was conventional), and that the potential lead penalty applies in clubs (because the 3C bid was related solely and specifically to clubs). IMO, this is a sensible ruling, and presumably what the lawmakers intended. So what's the problem? The problem is to be found in the "Definitions" section, which defines a "convention" as "a call that serves by partnership agreement to convey a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named." When, as in this case, the bid in question relates solely to the suit named, the qualifiers in Laws 27 and 26 converge. If 3C is "conventional" under Law 27, it cannot be "related" solely and specifically to clubs under Law 26, and vice versa. So this definition plainly precludes the interpretation of Laws 27 and 26 above, and does not permit the "obvious" ruling. This definition should be expanded in the forthcoming revisions. We need language that makes a bid conventional if it conveys a meaning which is unrelated to, denies, or asks about partner's holding in the suit named. I believe we would all agree that the following are conventional: - Western cue bids - Exclusion bids - Ordinary asking bids - Single raises playing Bergen (deny more than 3-card support) - Single raises over doubles playing Rosenkranz (deny A, K, or Q in the suit) etc. But under the Laws' current definition of "convention," they do not qualify as conventions. In actual practice, this doesn't really cause problems, since this particular anomaly is universally ignored (we've reached a consensus that we know what the Laws mean, despite what they clearly say). The language needs to be corrected. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 8 03:39:38 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 03:39:38 +1000 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.177.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA19950 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 03:39:31 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.102.7]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id KAA22870 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:38:40 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id KAA09967; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:44:41 -0700 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:44:41 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199606071744.KAA09967@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: an easy? one Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: "Stefanie Rohan" |Jeff Goldsmith wrote: |> |> Right, although I personally believe (as opposed to the |> laws) that the director ought to look after the bidding |> and might as well stop play if he knows that there will |> need to be an adjustment. This really only applies to |> club games and cases where the table in question has |> fallen behind pace, since the play might be necessary |> in an appeal. If it is obvious that this will not happen, |> it seems reasonable to adjust then and there. |> |Wouldn't the director be taking on way too much responsibility if she |were to do this? What if the offending side appeals? They are |entitled to ask the AC to restore the table result, which is |impossible if there is no table result with the irregularity in |place. And we have all seen many split rulings where the AC has let |the non-offending side keep the poor score they got if they earned it |subsequently to the irregularity (for example, if the irregularity |put them in a position to get a top but they played or defended very |poorly and so got a bottom. Yes, I realize that the players are |unlikely to appeal at a club game. But I don't think it's a good |idea to make an adjustment before there is anything to adjust. Maybe |the offenders will earn themselves a worse score than the adjustment |would have given them! If it's a clear case (the offender could know that partner's enforced pass could damage the opponents) and there is a good reason not to play the hand out (keep the game moving) or there won't be an appeal heard (in a club game) then the only quesion is "are we willing to let directors use their judgment that a case is obvious?" I'm not all that impressed with much of the directing staff around here, but given those restrictions, I'd judge that it's worth it. If the final contract has damaged the non-offending side, even an egregious subsequent blunder isn't going to cause them to lose redress. It's not going to remove the damage; the damage has been done. Therefore, assuming an adjustment is appropriate, they are going to get it, no matter what the table result is. Yes, it's possible that the play will be such that the offending side gives the hand back to the non-offending side somehow, but all in all, I think the small chance that we'll lose the bridge result is worth having the round finish on time. |> 26B. If a call is withdrawn and not repeated (we |> can assume they aren't playing in clubs, no?) there's |> a huge penalty if the withdrawn call does not refer |> to any specific suit. Declarer may prohibit the |> lead of a suit of his choosing. That seems a little |> harsh to me in this case, but in others it tends to be |> pretty fair. | |Sounds like 26A to me. Doesn't a 3C call relate to clubs? In this |case, it's not even an amorphous cuebid -- it actually does have |something to do with clubs. Yes, it's asking about them, rather |than telling. Still, the law says "relate" and a 3C bid asking about |a club stopper certainly "relates" to clubs. Hmmm...you are right, although "relates to" is pretty vague. --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 8 03:55:10 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 03:55:10 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA20008 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 03:54:56 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ac09742; 7 Jun 96 18:25 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa10737; 7 Jun 96 18:11 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 17:33:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: an "easy" one In-Reply-To: <199606070159.SAA09399@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199606070159.SAA09399@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV>, Jeff Goldsmith writes >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >Quoth David Stephenson: ^^ ahem! >|>> First, ask East if he wishes to accept 3C. He won't, of course. >|>> Then, tell North he can substitute any non-double call for 3C, >|>> but South will be barred. Let him choose. Let the bidding >|>> end normally. Then look at North's hand >|> >|>After the play, of course. > >Right, although I personally believe (as opposed to the >laws) that the director ought to look after the bidding >and might as well stop play if he knows that there will >need to be an adjustment. This really only applies to >club games and cases where the table in question has >fallen behind pace, since the play might be necessary >in an appeal. If it is obvious that this will not happen, >it seems reasonable to adjust then and there. It really is so unlikely to be obvious without giving masses of UI away. I also am intrigued at your comment about club games: it is likely to far more difficult in a club game. The English approach to a judgement ruling is that you look at the hand, listen to arguments, consider, consult and rule. We expect a high degree of accuracy as a result. We train our club directors to the same approach [I am giving a club TD course tomorrow in Wales and another one the day after.] You would be taking all this accuracy away by doing anything that involves looking at the hand before it has finished. If you ask questions you give UI: if you don't how do you know what is going on? What about the time for consideration and consultation? If you do not have the faith in your TDs that we do in England and Wales then that is no better because you are expecting them to interrupt the hand with a judgement decision that you have no faith in. There are a number of arguments against the approach of looking at players' hands. It is totally undesirable and would be great step backwards in the giving of judgement rulings. [s] >|>You forgot to mention lead penalties, should NS end up on defense. >| >| Well, they did, so you better mention them. What lead penalties? > >26B. If a call is withdrawn and not repeated (we >can assume they aren't playing in clubs, no?) there's >a huge penalty if the withdrawn call does not refer >to any specific suit. Declarer may prohibit the >lead of a suit of his choosing. That seems a little >harsh to me in this case, but in others it tends to be >pretty fair. > >| I just wanted a nice easy one for you all. > >Yeah, right. Anyone want to buy a bridge? >I can only think of two arguments you were >possibly starting... :) L26A? See separate articles. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 8 03:58:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 03:58:00 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA20026 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 03:57:04 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ay12546; 7 Jun 96 18:42 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa10741; 7 Jun 96 18:11 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 17:08:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: an "easy" one In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Eric Landau writes >On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > >> Sounds like 26A to me. Doesn't a 3C call relate to clubs? In this >> case, it's not even an amorphous cuebid -- it actually does have >> something to do with clubs. Yes, it's asking about them, rather >> than telling. Still, the law says "relate" and a 3C bid asking about >> a club stopper certainly "relates" to clubs. >> >> Henk mentioned that perhaps the law-makers didn't anticipate this when >> they wrote law 26, but I think that they probably did; else, why >> "relating to a specific suit" rather than "showing" or "implying" a >> holding in a specific suit? > >Perhaps David's "easy one" was pointing us to a subtle problem in the >current laws. > >To rule here, we apply Law 27 ("Insufficient Bid") and Law 26 ("Call >Withdrawn, Lead Penalties"). The application of Law 27 depends on whether >or not the offending bid "may have been conventional." The application of >Law 26 depends on whether or not it "related to a specific suit or suits." > >If we takes these qualifiers at face value, we should rule that 3C cannot >be corrected to 4C without penalty (because 3C was conventional), and that >the potential lead penalty applies in clubs (because the 3C bid was >related solely and specifically to clubs). IMO, this is a sensible >ruling, and presumably what the lawmakers intended. So what's the >problem? I don't think that it is what the Lawmakers intended. After the last Laws Grattan Endicott said that L26A referred to purely natural bids: he did not think that they even meant transfers. We explained to him the clarity of what the Laws say, and he agreed very quickly! The present case is way off that but I agree is definitely a L26A one. My reason for introducing this is that it is very easy to miss this approach: in effect we are treating the 3C as conventional for L27 and not for L26. Already one distinguished subscriber to this list has been caught. I think many TDs/ACs might go wrong in the heat of battle. > >The problem is to be found in the "Definitions" section, which defines a >"convention" as "a call that serves by partnership agreement to convey a >meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named." When, as in >this case, the bid in question relates solely to the suit named, the >qualifiers in Laws 27 and 26 converge. If 3C is "conventional" under Law >27, it cannot be "related" solely and specifically to clubs under Law 26, >and vice versa. So this definition plainly precludes the interpretation >of Laws 27 and 26 above, and does not permit the "obvious" ruling. It permits it because L26 has no reference to conventions but it is an anomaly. >This definition should be expanded in the forthcoming revisions. We need >language that makes a bid conventional if it conveys a meaning which is >unrelated to, denies, or asks about partner's holding in the suit named. > >I believe we would all agree that the following are conventional: >- Western cue bids >- Exclusion bids >- Ordinary asking bids >- Single raises playing Bergen (deny more than 3-card support) >- Single raises over doubles playing Rosenkranz (deny A, K, or Q in the > suit) >etc. > >But under the Laws' current definition of "convention," they do not >qualify as conventions. In actual practice, this doesn't really cause >problems, since this particular anomaly is universally ignored (we've >reached a consensus that we know what the Laws mean, despite what they >clearly say). The language needs to be corrected. That is not our solution. We have two strong recommendations for the new Laws which, if you consider them deeply, I believe you will find sensible. First that L27 should take no notice of whether the insufficient bid was conventional. It is so difficult to know whether it is, and the TD himself is likely to give UI in finding out, but why bother? If LHO bids 1NT and partner bids 1D, easiest is to have a Law where he can bid 2D without penalty whatever he meant the 1D as. [I believe the lawmakers are considering a change dependent on whether 2D is conventional, rather than whether 1D is. This is more sensible, and means they are trying to make the TD's job easier by saving him the trouble of considering whether L27B1B applies.] Second we consider that it is a mistake defining convention in the Law book at all. When you say that we know what the Laws mean in the case of "convention" I agree, so let public usage and local decrees decide its meaning. Unless I am mistaken, convention is only needed in the Law book for L27 and L40 and we would do better without the definition. It wasn't as easy as it looked, was it? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 8 06:36:57 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 06:36:57 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA22336 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 06:36:50 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA28376 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 16:36:47 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 16:36:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: an "easy" one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, David Stevenson wrote: > I don't think that it is what the Lawmakers intended. After the last > Laws Grattan Endicott said that L26A referred to purely natural bids: he > did not think that they even meant transfers. We explained to him the > clarity of what the Laws say, and he agreed very quickly! The present > case is way off that but I agree is definitely a L26A one. My reason > for introducing this is that it is very easy to miss this approach: in > effect we are treating the 3C as conventional for L27 and not for L26. > Already one distinguished subscriber to this list has been caught. I > think many TDs/ACs might go wrong in the heat of battle. Mr. Endicott's view notwithstanding, I think Law 26.A is correct as it now stands. Laws on "Irregularities in Procedure" (the title of Part II) are supposed to be designed to achieve restoration of equity following an irregularity. The most common case under 26.A.1 occurs when the partner of an opening leader has shown a specific suit by a call which is subsequently withdrawn. It seems to me that no matter what we think should be the appropriate procedure to restore equity, the equity position is unrelated to whether or not the call that showed the suit in question was in that suit (natural) or in some other denomination (conventional), and, if equity is the object, the procedure ought to be the same in both cases. > >The problem is to be found in the "Definitions" section, which defines a > >"convention" as "a call that serves by partnership agreement to convey a > >meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named." When, as in > >this case, the bid in question relates solely to the suit named, the > >qualifiers in Laws 27 and 26 converge. If 3C is "conventional" under Law > >27, it cannot be "related" solely and specifically to clubs under Law 26, > >and vice versa. So this definition plainly precludes the interpretation > >of Laws 27 and 26 above, and does not permit the "obvious" ruling. > > It permits it because L26 has no reference to conventions but it is an > anomaly. Granted, Law 26 doesn't use the word "convention." But it does refer to calls "related to a specified suit or suits." Laws, including Chapter I, do constrain the interpretation of other Laws, whether or not those other Laws mention them "by name" or merely refer to their subject matter. So the definition of "convention" (or any other word) constrains Law 26 whether or not it uses the actual word. And the rule of contrapositive (a fundamental axiom of logic) tells us that the following two statements are absolutely equivalent, merely different ways of saying the same thing: "A convention is, by definition, a call that conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named." "A call that conveys a meaning necessarily related to the denomination named is, by definition, not a convention." It is a logical impossibility to accept the first as true and hold the second to be false. Yet that's exactly what we must do to get the "right" ruling in this case under the current Laws. > >This definition should be expanded in the forthcoming revisions. We need > >language that makes a bid conventional if it conveys a meaning which is > >unrelated to, denies, or asks about partner's holding in the suit named. > > > >I believe we would all agree that the following are conventional: > >- Western cue bids > >- Exclusion bids > >- Ordinary asking bids > >- Single raises playing Bergen (deny more than 3-card support) > >- Single raises over doubles playing Rosenkranz (deny A, K, or Q in the > > suit) > >etc. > > > >But under the Laws' current definition of "convention," they do not > >qualify as conventions. In actual practice, this doesn't really cause > >problems, since this particular anomaly is universally ignored (we've > >reached a consensus that we know what the Laws mean, despite what they > >clearly say). The language needs to be corrected. > > That is not our solution. We have two strong recommendations for the > new Laws which, if you consider them deeply, I believe you will find > sensible. > > First that L27 should take no notice of whether the insufficient bid > was conventional. It is so difficult to know whether it is, and the TD > himself is likely to give UI in finding out, but why bother? If LHO > bids 1NT and partner bids 1D, easiest is to have a Law where he can bid > 2D without penalty whatever he meant the 1D as. [I believe the > lawmakers are considering a change dependent on whether 2D is > conventional, rather than whether 1D is. This is more sensible, and > means they are trying to make the TD's job easier by saving him the > trouble of considering whether L27B1B applies.] We've discussed this previously. I don't like the proposal under consideration; it's an improvement over what we've got now, but it leaves some problems unsolved and raises others. I'd like to see us go back to the pre-1987 rules, where the bid could be corrected to the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination without penalty regardless of the meaning of either bid, but, if so corrected, the insufficient bid was treated as UI for the bidder's partner. I keep asking people (including in a previous message to this list) whether anyone knows, or can guess, the rationale behind the change made in 1987, and I've drawn nothing but blanks so far. > Second we consider that it is a mistake defining convention in the Law > book at all. When you say that we know what the Laws mean in the case > of "convention" I agree, so let public usage and local decrees decide > its meaning. Unless I am mistaken, convention is only needed in the Law > book for L27 and L40 and we would do better without the definition. Here I disagree. "Everyone knows" that when "everyone knows" something everyone may agree on the general substantive nature of what they know, but the details will still differ in interpretation at the margin. If we want our Laws to be based on what "everyone knows," we still, in order to be fair and consistent, need to include language that precisely defines exactly what it is that "everyone knows," not leave it up to different individuals' personal opinions as to exactly what what "everyone knows" means. Of course, such definitions must serve to refine the consensus into a consistent but more precise statement that brings specificity to the Law. If a definition is inconsistent with (contradicts) that consensus, it's worse than useless, and, granted, we'd be better off without it. But that's not fixing the inconsistency. We have a problem right now; the definition of "convention" in the Laws does contradict the consensual meaning, and should not do so. This is a problem our law-revisers should attempt to solve, not merely to make go away. Eliminating the contradiction of consensus in that definition by refusing to have any definition at all is at best a lazy half-measure. > It wasn't as easy as it looked, was it? On this list, it never is. Score one up for the several list members who responded to David's "here's an easy one" with "OK, so what's the catch?" Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 8 06:55:55 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 06:55:55 +1000 Received: from netshop.net (root@stargazer.netshop.net [204.174.70.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA22632 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 06:55:50 +1000 Received: from .NETSHOP.NET (100mile-10.netshop.net [204.174.70.105]) by netshop.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA21754; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:48:43 -0700 Message-ID: <31B89726.4143@netshop.bc.ca> Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 13:55:02 -0700 From: Jerry Sund X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: sund@netshop.bc.ca Subject: A truly easy one - insufficient bids Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David's "easy one" was too hard. Here's mine - Are players allowed to have agreements on the meaning of insufficient bids? > N E S W > 1H NB 1S 2C > 2H NB 2S 3C > 3C > Oh dear, an insufficient bid. Over to you: how do you rule? [North- >South have an agreement that *any* bid of an opponents suit below 3NT >says "Have you a stopper in this suit? If so then bid 3NT.] I realize this must be an 'off-the-shelf' one for this group, but the question seemed more fitting here then on RGB. If the answer is Yes, then my system book is incomplete. If the answer is No, then the concept that a "conventional insufficient bid" relates to _anything_ seems flawed, or at least never "easy". Please be gentle. I have trouble with the concept of there even being a CIB but the Laws clearly state it, so I do accept it. 1Nt - (2S) - 2D in my partnerships we play this as showing diamonds and NF since the only agreement we have that covers it is "all undiscussed sequences are natural,if possible, and the weaker of any possible interpretation". We certainly haven't discussed this one. Is it illegal to apply our agreement to insufficient bids? If others can have conventional agreements apply to theirs, then surely our natural method is also legal. We do play 1NT-(P)-2D as tranfer but that wasn't the auction. My 'guess' is he thinks he's 1st to bid and has a weak 2Di call. OR he heard the 2S call and though he was making a 3Di overcall OR he saw a 1S opening and is overcalling 2Di. Do the Laws force us to guess that he heard the 1NT and not the 2S call? Is there a Law or ? that tells us to assume it's the last call he didn't see (or see correctly) rather than all previous calls? OK, I'm wandering. Sorry. jerry sund sund@netshop.bc.ca From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 8 08:21:56 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 08:21:56 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA23149 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 08:21:50 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA27826 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 18:21:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA01467; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 18:24:13 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 18:24:13 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9606072224.AA01467@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Definition of "convention" X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > The problem is to be found in the "Definitions" section, which defines a > "convention" as "a call that serves by partnership agreement to convey a > meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named." I have much to write here but little time to write it. Also, I want to consider the best way to present my argument. Meanwhile, I've changed the "Subject" for this thread. My basic point is that the key word in the above definition is "necessarily." Interpreting that word may be hard, but Eric's examples are a start. > I believe we would all agree that the following are conventional: > - Western cue bids Yes. They are conventional becasue we could equally well agree that a bid in a different suit requests a stopper in the opponents' suit. > - Exclusion bids I'm not sure what these are, but I think the same applies. I can just as well bid some other suit to deny hearts as bid hearts to deny hearts. (In fact, that might be a better agreement.) > - Ordinary asking bids Yes. Same reason. If I want to ask about hearts, there's no reason the bid to do so should be in hearts. > - Single raises playing Bergen (deny more than 3-card support) No! If we want a bid that means "three card support for Y, minimum strength," using any bid other than 2Y has the disadvantage that it forces partner to bid again to play in Y. Here the meaning is _necessarily related_ to Y. > - Single raises over doubles playing Rosenkranz (deny A, K, or Q in the > suit) Again not conventional. Using any other bid for this meaning has a direct disadvantage. > But under the Laws' current definition of "convention," they do not > qualify as conventions. Very clearly the first three qualify as conventional under the current definition. The last two don't. I'd argue that these should not be conventional under any reasonable definition. After all, they are merely offers to play in the spot named. (They might well be _alertable_, but that's a different matter entirely. Plenty of "treatments" -- a term not defined in the Laws but usually an antonym for conventions -- are alertable.) > The language needs to be corrected. I'm not so sure it does, though if we disagree on what it means, clarification is always in order. I would argue very strongly that there ought to be _some_ definition of "convention" in the Laws. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 8 08:23:13 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 08:23:13 +1000 Received: from netshop.net (root@stargazer.netshop.net [204.174.70.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA23165 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 08:23:06 +1000 Received: from .NETSHOP.NET (100mile-14.netshop.net [204.174.70.109]) by netshop.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA26437; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 15:15:30 -0700 Message-ID: <31B8AB89.4E7@netshop.bc.ca> Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 15:22:01 -0700 From: Jerry Sund X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: sund@netshop.bc.ca Subject: False Inferences Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This maillist is to discuss fine-tuning,etc of the Laws. Law 73F2 ... an innocent player has drawn a false inference.... Shouldn't this read something like .. " ... an innocent player has drawn a reasonable inference.." To obtain redress, surely the inference he draws should be a true inference, rather than one that is not suggested by the deceptive act. Wouldn't a false inference refer to one not supported by the (deceptive) action witnessed? The recent discussion on the hesitation with a singleton is a good example. Concensus was that for declarer to conclude the player held Jx and had a problem was a false (incorrect) inference and not entitled to redress. If I'm missing something it won't be the last time. :-) jerry sund sund@netshop.bc.ca From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 8 23:40:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA27485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 23:40:45 +1000 Received: from mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk (mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA27480 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 23:40:39 +1000 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Sat, 8 Jun 1996 14:13:07 +0100 Received: from isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk (isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk [147.150.219.16]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id MAA17238 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 12:51:01 +0100 Received: by isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <31B97750@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Sat, 08 Jun 96 12:51:28 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: Shooting an elephant Date: Sat, 08 Jun 96 12:50:00 GMT Message-ID: <31B97750@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 40 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn I have not subscribed to this list for very long, and my flaky newsfeed means that I only see about 10% of what goes on in r.g.b, so I am diffident about entering the debate concerning the definition of a convention lest everything I say is already familiar to you all from other sources. Apologies if this is so. It is my firm belief that if you're going to use a word in the Laws of a game, and the word in the context of the game has ameaning different from its meaning in everyday speech, then you should define that word within the Laws. "Convention" is no exception. Experience has shown that it is very foolish indeed to assume that "everybody knows" what a convention is - the sum total of what everybody knows is and will remain zero. As David Stevenson's "easy" ruling showed, the definition of "convention" in the Laws is not satisfactory. But the answer to this is to replace it by a definition that is, rather than to refuse to define the term. To define a convention is a little like trying to describe a spiral staircase without moving your hands, but I believe that we need to do it. I therefore propose the following starting point: A bid is conventional unless: It is nothing more specific than an attempt to describe the hand in the context of the auction so far; and The possibility of playing in the denomination of the bid is not excluded. A pass, double or redouble is conventional unless it indicates that, in the opinion of the player making the call, the hand should be played in the current contract. Now, this is subjective and vague in the extreme. The question is: does it cover everything? David Burn dburn@lnhdent.agw.bt.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 10 20:11:03 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA21720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 20:11:03 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA21715 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 20:10:52 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-84.innet.be [194.7.10.68]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA13127 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 12:10:42 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31BAD766.48BC@innet.be> Date: Sun, 09 Jun 1996 13:53:42 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Reports of possibly unethical actions References: <31b584a9.1361167@pipmail.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:33:49 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: > > In England the laws on keeping personal information are much weaker > >when it is on paper than on computer so I do not think we have any > >difficulty. > > That is also the case in Denmark. > > > So there is the English solution: put it on paper! > > And that will probably have to be our solution also. > Belgian Privacy Laws make no distinction whatsoever between files on computer and on paper - and I do think this is the European recommendation (and the only sensible thing) - so that solution does not really solve a problem that might not exist. By playing in a Bridge Tournament, players should really aknowledge their agreement that certain facts about them are being registered. Probably the laws indicate that this registration should be more formalised, but I do not think Privacy Laws should ever be used to ban any sport federation from registring infractions or possible infractions from their members. -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 10 20:11:33 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA21725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 20:11:33 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA21714 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 20:10:51 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-84.innet.be [194.7.10.68]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA13134; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 12:10:45 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31BC100B.405@innet.be> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 12:07:39 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, David Stevenson Subject: Re: psyches and semi-psyches References: <57N4dUBbe7qxEwYG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >=20 > Herman De Wael writes : > >- a 1NT opening with a major 5-card suit although the system does not > >include this; > >- a 1NT opening on a 14 count when playing 15-17; > >- a 1S opening on a 4-card when playing 5-card majors; >=20 > We would call these deviations. They may or provide evidence of a CP= U > (concealed partnership understanding). They may just be players' > judgement in action. >=20 > >maybe even things like : > >- 1D-(X)-1S on a 3-card suit; (far too common an auction to be happeni= ng > >'just once'); >=20 > We consider this a psyche. We interpret this sort of 3-card suit bid > as a gross distortion of suit length. However I can see the argument t= o > treat it as a deviation. >=20 > >and so on. > > > >These are not 'gross mis-statements', so they are not 'psychic calls'. > > > >This type of auction gives rise to problems in two different guises : > > > >a- misinformation : > >I always consider these cases as misinformation, but I rarely give > >rulings based on that. Usually (but not always), the correct > >explanation would have resulted in the same opponent action. >=20 > I am sorry that I find the words "I always consider" ambiguous. Do > you mean that if asked to rule you would adjudge them misinformation > (whether there is damage or not), or do you mean that you always > consider whether it is misinformation or not? >=20 I would always judge misingformation - then see if there is *resulting*=20 damage. Usually, the damege will not be consequent. > If you mean the former then your approach is very harsh because you > are never allowing a player to use his judgement and no player should > be placed in a total straitjacket by his system. If I look at a hand > and consider it worth 15 points even though it has only 14 HCP (perhaps > because of 10s, or a long suit, or because the opponents have just gone > for 1400 and are still arguing about it) so I treat it as 15 points and > open 1NT then it is not misinformation that the opponents are told it > is 15-17 because that is what we play. >=20 > It is not unreasonable to ask a few questions and of course there are > some people who play (14)15-17 and call it 15-17 but to automatically > treat it as misinformation when it often is not seems wrong. > > Two different instances : - if you want to open your 14 HCP 1NT because they have gone for 1400,=20 you are using Law 40 to 'bid what you want' - psychologically. You open=20 1NT not because your hand is worth this, but for another reason. - but if you judge your 14HCP to be worth 15 because of 10's, this is no=20 different from saying that you judge your 14HCP to be a regular 1NT=20 opening. So your 1NT opening includes this type of 14 count. > >b- forbidden systems. > > > >Sometimes, a pair plays a system which is just on the border of being > >acceptable. The rule of 18 has now disappeared from WBF-regulations, > >but it provided a good example of this kind. There are however other > >good examples and I shall give them later. > >The rule of 18 stated that if a system allowed a pair to open a hand > >containing less than 18 (HCP + length of 2 longest suits) units, at th= e > >1-level, this system was to be considered HUM. > >Now consider a player opening 1S on AKxxx Qxx xxx xx (9+5+3=3D17). > >If he announces beforehand that he will open this hand, he will be > >deemed to be playing a HUM. So he does not reveal this. Yet when he > >has the hand, he decides to open anyway, and then uses Law 40A to tell > >us he has this right. > >I (but I am almost alone) do not allow this. just as in the case of a > >mistaken call / misexplanation, I consider this call to be part of the > >system, unless proof is given to the contrary. Since the convention > >card would clearly not contain this proof, I do not accept that as > >proof. I rule that this call is within the system, call this a HUM an= d > >punish accordingly. >=20 > In the example you gave there is some case for believing that the > player might be doing something illegal but an isolated case must as > always be treated on its merits. Yesterday my partner opened 1S and I > was a little surprised to find she had > Kxxxxx > Kxxxx > -- > xx >=20 > Now in England the Rule of 19 applies so would you have ruled that we > were playing an illegal system? Well, we weren't: we had no agreement > that Rule of 17 hands could be opened, and I am quite sure that I could > have convinced a TD of that. You could never have convinced me ! I always consider that when you make a call, you implicitely state that=20 this is your system. You may not have had an agreement, but try convincing anyone of that=20 when you actually do it ! > > > >A different example provided some discussion recently. > >A player opens 1H on somthing like xx AKJ Jxx KQxxx. > >No problem you say ? Not unless you know that the pair is playing > >Strong club with canap=E9 style. 1C would be 17+, 1H and then clubs s= hows > >longer clubs than hearts. Originally this hand would normally be open= ed > >1H, but since a couple of years, the WBF has called canap=E9 allowing > >major 3-card a HUM. So in the present system, this hand would be open= ed > >1D. The player opened 1H because of the solid hearts. > > > >I do not allow this. The convention card, or the explanation do not > >include the possibility of a 3-card, since that would not be allowed. > >So the pair is probably making a double infraction : playing an > >unallowed system AND covering this up by misinformation. >=20 > Or maybe not. Perhaps they never open a 3card major: but just this > once the player thought how suitable the hand is, and did so: it might > have come as a great shock to partner. >=20 Don't be foolish : they always open weak four card suits. So a strong 3=20 card suit is always possible. Only problem : this system is forbidden! > >I would like to see all directors come to the conclusion that these > >'grey areas' in systems not be called 'psychs'. That these calls be > >considered part of the played system, and that therefor misinformation > >and even forbidden system regulations be dealt with in full. >=20 > Surely: why should anyone treat them as psyches when they clearly > aren't? >=20 > >Now do you understand my original request to provide a better name for > >'semi-psyches' ? >=20 > Deviations. They provide some evidence of a CPU, not convincing of > themselves, but enough to be worth investigating. >=20 I propose that when investigation reveals no external reason for the=20 bid, it should be considered part of the system. See the example above:=20 if you bid because they went for 1400, OK; if the player only points to=20 certain aspects of the hand (10's, length) - the call is part of the=20 system. --=20 Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 10 20:44:28 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA21858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 20:44:28 +1000 Received: from cabra.cri.dk (cabra.cri.dk [130.227.48.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA21853 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 20:44:17 +1000 X-Organization: Computer Resources International A/S, Bregneroedvej 144, DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark Received: from nov.cri.dk (nov.cri.dk [130.227.50.162]) by cabra.cri.dk (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id MAA01333 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 12:42:49 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 12:43:36 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 12:43:17 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Reports of possibly unethical actions Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well, as a matter of principle, I disagree with Herman's statement repeated below. === Politcally flavored opinion follows === As the primary general principle, Bridge NCBOs and such should not be in a position to take away rights that people have as citizens. For instance, Bridge players retain their freedom of speech, which allows them to express their opinion publicly that Jens is an incompetent TD; the NCBO should not be authorized to limit the rights of players as members of the NCBO (or its clubs) because they make such public statements. Similarly, when society restricts the extent to which records of unproven allegations may be kept, Bridge NCBOs should not have ways of circumventing such restrictions. === End of politically flavored opinion === Sorry if I seem to be wasting bandwidth; just showing off my hobby horse! /Jens >>> Herman De Wael 09.06.96 15:53 >>> By playing in a Bridge Tournament, players should really aknowledge their agreement that certain facts about them are being registered. Probably the laws indicate that this registration should be more formalised, but I do not think Privacy Laws should ever be used to ban any sport federation from registring infractions or possible infractions from their members. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 10 22:17:27 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA22201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 22:17:27 +1000 Received: from sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (sunset.ma.huji.ac.il [132.64.32.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA22196 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 22:17:06 +1000 Received: (from grabiner@localhost) by sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (8.6.11/8.6.10) id PAA14422; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 15:15:36 +0300 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 15:15:36 +0300 Message-Id: <199606101215.PAA14422@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il> From: David Joseph Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <31BC100B.405@innet.be> (message from Herman De Wael on Mon, 10 Jun 1996 12:07:39 +0000) Subject: Re: psyches and semi-psyches Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes: > David Stevenson wrote: >> If you mean the former then your approach is very harsh because you >> are never allowing a player to use his judgement and no player should >> be placed in a total straitjacket by his system. If I look at a hand >> and consider it worth 15 points even though it has only 14 HCP (perhaps >> because of 10s, or a long suit, or because the opponents have just gone >> for 1400 and are still arguing about it) so I treat it as 15 points and >> open 1NT then it is not misinformation that the opponents are told it >> is 15-17 because that is what we play. >> >> It is not unreasonable to ask a few questions and of course there are >> some people who play (14)15-17 and call it 15-17 but to automatically >> treat it as misinformation when it often is not seems wrong. > Two different instances : > - if you want to open your 14 HCP 1NT because they have gone for 1400, > you are using Law 40 to 'bid what you want' - psychologically. You open > 1NT not because your hand is worth this, but for another reason. > - but if you judge your 14HCP to be worth 15 because of 10's, this is no > different from saying that you judge your 14HCP to be a regular 1NT > opening. So your 1NT opening includes this type of 14 count. The issue here should be whether you expect your bid to be treated as a partnership agreement. If you open 1NT on AQT Kx T9x KQT9x and KQJ AKJ QJ Jxxxx, it is because you consider the first hand to be worth 15 and the second 17. You don't want partner to consider that your high-card points don't add up properly; he should raise to 3NT with 10 HCP. And if you actually hold the second hand, and partner, with Txx xx AKT9x T9x, bids 2NT, I don't think an adjustment is in order under the Rule of Coincidence. You haven't demonstrated any partnership agreement other than an opinion that QJ doubleton is not as good as three points, and AKT9x is better than seven points. I don't think it is even proper to record such standard adjustments. I play 2NT as 21-22. However, I have twice opened it on 20 counts with all four aces, expecting partner to raise to 3NT with 5 HCP. If I wrote the range as 20+ to 22, this would be more misleading than 21-22; most players who play that range open 2NT on half of their 20 counts, not just the exceptional ones. But if you open 1NT on AQx Kx Txx KQ9xx (the first example minus two important tens and a nine), you don't want partner to raise to 3NT with 10 HCP. If it is your style to open this hand 1NT, you should inform the opponents with (14)15-17 on your convention card. If partner bids 2C and then 2NT on KTxx Axx Kxxx xx, that is evidence of a concealed partnership understanding, and an adjustment could be made on that basis. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.huji.ac.il, http://www.ma.huji.ac.il/~grabiner I speak at the Hebrew University, but not for it. Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 01:01:51 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 01:01:51 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA25714 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 01:01:38 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-20.innet.be [194.7.10.4]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA07406 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 17:01:31 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31BC545B.22C@innet.be> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 16:59:07 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psyches and semi-psyches References: <199606101215.PAA14422@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Joseph Grabiner wrote: > > > The issue here should be whether you expect your bid to be treated as a > partnership agreement. If you open 1NT on AQT Kx T9x KQT9x and KQJ AKJ > QJ Jxxxx, it is because you consider the first hand to be worth 15 and > the second 17. You don't want partner to consider that your high-card > points don't add up properly; he should raise to 3NT with 10 HCP. And > if you actually hold the second hand, and partner, with Txx xx AKT9x > T9x, bids 2NT, I don't think an adjustment is in order under the Rule of > Coincidence. You haven't demonstrated any partnership agreement other > than an opinion that QJ doubleton is not as good as three points, and > AKT9x is better than seven points. > > I don't think it is even proper to record such standard adjustments. I > play 2NT as 21-22. However, I have twice opened it on 20 counts with > all four aces, expecting partner to raise to 3NT with 5 HCP. If I wrote > the range as 20+ to 22, this would be more misleading than 21-22; most > players who play that range open 2NT on half of their 20 counts, not > just the exceptional ones. > > But if you open 1NT on AQx Kx Txx KQ9xx (the first example minus two > important tens and a nine), you don't want partner to raise to 3NT with > 10 HCP. If it is your style to open this hand 1NT, you should inform > the opponents with (14)15-17 on your convention card. If partner bids > 2C and then 2NT on KTxx Axx Kxxx xx, that is evidence of a concealed > partnership understanding, and an adjustment could be made on that > basis. > What you are saying is that since everybody counts a certain 14HCP hand as 15HCP, the explanation 15-17 must be regarded correct. You would be right, except that not everybody does this. I would not open 1NT on AQT Kx T9x KQT9x since my partner would kill me. Especially since I know he would raise to 3NT on many an 8-count. My opponents have the right to know that I can be this strong on a 1club opening. Besides which, this example is really a very strong 14 (say 14 and three quarters). The things I was referring to are much weaker 14's. I have known players to open 1NT on AQx Kx Txx KQ9xx, and you will agree (well, you have) that it is misinformation to call this 15-17. -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 01:01:52 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 01:01:52 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA25715 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 01:01:40 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-20.innet.be [194.7.10.4]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA07401; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 17:01:28 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31BC51D3.4FEE@innet.be> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 16:48:19 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Jens Brix Christiansen Subject: Re: Reports of possibly unethical actions References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Jens, You wrote: > > Well, as a matter of principle, I disagree with Herman's > statement repeated below. > > === Politcally flavored opinion follows === > > As the primary general principle, Bridge NCBOs and such > should not be in a position to take away > rights that people have as citizens. For instance, Bridge players > retain their freedom of speech, which allows them to express > their opinion publicly that Jens is an incompetent TD; the > NCBO should not be authorized to limit the rights of > players as members of the NCBO (or its clubs) because they make > such public statements. > > Similarly, when society restricts the extent to which records > of unproven allegations may be kept, Bridge NCBOs should > not have ways of circumventing such restrictions. > > === End of politically flavored opinion === > > Sorry if I seem to be wasting bandwidth; just showing off > my hobby horse! > Don't be sorry, this may be more important than we are both aware of. My statement concerning computer and other files was based on the Belgian Law. This Law states that people must be made aware that they are being recorded in any file whatsoever, and the reason and the fields must be made public. Although our bridge leagues and federation have not yet done so, they should inform their members that they are being filed. People have the right to periodically check all data that is filed on them. I agree completely with you that rights may not be taken away by an NCBO, simply because the citizen has become a bridge player. Up to this point we are in total agreement. Then you state something strange : 'society restricts the extent to which records of unproven allegations may be kept' Is this so ? Is a tribunal barred from keeping records when someone has been cleared? You are right when the allegations are being kept by someone else. By (Belgian) Law we are not entitled to keep records on somebodies' criminal record. But the state is! Similarly, I would personally not be entitled to keep records of other players' misdemeanors, but the Bridge League should be entitled to keep track of the facts presented to them, and to their verdicts ! As to unproven allegations : I do not think it is the allegation which is kept, only the facts - So-and-so bid this in that situation. Whether these facts will later be used to prove allegations is another matter altogether. -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 01:34:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 01:34:47 +1000 Received: from emout19.mail.aol.com (emout19.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA25861 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 01:34:39 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout19.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA08126 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 11:34:19 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 11:34:19 -0400 Message-ID: <960610113417_411076802@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Fwd: 2nd_serve solution and story Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --------------------- Forwarded message: From: kuehn@ikp.uni-koeln.de (Rolf Kuehn) To: bridge@hot.caltech.edu Date: 96-06-10 08:27:59 EDT Hi folks, here the solution to my little problem, although it was not a real one. repeating the problem for convenience: here a rather odd lead problem. Imps, favorable you hold: S: xx H: xxx D: xxx C: Q98xx The bidding: LHO RHO 1S 2D 2H 3C* 4SF 3D 4NT 6C 7D p You ask for the bidding which is pretty normal. 6C shows 2KC and Club-void. Having done your homework you lead a small trump. Dummy shows up with: S: KQxxxx H: KJ9x D: AJ10 C: - You only see one Keycard and call for the director. TD knows the rules pretty well and decides that (after making sure that opps cannot prove that the explanation is correct) LHO should have corrected RHO's explanation and therefore you may take back your lead and substitute it by any card of your choice. What's your 2nd serve? (Hand repeated for convenience:) S: xx H: xxx D: xxx C: Q98xx I received responses by Ed Davis, Jeff Goldsmith, Al LeBendig and Curt Hastings. Ed : Obviously a heart after seeing that dummy's spades will produce six tricks opposite the SA. Jeff : Partner would have doubled with the SA, so if they are off a cashing ace, it's the HA. Will they have 13 tricks without hearts? Yes, they could; 6S+6D+1C ruff...I'll try a heart. Al : A heart. Partner should have doubled for spade lead. Curt : i lead a H. If declarer is missing the HA but not the SA we are doomed on a non H lead even if it is stiff, he will play win lead, SA, D to dummy S ruff, draw trumps ending in dumym and run spades. If it is Ax of course we must cash now. If declarer is missing the SA not the HA he will be unable to establish spades and enjoy them because he needs to draw trump before pitching the spade in his hand on the long H and then he cant complete the drawing of trump and get back to dummy. So i hope he will have a slow club loser or two. So two arguments for leading a H: 1) Partner should have Xed with SA. 2) It's pretty unlikely that declarer has enough tricks even if a S-loser goes on the high hearts. So and now the story: I lead a low D against 7D. I took a look on dummy and counted tricks, not noticing that one KC was missing. At that point my partner, knowing the rules better than me, objected the missing KC and called the TD. Director came and ruled to continue the game and call him after the play. Pard explained to him that this was not the correct procedure. TD looked up the rules and then allowed me to change my lead. I lead a heart and partner got his ace: down one. Afterwards opps called the TD again and explained that partner by rejecting TD's first ruling had given me unauthorized information which made a heart lead imperative. TD thought it over and then set the contract back to 7D made. The appeals committee then ruled that the board was canceled and gave us +3 Imps instead (on the other table: 6D+1). How would you have ruled? Bye, Rolf From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 02:27:05 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA26227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 02:27:05 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA26209 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 02:22:10 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id af27591; 10 Jun 96 15:49 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa11247; 10 Jun 96 16:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 14:14:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Reports of possibly unethical actions In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens Brix Christiansen writes >Well, as a matter of principle, I disagree with Herman's >statement repeated below. > >=== Politcally flavored opinion follows === > >As the primary general principle, Bridge NCBOs and such >should not be in a position to take away >rights that people have as citizens. For instance, Bridge players >retain their freedom of speech, which allows them to express >their opinion publicly that Jens is an incompetent TD; the >NCBO should not be authorized to limit the rights of >players as members of the NCBO (or its clubs) because they make >such public statements. > >Similarly, when society restricts the extent to which records >of unproven allegations may be kept, Bridge NCBOs should >not have ways of circumventing such restrictions. > >=== End of politically flavored opinion === > >Sorry if I seem to be wasting bandwidth; just showing off >my hobby horse! > >/Jens > >>>> Herman De Wael 09.06.96 15:53 >>> > >By playing in a Bridge Tournament, players should really aknowledge >their agreement that certain facts about them are being registered. >Probably the laws indicate that this registration should be more >formalised, but I do not think Privacy Laws should ever be used to ban >any sport federation from registring infractions or possible infractions >from their members. > It is accepted that Bridge (and any other sport) has rules. You pay your entry fee and you enter into a contract with an organiser part of which is to follow those rules. You may not approve of all parts of the contract: you may not acknowledge its existence: but it is there and you accept it at the moment you pay your entry fee. If this were not the case there would be nothing to stop somebody doing the following: he says "I am bored: I am going to show my hand to partner for the rest of the day. Whenever I mean hearts I shall bid spades. After we have played the first ten tricks of any contract I shall tear my cards up (literally) and put them in the waste basket." There is nothing in the Laws of the land against such behaviour. I do not believe that the Danish, Belgian or English authorities will be prepared to prosecute someone for bidding hearts to show spades. So the protection against such behaviour is in the Laws and Regulations of the game which the player has agreed to follow by accepting the contract in the first place. There must be protection against cheating. Few people are ever "convicted" of cheating based on physical action on a particular hand. To prove someone is cheating you (usually) have to do three things: 1) Show how they are cheating 2) Show the effect from a particular hand of their cheating 3) Repeat #2 from a series of hands You need a pattern. To apply this you need some records: you have to keep records. Furthermore you will normally start with a complaint or two to get the investigation going: that is evidence and it requires to be kept. When a player pays his entry fee he promises not to cheat by accepting the implied contract. But he also accepts under that contract that the authority has a method of policing, and he accepts that method. So a player may not do whatever he likes, and he has no legal recourse (nor should he have) against a Bridge authority that is policing him, assuming they follow (in general terms) their procedures. If you do not like the procedures then you can try and get them changed, or you can refuse to enter the tournaments run by that authority, or you can play in them despite (and complain the whole time!). But you cannot say that the authorities have no right to police the tournament. There are exceptions. If the Law of the land makes it clear that a particular thing done by a Bridge authority is illegal, then the authority has no right to do it. However, if an authority does not follow its own procedures, the Laws of the land give them a fair amount of latitude. Otherwise you could sue whenever a TD makes a mistake. Fortunately and reasonably that is not the case (big sigh of relief from Jens, Herman, Jesper, Richard, Steffie, myself and any other TDs reading this). Under English law a TD is only likely to be sued if he is malicious, and I would generally expect other European laws to be similar. However if the authority itself clearly acts in a manner contrary to its procedures it is possible the Law might get involved. It is possible such things may be illegal in the USA where it is getting more possible to sue someone successfully even when they have not done anything reprehensible. This will eventually need some laws to stop this when Americans finally realise how stupid it is becoming. [Real example: a woman in the USA threw hot coffee over herself and successfully sued the catering establishment. I am waiting to hear that OJ has sued Nicole's family.] How does all this effect keeping records of possible cheating? The only things that should stop it are 1) it is actually against the Law of that land or 2) it is against the authorities' own procedures I do not believe either is the case in England and I do not believe that either should be the case anywhere. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 02:42:21 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA26306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 02:42:21 +1000 Received: from suntan.tandem.com (suntan.tandem.com [192.216.221.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA26301 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 02:42:17 +1000 From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from POST.TANDEM.COM by suntan.tandem.com (8.6.12/suntan5.960119) id JAA12688; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 09:41:42 -0700 Received: by POST.TANDEM.COM (4.13/4.5) id AA12089; 10 Jun 96 09:40:54 -0700 Date: 10 Jun 96 09:30:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199606100940.AA12089@POST.TANDEM.COM> To: elandau@cais.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: an "easy" one Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Eric Landau wrote: [snip] >And the rule of contrapositive (a fundamental axiom of logic) tells us >that the following two statements are absolutely equivalent, merely >different ways of saying the same thing: >"A convention is, by definition, a call that conveys a meaning not >necessarily related to the denomination named." >"A call that conveys a meaning necessarily related to the denomination >named is, by definition, not a convention." >It is a logical impossibility to accept the first as true and hold the >second to be false. Yet that's exactly what we must do to get the "right" >ruling in this case under the current Laws. [snip] No, no, no!! The correct formulation for the contrapositive involves deMorgan's law all the way through, so the second statement *must* be formed as: "A call that conveys *only* meanings necessarily related to the denomination named is, by definition, not a convention." You have not dealt properly with calls that convey information both about the denomination named *and* convey some other information. It is the old story about the two ways of proving all crows are black -- either enumerate all crows, and show that they are all black, or enumerate all non-black objects and show that none of them are crows. There are a a lot of black non-crow objects, but they are irrelevant to either proof. Eric mentions Bergen raises as a counter-example -- the single raise of a major denying more than three cards cannot be 'conventional' because it relates to the suit named (later in his post). I agree that it is a treatment because its meaning is *only* about the suit raised. Is a limit major raise promising a singleton somewhere in the hand a treatment or a convention? If a treatment, then we need to refine the wording of the Law itself, rather than worrying about the contrapositive. The Law should state that a call that conveys information about the denomination named is not a convention (that makes Eric's statement of the contrapositive correct). Does 4 of a minor as RKC in that minor 'convey any meaning not necessarily related to that suit'? It hasn't changed the aces in the deck; it has named one king to be counted as an ace. So -- is it conventional? Under Eric's contrapositive, it is non-conventional; under mine, it is going to take a significant amount of pilpul before we have an answer. It seems we are, whether we want to be or not, really stuck in the stage of "I know one when I see one" as far as defining conventions is concerned. Regards, WWFiv Wally Farley Cupertino, CA (farley_wally@tandem.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 03:01:08 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA26405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 03:01:08 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA26398 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 03:00:58 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aa04910; 10 Jun 96 16:42 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa11244; 10 Jun 96 16:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 15:18:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A truly easy one - insufficient bids In-Reply-To: <31B89726.4143@netshop.bc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jerry Sund writes >David's "easy one" was too hard. Here's mine - > >Are players allowed to have agreements on the meaning >of insufficient bids? >> N E S W >> 1H NB 1S 2C >> 2H NB 2S 3C >> 3C >> Oh dear, an insufficient bid. Over to you: how do you rule? [North- >>South have an agreement that *any* bid of an opponents suit below 3NT >>says "Have you a stopper in this suit? If so then bid 3NT.] > >I realize this must be an 'off-the-shelf' one for this group, but >the question seemed more fitting here then on RGB. > >If the answer is Yes, then my system book is incomplete. > >If the answer is No, then the concept that a "conventional >insufficient bid" relates to _anything_ seems flawed, or at >least never "easy". It seems that the answer is No in the ACBL. There is a regulation forbidding it. I have the impression that the EBU has a similar regulation but I don't know where it is! > >Please be gentle. I have trouble with the concept of there even >being a CIB but the Laws clearly state it, so I do accept it. > You're OK: it is the Law that is an ass. It is so unnecessary to consider CIBs but the Law does so, and so TDs must consider them. I have suggested changes to eliminate this but I don't think anyone was listening!! :) >1Nt - (2S) - 2D in my partnerships we play this as showing >diamonds and NF since the only agreement we have that covers it is >"all undiscussed sequences are natural,if possible, and the >weaker of any possible interpretation". We certainly haven't >discussed this one. > Is it illegal to apply our agreement to insufficient bids? >If others can have conventional agreements apply to theirs, >then surely our natural method is also legal. > I do not believe even the ACBL would try to regulate natural insufficient bids so NIBs are legal, CIBs are not. :) Put it on your convention card! Now when a poor harassed TD is trying to find out whether your insufficient bid may have been conventional, show him your convention card! >We do play 1NT-(P)-2D as tranfer but that wasn't the auction. > >My 'guess' is he thinks he's 1st to bid and has a weak 2Di call. >OR he heard the 2S call and though he was making a 3Di overcall >OR he saw a 1S opening and is overcalling 2Di. >Do the Laws force us to guess that he heard the 1NT and not the >2S call? Is there a Law or ? that tells us to assume it's the >last call he didn't see (or see correctly) rather than all previous >calls? > This is not the most sensible area of the Laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 03:08:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA26429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 03:08:47 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA26422 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 03:08:19 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id af27591; 10 Jun 96 15:49 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa11247; 10 Jun 96 16:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 14:14:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Reports of possibly unethical actions In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens Brix Christiansen writes >Well, as a matter of principle, I disagree with Herman's >statement repeated below. > >=== Politcally flavored opinion follows === > >As the primary general principle, Bridge NCBOs and such >should not be in a position to take away >rights that people have as citizens. For instance, Bridge players >retain their freedom of speech, which allows them to express >their opinion publicly that Jens is an incompetent TD; the >NCBO should not be authorized to limit the rights of >players as members of the NCBO (or its clubs) because they make >such public statements. > >Similarly, when society restricts the extent to which records >of unproven allegations may be kept, Bridge NCBOs should >not have ways of circumventing such restrictions. > >=== End of politically flavored opinion === > >Sorry if I seem to be wasting bandwidth; just showing off >my hobby horse! > >/Jens > >>>> Herman De Wael 09.06.96 15:53 >>> > >By playing in a Bridge Tournament, players should really aknowledge >their agreement that certain facts about them are being registered. >Probably the laws indicate that this registration should be more >formalised, but I do not think Privacy Laws should ever be used to ban >any sport federation from registring infractions or possible infractions >from their members. > It is accepted that Bridge (and any other sport) has rules. You pay your entry fee and you enter into a contract with an organiser part of which is to follow those rules. You may not approve of all parts of the contract: you may not acknowledge its existence: but it is there and you accept it at the moment you pay your entry fee. If this were not the case there would be nothing to stop somebody doing the following: he says "I am bored: I am going to show my hand to partner for the rest of the day. Whenever I mean hearts I shall bid spades. After we have played the first ten tricks of any contract I shall tear my cards up (literally) and put them in the waste basket." There is nothing in the Laws of the land against such behaviour. I do not believe that the Danish, Belgian or English authorities will be prepared to prosecute someone for bidding hearts to show spades. So the protection against such behaviour is in the Laws and Regulations of the game which the player has agreed to follow by accepting the contract in the first place. There must be protection against cheating. Few people are ever "convicted" of cheating based on physical action on a particular hand. To prove someone is cheating you (usually) have to do three things: 1) Show how they are cheating 2) Show the effect from a particular hand of their cheating 3) Repeat #2 from a series of hands You need a pattern. To apply this you need some records: you have to keep records. Furthermore you will normally start with a complaint or two to get the investigation going: that is evidence and it requires to be kept. When a player pays his entry fee he promises not to cheat by accepting the implied contract. But he also accepts under that contract that the authority has a method of policing, and he accepts that method. So a player may not do whatever he likes, and he has no legal recourse (nor should he have) against a Bridge authority that is policing him, assuming they follow (in general terms) their procedures. If you do not like the procedures then you can try and get them changed, or you can refuse to enter the tournaments run by that authority, or you can play in them despite (and complain the whole time!). But you cannot say that the authorities have no right to police the tournament. There are exceptions. If the Law of the land makes it clear that a particular thing done by a Bridge authority is illegal, then the authority has no right to do it. However, if an authority does not follow its own procedures, the Laws of the land give them a fair amount of latitude. Otherwise you could sue whenever a TD makes a mistake. Fortunately and reasonably that is not the case (big sigh of relief from Jens, Herman, Jesper, Richard, Steffie, myself and any other TDs reading this). Under English law a TD is only likely to be sued if he is malicious, and I would generally expect other European laws to be similar. However if the authority itself clearly acts in a manner contrary to its procedures it is possible the Law might get involved. It is possible such things may be illegal in the USA where it is getting more possible to sue someone successfully even when they have not done anything reprehensible. This will eventually need some laws to stop this when Americans finally realise how stupid it is becoming. [Real example: a woman in the USA threw hot coffee over herself and successfully sued the catering establishment. I am waiting to hear that OJ has sued Nicole's family.] How does all this effect keeping records of possible cheating? The only things that should stop it are 1) it is actually against the Law of that land or 2) it is against the authorities' own procedures I do not believe either is the case in England and I do not believe that either should be the case anywhere. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 03:27:58 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA26515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 03:27:58 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA26509 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 03:27:46 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA30404 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 13:27:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA02390; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 13:29:48 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 13:29:48 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9606101729.AA02390@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psyches and semi-psyches X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > What you are saying is that since everybody counts a certain 14HCP hand > as 15HCP, the explanation 15-17 must be regarded correct. > You would be right, except that not everybody does this. > I would not open 1NT on AQT Kx T9x KQT9x since my partner would kill me. > Especially since I know he would raise to 3NT on many an 8-count. > My opponents have the right to know that I can be this strong on a 1club > opening. I hope it's clear that the last sentence is the key one. It is legal to use any hand evaluation method you like and (within rather wide limits) open most any balanced range with 1NT. The question is how to disclose your agreement to the opponents. The problem is that the authorities seem to be convinced that the only valid hand evaluation is Milton Work's point count. That's rather silly, as we all know. The hand above, for instance, counts to 15.6 Kaplan and Rubens points. I'd open it a 15-17 NT every time. In fact, I'd consider Herman's agreement NOT to open 1NT with this rather odd. (And if his partner jumps to 3NT on 8-counts, I suspect the true range of his notrump opener -- in my version of point count -- is rather higher than 15-17.) The question is how to disclose our respective agreements. Must I cross out "HCP" and write in something like "evaluated points?" Or must Herman insert "strict" in front of the "HCP?" And if nothing special is written in, which is the default meaning? Perhaps an easier question: what happens if a pair agrees to use 6421 point count instead of 4321? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 03:56:09 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA26664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 03:56:09 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA26659 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 03:55:29 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ab04952; 10 Jun 96 16:43 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa11245; 10 Jun 96 16:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 15:05:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: psyches and semi-psyches In-Reply-To: <31BC100B.405@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes=20 >David Stevenson wrote: >>=20 >> Herman De Wael writes : >> >- a 1NT opening with a major 5-card suit although the system does not >> >include this; >> >- a 1NT opening on a 14 count when playing 15-17; >> >- a 1S opening on a 4-card when playing 5-card majors; >>=20 >> We would call these deviations. They may or provide evidence of a CPU >> (concealed partnership understanding). They may just be players' >> judgement in action. >>=20 >> >maybe even things like : >> >- 1D-(X)-1S on a 3-card suit; (far too common an auction to be happening >> >'just once'); >>=20 >> We consider this a psyche. We interpret this sort of 3-card suit bid >> as a gross distortion of suit length. However I can see the argument to >> treat it as a deviation. >>=20 >> >and so on. >> > >> >These are not 'gross mis-statements', so they are not 'psychic calls'. >> > >> >This type of auction gives rise to problems in two different guises : >> > >> >a- misinformation : >> >I always consider these cases as misinformation, but I rarely give >> >rulings based on that. Usually (but not always), the correct >> >explanation would have resulted in the same opponent action. >>=20 >> I am sorry that I find the words "I always consider" ambiguous. Do >> you mean that if asked to rule you would adjudge them misinformation >> (whether there is damage or not), or do you mean that you always >> consider whether it is misinformation or not? >>=20 > >I would always judge misingformation - then see if there is *resulting*=20 >damage. Usually, the damege will not be consequent. And this is wrong. Why would you judge misinformation where there is=20 none? I cannot see why you assume misinformation must be present when=20 there is one hand that does not fit within the bounds of the system. > >> If you mean the former then your approach is very harsh because you >> are never allowing a player to use his judgement and no player should >> be placed in a total straitjacket by his system. If I look at a hand >> and consider it worth 15 points even though it has only 14 HCP (perhaps >> because of 10s, or a long suit, or because the opponents have just gone >> for 1400 and are still arguing about it) so I treat it as 15 points and >> open 1NT then it is not misinformation that the opponents are told it >> is 15-17 because that is what we play. >>=20 >> It is not unreasonable to ask a few questions and of course there are >> some people who play (14)15-17 and call it 15-17 but to automatically >> treat it as misinformation when it often is not seems wrong. >> > > >Two different instances : >- if you want to open your 14 HCP 1NT because they have gone for 1400,=20 >you are using Law 40 to 'bid what you want' - psychologically. You open=20 >1NT not because your hand is worth this, but for another reason. >- but if you judge your 14HCP to be worth 15 because of 10's, this is no=20 >different from saying that you judge your 14HCP to be a regular 1NT=20 >opening. So your 1NT opening includes this type of 14 count. > Yes, that is known as judgement. If you take a pair (any pair) and=20 examine their 1NT openings over a year: in that time the open once on an=20 11-count, and every other opening is 12, 13 or 14 points, are you=20 saying that their statement that they play 12-14 is misinformation? You accept (I deduce from your first instance) that if there is a=20 reason that is nothing to do with partnership agreements (eg miscounting=20 of points) but that otherwise it is misinformation. Am I right? So how do I give correct information? Shall I write on my convention=20 card: "All our bidding is subject to the judgement of the player=20 concerned" ? That is correct: it just means that we are playing Bridge=20 in the real world: we are humans not computers. >> >b- forbidden systems. >> > >> >Sometimes, a pair plays a system which is just on the border of being >> >acceptable. The rule of 18 has now disappeared from WBF-regulations, >> >but it provided a good example of this kind. There are however other >> >good examples and I shall give them later. >> >The rule of 18 stated that if a system allowed a pair to open a hand >> >containing less than 18 (HCP + length of 2 longest suits) units, at the >> >1-level, this system was to be considered HUM. >> >Now consider a player opening 1S on AKxxx Qxx xxx xx (9+5+3=3D17). >> >If he announces beforehand that he will open this hand, he will be >> >deemed to be playing a HUM. So he does not reveal this. Yet when he >> >has the hand, he decides to open anyway, and then uses Law 40A to tell >> >us he has this right. >> >I (but I am almost alone) do not allow this. just as in the case of a >> >mistaken call / misexplanation, I consider this call to be part of the >> >system, unless proof is given to the contrary. Since the convention >> >card would clearly not contain this proof, I do not accept that as >> >proof. I rule that this call is within the system, call this a HUM and >> >punish accordingly. >>=20 >> In the example you gave there is some case for believing that the >> player might be doing something illegal but an isolated case must as >> always be treated on its merits. Yesterday my partner opened 1S and I >> was a little surprised to find she had >> Kxxxxx >> Kxxxx >> -- >> xx >>=20 >> Now in England the Rule of 19 applies so would you have ruled that we >> were playing an illegal system? Well, we weren't: we had no agreement >> that Rule of 17 hands could be opened, and I am quite sure that I could >> have convinced a TD of that. > >You could never have convinced me ! So, which is it, are you not prepared to listen to argument at all, or=20 are you going to call me a liar? [Not getting stroppy, just looking for=20 explanation of that last answer.] :) Would you not be prepared to listen to the reason why we do not have=20 an agreement that includes Rule of 17 or not? If you are prepared to=20 listen, when I produce a convincing argument (and I could, believe me)=20 are you going to assume I am lying? If neither of these, how can you=20 say that I would never have convinced you? >I always consider that when you make a call, you implicitely state that=20 >this is your system. >You may not have had an agreement, but try convincing anyone of that=20 >when you actually do it ! Most people are reasonable: most people accept arguments based on=20 certain premises, judgement, lack of history, stupidity to name but=20 three. Of course I am not suggesting that no case of being outside the range=20 is misinformation but I cannot see how you believe every case is. If=20 your really tie it down, every bid that anyone makes has a description=20 that they could give to their opponents. When players apply good=20 judgement/bad judgement/hunch/deduction/table feel they will sometimes=20 be outside that description. That is not misinformation. That is=20 Bridge. > >> > >> >A different example provided some discussion recently. >> >A player opens 1H on somthing like xx AKJ Jxx KQxxx. >> >No problem you say ? Not unless you know that the pair is playing >> >Strong club with canap=E9 style. 1C would be 17+, 1H and then clubs sh= ows >> >longer clubs than hearts. Originally this hand would normally be opened >> >1H, but since a couple of years, the WBF has called canap=E9 allowing >> >major 3-card a HUM. So in the present system, this hand would be opened >> >1D. The player opened 1H because of the solid hearts. >> > >> >I do not allow this. The convention card, or the explanation do not >> >include the possibility of a 3-card, since that would not be allowed. >> >So the pair is probably making a double infraction : playing an >> >unallowed system AND covering this up by misinformation. >>=20 >> Or maybe not. Perhaps they never open a 3card major: but just this >> once the player thought how suitable the hand is, and did so: it might >> have come as a great shock to partner. >>=20 > >Don't be foolish : they always open weak four card suits. So a strong 3=20 >card suit is always possible. Only problem : this system is forbidden! > >> >I would like to see all directors come to the conclusion that these >> >'grey areas' in systems not be called 'psychs'. That these calls be >> >considered part of the played system, and that therefor misinformation >> >and even forbidden system regulations be dealt with in full. >>=20 >> Surely: why should anyone treat them as psyches when they clearly >> aren't? >>=20 >> >Now do you understand my original request to provide a better name for >> >'semi-psyches' ? >>=20 >> Deviations. They provide some evidence of a CPU, not convincing of >> themselves, but enough to be worth investigating. >>=20 > >I propose that when investigation reveals no external reason for the=20 >bid, it should be considered part of the system. See the example above:=20 >if you bid because they went for 1400, OK; if the player only points to=20 >certain aspects of the hand (10's, length) - the call is part of the=20 >system. > And when it clearly isn't part of the system? --=20 David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =3D< + >=3D Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^=20 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 20:29:06 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA10949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 20:29:06 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA10943 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 20:28:55 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-39.innet.be [194.7.10.23]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA01328; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 12:28:47 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31BD663A.6441@innet.be> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 12:27:38 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, AlLeBendig@aol.com Subject: Re: Fwd: 2nd_serve solution and story References: <960610113417_411076802@emout19.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > So and now the story: > > I lead a low D against 7D. I took a look on dummy and counted tricks, > not noticing that one KC was missing. At that point my partner, > knowing the rules better than me, objected the missing KC and called > the TD. Director came and ruled to continue the game and call him > after the play. Pard explained to him that this was not the correct > procedure. TD looked up the rules and then allowed me to change my > lead. I lead a heart and partner got his ace: down one. Afterwards > opps called the TD again and explained that partner by rejecting TD's > first ruling had given me unauthorized information which made a heart > lead imperative. TD thought it over and then set the contract back to > 7D made. The appeals committee then ruled that the board was canceled > and gave us +3 Imps instead (on the other table: 6D+1). > > How would you have ruled? > > Bye, Rolf The fact that partner had to insist on a correct ruling cannot constitute extra unauthorised information, so we should not tell this. The fact that the lead becomes obvious is only because the wrong information transmits the extra fact that declarer has misbid. You are entitled to a correct information of the system, not to the knowledge that opponents have misbid. Therefor, the simple fact that partner CAN call the director because he holds the fourth ace, whereas you have not thought of doing so, is UI. I would rule the same, but probably not with as much conviction as your AC. I would object to the wording 'by rejecting TD's first ruling ...' because he has every right to do so. If TD had immediately given a correct ruling, would the change of lead been made. Perhaps we shall never know. For that reason an +3 IMP seems right. -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 20:41:55 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA11223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 20:41:55 +1000 Received: from sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (sunset.ma.huji.ac.il [132.64.32.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA11185 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 20:32:12 +1000 Received: (from grabiner@localhost) by sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (8.6.11/8.6.10) id LAA29652; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 11:25:37 +0300 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 11:25:37 +0300 Message-Id: <199606110825.LAA29652@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il> From: David Joseph Grabiner To: AlLeBendig@aol.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <960610113417_411076802@emout19.mail.aol.com> (AlLeBendig@aol.com) Subject: Re: Fwd: 2nd_serve solution and story Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > Imps, favorable you hold: > S: xx > H: xxx > D: xxx > C: Q98xx > Having done your homework you lead a small trump. Dummy shows up with: > S: KQxxxx > H: KJ9x > D: AJ10 > C: - [having promised two keycards, a heart lead is probably correct] > So and now the story: > I lead a low D against 7D. I took a look on dummy and counted tricks, > not noticing that one KC was missing. At that point my partner, > knowing the rules better than me, objected the missing KC and called > the TD. Director came and ruled to continue the game and call him > after the play. Pard explained to him that this was not the correct > procedure. TD looked up the rules and then allowed me to change my > lead. I lead a heart and partner got his ace: down one. Afterwards > opps called the TD again and explained that partner by rejecting TD's > first ruling had given me unauthorized information which made a heart > lead imperative. TD thought it over and then set the contract back to > 7D made. The appeals committee then ruled that the board was canceled > and gave us +3 Imps instead (on the other table: 6D+1). This seems to be the relevant rule, although the TD is technically being overruled by himself rather than the Chief Director: 82C. Director's Error If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose. The defenders are clearly entitled to the result as a non-offending side; they should not be damaged by the TD's error. 7D down one was was the best result which was likely given the correct explanation. This is not a case of UI from partner, because partner followed proper procedure in asking for the TD to correct his ruling. The director needs to rule what the declarers should score. Was it likely that opening leader would make the wrong lead if there had been no infraction by the director? I think not, because the UI suggested by the corrected ruling was that there was a cashing ace, not specifically the heart ace. The correction would itself has suggested to opening leader that the heart ace was out. However, this depends on the players and circumstances. If the director rules that the non-offenders are entitled to 7D making, he then uses Law 86 if necessary. If the event was a KO, which must have one winner, the two scores are averaged. The defenders' score was +100 and +1390, which is 17 IMPs. The declarer's score was +2140 and -1390, which is 13 IMPs. These scores are averaged, giving +2 IMps to the defenders. If the event was a round-robin or Swiss, the scores do not need to balance. The defenders get +17, the declarers get +13, and both teams may win the match as a result. On a side note, I have had this problem myself, when partner gave me UI by calling a director back after receiving an incorrect ruling. There should be a general policy for such situations, because directors are human and the situations will occur. Is the fact that partner seems to have noticed a problem UI for you? Is it UI for the opponents? Should information from a director's error be treated in the same way as information gained from other extraneous sources, such as overhearing a discussion? -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.huji.ac.il, http://www.ma.huji.ac.il/~grabiner I speak at the Hebrew University, but not for it. Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 22:07:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA11758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 22:07:30 +1000 Received: from cabra.cri.dk (cabra.cri.dk [130.227.48.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA11750 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 22:06:45 +1000 X-Organization: Computer Resources International A/S, Bregneroedvej 144, DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark Received: from nov.cri.dk (nov.cri.dk [130.227.50.162]) by cabra.cri.dk (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id OAA18805 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 14:05:00 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 14:05:28 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 14:05:15 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fwd: 2nd_serve solution and story Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am going to avoid answering the question raised. I would much prefer to rule by running away. If forced to rule, let me support David Grabiner. >>> 10.06.96 17:34 >>> --------------------- Forwarded message: From: kuehn@ikp.uni-koeln.de (Rolf Kuehn) To: bridge@hot.caltech.edu Date: 96-06-10 08:27:59 EDT >You only see one Keycard and call for the director. TD knows the rules > pretty well and decides that (after making sure that opps cannot prove > that the explanation is correct) LHO should have corrected RHO's > explanation and therefore you may take back your lead and substitute > it by any card of your choice. I really hate this (admittedly correct) ruling, because it contradicts the "Scope of the Laws" section at the beginning of the Laws. I am convinced that the correct explanation (one key card and a club void) would not have made any difference when the opening lead was selected. So although there is misinformation, there does not seem to be any damage. The laws now are inconsistent, in that a *call* based on misinformation can only be taken back if it is probable that the misinformation had influence on the choice of call, but a *lead* can be taken back on the bare fact that there is misinformation. Misinformation is not in the "definitions". Where do we draw the line? =Scenario A= Say the opponents bid 3D-3NT; you enquire about the 3D; it is explained as "preemptive, at most one outside queen"; you lead; dummy comes down with both the major queens (one of them single); and the TD is satisfied that "at most one outside queen" is misinformation. Should you be allowed to lead a second time now? =Scenario B= Or, if the explanation of 3D does not include the words "the D suit is not solid" (say because solid D-suits are opened 3NT). You lead, and before dummy plays to the trick, partner asks "would it have been possible for the diamond suit to be solid". You should be allowed another opening lead now? Scenario A must be exactly analogous to the case we are discussing, but it would be ridiculous to allow the lead to be taken back, because no TD in practice would chastise declarer for not mentioning this exhaustively what the requirements to the side suits are. Scenario B might be done away with by noticing that partner was not asking at his turn to play, but still we have what looks like an irregularity and the TD is therefore required to make a ruling. Note that if partner only asks at his turn to play, Law 40 C will apply instead, and the defenders now only get redress for any damage. My overall problem is, of course, that I believe the only equitable result on the original hand to be 7D 13 tricks; this is the result that would have been obtained if the board had been played with screens (at least one of the two ways), because no irregularity would have been noticed until it was too late to take back the opening lead, and using law 40 C, no one (I guess, hope, and believe) would find the defenders damaged by the misinformation. Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 22:49:59 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA12412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 22:49:59 +1000 Received: from dub-img-7.compuserve.com (dub-img-7.compuserve.com [198.4.9.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA12405 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 22:49:47 +1000 Received: by dub-img-7.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id IAA22758; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 08:49:10 -0400 Date: 11 Jun 96 08:45:55 EDT From: Richard Bley <101557.1671@compuserve.com> To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: ReRe: 2nd_serve solution and story Message-ID: <960611124555_101557.1671_IHK54-1@CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello! Hermann wrote: (comments with +++) AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > So and now the story: > > I lead a low D against 7D. I took a look on dummy and counted tricks, > not noticing that one KC was missing. At that point my partner, > knowing the rules better than me, objected the missing KC and called > the TD. Director came and ruled to continue the game and call him > after the play. Pard explained to him that this was not the correct > procedure. TD looked up the rules and then allowed me to change my > lead. I lead a heart and partner got his ace: down one. Afterwards > opps called the TD again and explained that partner by rejecting TD's > first ruling had given me unauthorized information which made a heart > lead imperative. TD thought it over and then set the contract back to > 7D made. The appeals committee then ruled that the board was canceled > and gave us +3 Imps instead (on the other table: 6D+1). > > How would you have ruled? > > Bye, Rolf +++ Is it Rolf Kuehn? This is exactly the problem we had on a german mail list ("DOUBL"). I made already comments there about this case: The fact that partner had to insist on a correct ruling cannot constitute extra unauthorised information, so we should not tell this. +++ Of course, it is possible to send UI in this way. And you are thinking the same way when I understand the following words correctly. The fact that the lead becomes obvious is only because the wrong information transmits the extra fact that declarer has misbid. You are entitled to a correct information of the system, not to the knowledge that opponents have misbid. Therefor, the simple fact that partner CAN call the director because he holds the fourth ace, whereas you have not thought of doing so, is UI. +++ Perhaps you should assume UI here, but in a relaxed way of handling this rules. So in this way you (as a TD) are able to grade the way of giving informations I would rule the same, but probably not with as much conviction as your AC. I would object to the wording 'by rejecting TD's first ruling ...' because he has every right to do so. If TD had immediately given a correct ruling, would the change of lead been made. Perhaps we shall never know. For that reason an +3 IMP seems right. +++ I think this is not correct. Let's state that there is an UI, because of insisting on a correct ruling (this is doubtful, I think see above). Then there are only two possible results 7D= and 7D-1. The AC (and the TD) has to decide here, what is the corrct result using LAW 16. 60/40 is not one of them. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 11 23:22:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA12682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 23:22:00 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA12676 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 23:21:46 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-41.innet.be [194.7.10.25]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA15068 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 15:21:20 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31BD6E24.275F@innet.be> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 13:01:24 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psyches and semi-psyches References: <199606110728.KAA28213@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Joseph Grabiner wrote: > > That is the point I wanted to make. If you open 1NT on the first hand, > you are using judgment that this hand is worth clearly more than 14. If > you open it on the second hand, you are stretching the range, and should > inform the opponents. > I think we agree on the basics. The only problem is where we draw the borders. In Belgium, I've seen far to many low 14+'s being explained as 15-17 to remain oblivious to the problem. When opponents complain, there are two types : -those that look for every minor infraction, and complain about a 14++. I ask these what they would open, usually this is also 1NT. -those that never complain, but find this 14-- really awful. I ask these what they would have done if the explanation had been 14-16, usually this is exactly the same as what really happened. All I was stating was that it is all right to be severe about ruling misinformation since it will not often lead to adjusted scores. PLayers should learn that they cannot play 'fuzzy systems' and continue to get away with it. I knew one team who followed every explanation with 'in theory'. Perhaps that's overstating the obvious but it is correct. -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 00:06:26 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:06:26 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA12885 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:03:32 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id be12385; 11 Jun 96 15:00 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa17558; 11 Jun 96 14:53 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 14:52:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fwd: 2nd_serve solution and story In-Reply-To: <199606110825.LAA29652@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Joseph Grabiner wrote: >You write: > >> Imps, favorable you hold: > >> S: xx >> H: xxx >> D: xxx >> C: Q98xx > >> Having done your homework you lead a small trump. Dummy shows up with: > >> S: KQxxxx >> H: KJ9x >> D: AJ10 >> C: - > >[having promised two keycards, a heart lead is probably correct] > >> So and now the story: > >> I lead a low D against 7D. I took a look on dummy and counted tricks, >> not noticing that one KC was missing. At that point my partner, >> knowing the rules better than me, objected the missing KC and called >> the TD. Director came and ruled to continue the game and call him >> after the play. Pard explained to him that this was not the correct >> procedure. TD looked up the rules and then allowed me to change my >> lead. I lead a heart and partner got his ace: down one. Afterwards >> opps called the TD again and explained that partner by rejecting TD's >> first ruling had given me unauthorized information which made a heart >> lead imperative. TD thought it over and then set the contract back to >> 7D made. The appeals committee then ruled that the board was canceled >> and gave us +3 Imps instead (on the other table: 6D+1). > >This seems to be the relevant rule, although the TD is technically being >overruled by himself rather than the Chief Director: > >82C. Director's Error > If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director > subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will > allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, > considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose. > >The defenders are clearly entitled to the result as a non-offending >side; they should not be damaged by the TD's error. 7D down one was was >the best result which was likely given the correct explanation. This >is not a case of UI from partner, because partner followed proper >procedure in asking for the TD to correct his ruling. > >The director needs to rule what the declarers should score. Was it >likely that opening leader would make the wrong lead if there had been >no infraction by the director? I think not, because the UI suggested by >the corrected ruling was that there was a cashing ace, not specifically >the heart ace. The correction would itself has suggested to opening >leader that the heart ace was out. However, this depends on the players >and circumstances. > >If the director rules that the non-offenders are entitled to 7D making, >he then uses Law 86 if necessary. If the event was a KO, which must >have one winner, the two scores are averaged. The defenders' score was >+100 and +1390, which is 17 IMPs. The declarer's score was +2140 and >-1390, which is 13 IMPs. These scores are averaged, giving +2 IMps to >the defenders. > >If the event was a round-robin or Swiss, the scores do not need to >balance. The defenders get +17, the declarers get +13, and both teams >may win the match as a result. Some people spoil all my fun by beating me to it! All I can say about the above is that I reckon David is 100% correct. However I am appalled at yet another +3 imps with little justification. There is a Law covering Director's error and I find it difficult to understand why TDs and ACs are loth to follow it. This is not the first thread which has started with a Director's Error and a failure to apply the Law as it is written. One of the reasons given in the last thread was that they did not think it was fair. Let us consider what might have happened in this case with no Director's Error. The Director reads the Law from the Law book (why didn't he?) and the opening leader, without the extra help, probably leads a heart, but possibly doesn't. So the score is 7D-1 70% of the time (say) and 7D making 30% of the time. [Please don't shout when you tell me my figures are wrong: it's only an assumption.] Now if you are Declarer you have lost your chance at making 7D through the error (+13 imps) and if you are a defender you have lost your chance at beating 7D (+17 imps). Neither of you will be very happy at the lost chance. No matter, the Law gives it back to you. It is wrong for any TD or AC (or RGB commentator!) not to give it to you because of his own personal view. If it was K-O teams then the above procedure comes to +2 imps, which would not be much different from +3 imps: still, that is no reason not to follow the procedure that the Laws lay down: in another case it may come to nowhere near +3 imps: suppose 7D had been made in the other room. I understand that people's fears of this procedure is based on being unfair to the room. Well, there are three answers to that: 1) It is a matter for the Lawmakers: the Law is there. 2) The effect on the rest of the room is normally trivial. 3) The effect on the rest of the room is not known to them. The last is quite relevant: when I am a TD my first aim is to keep the players happy. People who let the rest of the world know that they could have got an extra matchpoint if such and such a thing had not happened do not have the Bridge-playing public at heart. > >On a side note, I have had this problem myself, when partner gave me UI >by calling a director back after receiving an incorrect ruling. There >should be a general policy for such situations, because directors are >human and the situations will occur. Is the fact that partner seems to >have noticed a problem UI for you? Yes. > Is it UI for the opponents? Yes. > Should >information from a director's error be treated in the same way as >information gained from other extraneous sources, such as overhearing a >discussion? Yes. But mainly it is the fact that the Director's Error Law treats both sides as non-offending that is your safety net. ---- Directors and appeals Committees please remember: OPEN THE LAW BOOK AND READ THEREFROM. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 00:27:31 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA15271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:27:31 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA15255 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:26:29 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id be12385; 11 Jun 96 15:00 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa17558; 11 Jun 96 14:53 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 14:52:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fwd: 2nd_serve solution and story In-Reply-To: <199606110825.LAA29652@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Joseph Grabiner wrote: >You write: > >> Imps, favorable you hold: > >> S: xx >> H: xxx >> D: xxx >> C: Q98xx > >> Having done your homework you lead a small trump. Dummy shows up with: > >> S: KQxxxx >> H: KJ9x >> D: AJ10 >> C: - > >[having promised two keycards, a heart lead is probably correct] > >> So and now the story: > >> I lead a low D against 7D. I took a look on dummy and counted tricks, >> not noticing that one KC was missing. At that point my partner, >> knowing the rules better than me, objected the missing KC and called >> the TD. Director came and ruled to continue the game and call him >> after the play. Pard explained to him that this was not the correct >> procedure. TD looked up the rules and then allowed me to change my >> lead. I lead a heart and partner got his ace: down one. Afterwards >> opps called the TD again and explained that partner by rejecting TD's >> first ruling had given me unauthorized information which made a heart >> lead imperative. TD thought it over and then set the contract back to >> 7D made. The appeals committee then ruled that the board was canceled >> and gave us +3 Imps instead (on the other table: 6D+1). > >This seems to be the relevant rule, although the TD is technically being >overruled by himself rather than the Chief Director: > >82C. Director's Error > If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director > subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will > allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, > considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose. > >The defenders are clearly entitled to the result as a non-offending >side; they should not be damaged by the TD's error. 7D down one was was >the best result which was likely given the correct explanation. This >is not a case of UI from partner, because partner followed proper >procedure in asking for the TD to correct his ruling. > >The director needs to rule what the declarers should score. Was it >likely that opening leader would make the wrong lead if there had been >no infraction by the director? I think not, because the UI suggested by >the corrected ruling was that there was a cashing ace, not specifically >the heart ace. The correction would itself has suggested to opening >leader that the heart ace was out. However, this depends on the players >and circumstances. > >If the director rules that the non-offenders are entitled to 7D making, >he then uses Law 86 if necessary. If the event was a KO, which must >have one winner, the two scores are averaged. The defenders' score was >+100 and +1390, which is 17 IMPs. The declarer's score was +2140 and >-1390, which is 13 IMPs. These scores are averaged, giving +2 IMps to >the defenders. > >If the event was a round-robin or Swiss, the scores do not need to >balance. The defenders get +17, the declarers get +13, and both teams >may win the match as a result. Some people spoil all my fun by beating me to it! All I can say about the above is that I reckon David is 100% correct. However I am appalled at yet another +3 imps with little justification. There is a Law covering Director's error and I find it difficult to understand why TDs and ACs are loth to follow it. This is not the first thread which has started with a Director's Error and a failure to apply the Law as it is written. One of the reasons given in the last thread was that they did not think it was fair. Let us consider what might have happened in this case with no Director's Error. The Director reads the Law from the Law book (why didn't he?) and the opening leader, without the extra help, probably leads a heart, but possibly doesn't. So the score is 7D-1 70% of the time (say) and 7D making 30% of the time. [Please don't shout when you tell me my figures are wrong: it's only an assumption.] Now if you are Declarer you have lost your chance at making 7D through the error (+13 imps) and if you are a defender you have lost your chance at beating 7D (+17 imps). Neither of you will be very happy at the lost chance. No matter, the Law gives it back to you. It is wrong for any TD or AC (or RGB commentator!) not to give it to you because of his own personal view. If it was K-O teams then the above procedure comes to +2 imps, which would not be much different from +3 imps: still, that is no reason not to follow the procedure that the Laws lay down: in another case it may come to nowhere near +3 imps: suppose 7D had been made in the other room. I understand that people's fears of this procedure is based on being unfair to the room. Well, there are three answers to that: 1) It is a matter for the Lawmakers: the Law is there. 2) The effect on the rest of the room is normally trivial. 3) The effect on the rest of the room is not known to them. The last is quite relevant: when I am a TD my first aim is to keep the players happy. People who let the rest of the world know that they could have got an extra matchpoint if such and such a thing had not happened do not have the Bridge-playing public at heart. > >On a side note, I have had this problem myself, when partner gave me UI >by calling a director back after receiving an incorrect ruling. There >should be a general policy for such situations, because directors are >human and the situations will occur. Is the fact that partner seems to >have noticed a problem UI for you? Yes. > Is it UI for the opponents? Yes. > Should >information from a director's error be treated in the same way as >information gained from other extraneous sources, such as overhearing a >discussion? Yes. But mainly it is the fact that the Director's Error Law treats both sides as non-offending that is your safety net. ---- Directors and appeals Committees please remember: OPEN THE LAW BOOK AND READ THEREFROM. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 01:18:28 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA16308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 01:18:28 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA16303 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 01:18:20 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA14197 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 11:18:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA02963; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 11:20:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 11:20:36 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9606111520.AA02963@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fwd: 2nd_serve solution and story X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > The laws now are inconsistent, in that a *call* based on misinformation > can only be taken back if it is probable that the misinformation had > influence on the choice of call, but a *lead* can be taken back on > the bare fact that there is misinformation. Actually, I rather like this, at least as applied to leads by the defenders. There are _two_ players in position to correct misinformation before any defender leads, and if both fail to do so, the penalty ought to be more severe than in a normal misinformation case. > =Scenario A= > Say the opponents bid 3D-3NT; you > enquire about the 3D; it is explained as "preemptive, at most > one outside queen"; you lead; dummy comes down with > both the major queens (one of them single); and the TD is satisfied > that "at most one outside queen" is misinformation. Should > you be allowed to lead a second time now? I would not rule misinformation, believing that the singleton queen doesn't really count, but I can see how others would disagree. > My overall problem is, of course, that I believe the only equitable > result on the original hand to be 7D 13 tricks; this is the result that > would have been obtained if the board had been played with > screens (at least one of the two ways) If dummy had corrected the misinformation before the opening lead, as required by Law 75D2, this is most likely what would have happened. I'm not sympathetic to the violators of this Law. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 04:02:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 04:02:30 +1000 Received: from emout10.mail.aol.com (emout10.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA17251 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 04:02:21 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA08919 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 14:01:11 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 14:01:11 -0400 Message-ID: <960611140057_324919638@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 2nd_serve solution and story Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-06-11 10:11:20 EDT, David Stevenson writes (twice): >Subj: Re: Fwd: 2nd_serve solution and story >Date: 96-06-11 10:11:20 EDT >From: david@blakjak.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >David Joseph Grabiner wrote: > >>You write: >> >>> Imps, favorable you hold: >> >>> S: xx >>> H: xxx >>> D: xxx >>> C: Q98xx >> >>> Having done your homework you lead a small trump. Dummy shows up with: >> >>> S: KQxxxx >>> H: KJ9x >>> D: AJ10 >>> C: - >> >>[having promised two keycards, a heart lead is probably correct] >> >>> So and now the story: >> >>> I lead a low D against 7D. I took a look on dummy and counted tricks, >>> not noticing that one KC was missing. At that point my partner, >>> knowing the rules better than me, objected the missing KC and called >>> the TD. Director came and ruled to continue the game and call him >>> after the play. Pard explained to him that this was not the correct >>> procedure. TD looked up the rules and then allowed me to change my >>> lead. I lead a heart and partner got his ace: down one. Afterwards >>> opps called the TD again and explained that partner by rejecting TD's >>> first ruling had given me unauthorized information which made a heart >>> lead imperative. TD thought it over and then set the contract back to >>> 7D made. The appeals committee then ruled that the board was canceled >>> and gave us +3 Imps instead (on the other table: 6D+1). >> >>This seems to be the relevant rule, although the TD is technically being >>overruled by himself rather than the Chief Director: >> >>82C. Director's Error >> If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director >> subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will >> allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted >score, >> considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose. >> >>The defenders are clearly entitled to the result as a non-offending >>side; they should not be damaged by the TD's error. 7D down one was was >>the best result which was likely given the correct explanation. This >>is not a case of UI from partner, because partner followed proper >>procedure in asking for the TD to correct his ruling. >> >>The director needs to rule what the declarers should score. Was it >>likely that opening leader would make the wrong lead if there had been >>no infraction by the director? I think not, because the UI suggested by >>the corrected ruling was that there was a cashing ace, not specifically >>the heart ace. The correction would itself has suggested to opening >>leader that the heart ace was out. However, this depends on the players >>and circumstances. >> >>If the director rules that the non-offenders are entitled to 7D making, >>he then uses Law 86 if necessary. If the event was a KO, which must >>have one winner, the two scores are averaged. The defenders' score was >>+100 and +1390, which is 17 IMPs. The declarer's score was +2140 and >>-1390, which is 13 IMPs. These scores are averaged, giving +2 IMps to >>the defenders. >> >>If the event was a round-robin or Swiss, the scores do not need to >>balance. The defenders get +17, the declarers get +13, and both teams >>may win the match as a result. > > Some people spoil all my fun by beating me to it! All I can say about >the above is that I reckon David is 100% correct. > > However I am appalled at yet another +3 imps with little >justification. There is a Law covering Director's error and I find it >difficult to understand why TDs and ACs are loth to follow it. This is >not the first thread which has started with a Director's Error and a >failure to apply the Law as it is written. > > One of the reasons given in the last thread was that they did not >think it was fair. Let us consider what might have happened in this >case with no Director's Error. The Director reads the Law from the Law >book (why didn't he?) and the opening leader, without the extra help, >probably leads a heart, but possibly doesn't. So the score is 7D-1 70% >of the time (say) and 7D making 30% of the time. [Please don't shout >when you tell me my figures are wrong: it's only an assumption.] > > Now if you are Declarer you have lost your chance at making 7D >through the error (+13 imps) and if you are a defender you have lost >your chance at beating 7D (+17 imps). Neither of you will be very happy >at the lost chance. No matter, the Law gives it back to you. It is >wrong for any TD or AC (or RGB commentator!) not to give it to you >because of his own personal view. > > If it was K-O teams then the above procedure comes to +2 imps, which >would not be much different from +3 imps: still, that is no reason not >to follow the procedure that the Laws lay down: in another case it may >come to nowhere near +3 imps: suppose 7D had been made in the other >room. It's hard to disagree with so many David opinions. I posted this because I felt it had so many interesting twists to it. I'm glad others agree on that point. I mostly agree with both of these David's as to the fact that there was a TD error and how to deal with it. The AC took the chicken way out and did not try to solve the problem. My guess is that it was an inexperienced AC. (We have more of those than inexperienced TDs, but it's close.) I disagree as to the score adjustment. I recognize the fact that the rest of the world is dealing with a footnote that is not in our Laws. Despite that, I see no reason to split the baby here. For the defending side, "the most favorable result that was likely" is clearly +100. For the declaring side, "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable" is even a more convincing -100. So why the split score? Do we feel guilty about assigning a result which seems tough? I recognize the fact that the TD handled things poorly and clearly made an error. I'm not convinced that is enough reason to give the offending side anything. There is one more issue which I think needs addressing here. I think there should be an automatic 3 IMP PP against the declaring side for failure to disclose the MI. Hads that one thing been done, we wouldn't be spending all this time and bandwidth on this problem. We would be dealing with a real result. One penalty in these situations will be all that is ever needed. They'll get it right next time. > I understand that people's fears of this procedure is based on being >unfair to the room. Well, there are three answers to that: >1) It is a matter for the Lawmakers: the Law is there. >2) The effect on the rest of the room is normally trivial. >3) The effect on the rest of the room is not known to them. All excellent points. > The last is quite relevant: when I am a TD my first aim is to keep the >players happy. People who let the rest of the world know that they >could have got an extra matchpoint if such and such a thing had not >happened do not have the Bridge-playing public at heart. And there are an unfortuneate number of those amongst us. >>On a side note, I have had this problem myself, when partner gave me UI >>by calling a director back after receiving an incorrect ruling. There >>should be a general policy for such situations, because directors are >>human and the situations will occur. Is the fact that partner seems to >>have noticed a problem UI for you? > Yes. I'm not so sure I agree. >> Is it UI for the opponents? > Yes. How could there ever be UI here for the opponents? >> Should >>information from a director's error be treated in the same way as >>information gained from other extraneous sources, such as overhearing a >>discussion? > Yes. Once again, this is a little grey, IMO. > But mainly it is the fact that the Director's Error Law treats both >sides as non-offending that is your safety net. > > ---- > > Directors and appeals Committees please remember: > > OPEN THE LAW BOOK AND READ THEREFROM. There's bound to be a way to make this practice more common. Perhaps publicity from situations like this would help. Alan LeBendig, Los Angeles (310)312-8899 Phone (310)312-8779 Fax From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 07:38:27 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA26026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 07:38:27 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA26021 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 07:38:19 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp19.monmouth.com [205.164.220.51]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA22320 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 17:34:16 -0400 Message-Id: <199606112134.RAA22320@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 17:36:14 +0000 Subject: Re: A truly easy one - insufficient bids X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > You're OK: it is the Law that is an ass. It is so unnecessary to > consider CIBs but the Law does so, and so TDs must consider them. I > have suggested changes to eliminate this but I don't think anyone was > listening!! :) > I was listening, but I haven't decided! I am inclined to agree with Eric Landau, who said basically that L27.B.2 should be eliminated -- that the IB should be allowed to be corrected to the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination, regardless of whether the IB OR THE SB are conventional. Now the IB is treated as a simple case of UI. And usually there will be no damage. For instance: 2NT-(P)-2D (Playing Jacoby Transfers) Is the 2D bid conventional? Who knows, since we in ACBL-land and others are not permitted to have a meaning for the 2D bid. But if responder intended to transfer to hearts (which I think will be the case most of the time) he should be able to bid 3D without penalty. If the 2D bid was something other than a transfer, then the UI issue will afterwards be pretty clear and should lend itself to an easy and fair ruling. Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 12:36:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA27595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 12:36:30 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA27590 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 12:36:17 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aa14123; 12 Jun 96 2:36 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa18671; 12 Jun 96 3:27 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 22:07:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 2nd_serve solution and story In-Reply-To: <960611140057_324919638@emout10.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan wrote: [s] >I disagree as to the score adjustment. I recognize the fact that the rest of >the world is dealing with a footnote that is not in our Laws. Despite that, >I see no reason to split the baby here. For the defending side, "the most >favorable result that was likely" is clearly +100. For the declaring side, >"the most unfavorable result that was at all probable" is even a more >convincing -100. So why the split score? Do we feel guilty about assigning >a result which seems tough? Sorry Alan you've missed one point. This is nothing to do with the footnote to L12C2. L82C: Director's Error If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose. The split is because you treat both sides as non-offending, so each side gets the "the most favorable result that was likely". [s] >> OPEN THE LAW BOOK AND READ THEREFROM. Hehehe !! :) :) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 14:50:53 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA28011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:50:53 +1000 Received: from netshop.net (root@stargazer.netshop.net [204.174.70.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA28004 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:50:35 +1000 Received: from .NETSHOP.NET (100mile-11.netshop.net [204.174.70.106]) by netshop.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA00316; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 21:34:36 -0700 Message-ID: <31BE4C72.13F9@netshop.bc.ca> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 21:49:54 -0700 From: jerry sund X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: sund@netshop.bc.ca Subject: Suggested Defenses Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Playing their 1st time vs a multi-2Di East-West agreed to play North-Souths suggested defenses. (2Di) - P - (4H) - all pass. Before his pass over 2Di East took NS's defense sheet and briefly read it. Responder had overbid slightly (expecting his tenaces to be well positioned) and opener played the hand similarily - expecting East to be finessable. 4Hts went down. When he turned out to have xxx xxx xxxx xxx they called the director. Could Easts read of their defenses be construed as deception or ....? Likely there will be different answers from different sides of the atlantic (and perhaps the Channel, also) because of different regulations in place. It would be interesting to see the different approaches. jerry sund sund@netshop.bc.ca From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 16:33:48 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA28656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 16:33:48 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA28651 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 16:33:37 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp13.monmouth.com [205.164.220.45]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA28148; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 02:05:44 -0400 Message-Id: <199606120605.CAA28148@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 02:07:45 +0000 Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses CC: sund@netshop.bc.ca X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jerry Sund wrote: > Playing their 1st time vs a multi-2Di East-West agreed to play > North-Souths suggested defenses. > > (2Di) - P - (4H) - all pass. Before his pass over 2Di East took > NS's defense sheet and briefly read it. > > Responder had overbid slightly (expecting his tenaces to be well > positioned) and opener played the hand similarily - expecting East > to be finessable. 4Hts went down. > > When he turned out to have xxx xxx xxxx xxx they called the > director. Could Easts read of their defenses be construed as > deception or ....? > > Likely there will be different answers from different sides of the > atlantic (and perhaps the Channel, also) because of different > regulations in place. It would be interesting to see the different > approaches. > OK, let's say that East was being deceptive when he looked at the defenses when he couldn't possibly have wanted to enter the auction. East realizes what he has done wrong, is sorry, and vows never to do it again. The next time this pair plays against a Multi 2 Diamonds, East scans the suggested defenses, and decides that none of them are suitable for his hand. Or he looks at his hand again, reconsiders the vulnerability, and passes. Now West takes action with a marginal hand. Or, similarly, East reads that to show his hand type, he starts with a pass and comes in later. But the auction gets too high for him to do that, and West doubles the final contract. Did East's looking at the defenses suggest to West that East had values? Did West realize that East could not have had xxx xxx xxxx xxx? A third time, East doesn't look, and West DOES NOT come in with a marginal hand... We seem to have backed ourselves into a corner. Remember that 2 Diamonds is a skip bid, and East is required to wait for 10 seconds before taking a call. During that 10 seconds he MUST either look or not look at the suggested defenses. But he is transmitting UI to partner whether he looks or fails to look. This is true unless we say that East cannot look at the suggested defenses unless he has ALREADY decided to enter the auction. But how can that be, when East has no idea what methods are available to him? And now the UI available to West is how long it took East to decide that he was coming in, and thus it was safe to read the defenses. Further, what if East decides to come in, but the defenses suggest he start with a pass, and he does not get a chance to come in later? Also in this case it does no good to say that East must be familiar with his methods, because where the ACBL allows certain unfamiliar methods, the opponents are not required to know what their defenses are if they have agreed to use the defenses suggested by the opponents. All of the above seems to suggest to me that East's looking at the defenses cannot be considered deceptive; in fact he must look, from time to time, when he has a weak hand and no intention of coming in, in order to avoid transmitting UI to partner -- otherwise every time he looks and passes partner will know that he has something. Good problem. Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 16:44:41 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA28742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 16:44:41 +1000 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com (dub-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.9.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA28737 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 16:44:25 +1000 Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id CAA13922; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 02:43:49 -0400 Date: 12 Jun 96 02:42:36 EDT From: Richard Bley <101557.1671@compuserve.com> To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Fwd: 2nd_serve solution and story Message-ID: <960612064235_101557.1671_IHK94-1@CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello David Stevenson wrote: (comments with +++) David Joseph Grabiner wrote: >You write: (sometimes someone has to start at a new point; But I like this :-) > >> Imps, favorable you hold: > >> S: xx >> H: xxx >> D: xxx >> C: Q98xx > >> Having done your homework you lead a small trump. Dummy shows up with: > >> S: KQxxxx >> H: KJ9x >> D: AJ10 >> C: - > >[having promised two keycards, a heart lead is probably correct] > >> So and now the story: > >> I lead a low D against 7D. I took a look on dummy and counted tricks, >> not noticing that one KC was missing. At that point my partner, >> knowing the rules better than me, objected the missing KC and called >> the TD. Director came and ruled to continue the game and call him >> after the play. Pard explained to him that this was not the correct >> procedure. TD looked up the rules and then allowed me to change my >> lead. I lead a heart and partner got his ace: down one. Afterwards >> opps called the TD again and explained that partner by rejecting TD's >> first ruling had given me unauthorized information which made a heart >> lead imperative. TD thought it over and then set the contract back to >> 7D made. The appeals committee then ruled that the board was canceled >> and gave us +3 Imps instead (on the other table: 6D+1). > >This seems to be the relevant rule, although the TD is technically being >overruled by himself rather than the Chief Director: > >82C. Director's Error > If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director > subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will > allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, > considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose. > >The defenders are clearly entitled to the result as a non-offending >side; they should not be damaged by the TD's error. 7D down one was was >the best result which was likely given the correct explanation. This >is not a case of UI from partner, because partner followed proper >procedure in asking for the TD to correct his ruling. > >The director needs to rule what the declarers should score. Was it >likely that opening leader would make the wrong lead if there had been >no infraction by the director? I think not, because the UI suggested by >the corrected ruling was that there was a cashing ace, not specifically >the heart ace. The correction would itself has suggested to opening >leader that the heart ace was out. However, this depends on the players >and circumstances. +++ to make things clear: Not the first but the second lead we are discussing about. In this special case IMHO the TD was able to correct his decision in time. >If the director rules that the non-offenders are entitled to 7D making, >he then uses Law 86 if necessary. If the event was a KO, which must >have one winner, the two scores are averaged. The defenders' score was >+100 and +1390, which is 17 IMPs. The declarer's score was +2140 and >-1390, which is 13 IMPs. These scores are averaged, giving +2 IMps to >the defenders. > >If the event was a round-robin or Swiss, the scores do not need to >balance. The defenders get +17, the declarers get +13, and both teams >may win the match as a result. Some people spoil all my fun by beating me to it! All I can say about the above is that I reckon David is 100% correct. However I am appalled at yet another +3 imps with little justification. There is a Law covering Director's error and I find it difficult to understand why TDs and ACs are loth to follow it. This is not the first thread which has started with a Director's Error and a failure to apply the Law as it is written. One of the reasons given in the last thread was that they did not think it was fair. Let us consider what might have happened in this case with no Director's Error. The Director reads the Law from the Law book (why didn't he?) and the opening leader, without the extra help, probably leads a heart, but possibly doesn't. So the score is 7D-1 70% of the time (say) and 7D making 30% of the time. [Please don't shout when you tell me my figures are wrong: it's only an assumption.] +++ I think in this special case the TD was able to correct his decision just in time. It happens often enough that you as a TD have a blind spot at the table. If the play or the bidding didn't go on, you must be able to correct your decision. Of course it is possible, that this is not in the rules. But at least you can see it this way, that the decision of the TD is the last one he made before the play or the bidding went on. +++ Taking this, you have no wrong decision of the TD anymore. The only point is the question of UI by telling the TD the rules. Now if you are Declarer you have lost your chance at making 7D through the error (+13 imps) and if you are a defender you have lost your chance at beating 7D (+17 imps). Neither of you will be very happy at the lost chance. No matter, the Law gives it back to you. It is wrong for any TD or AC (or RGB commentator!) not to give it to you because of his own personal view. If it was K-O teams then the above procedure comes to +2 imps, which would not be much different from +3 imps: still, that is no reason not to follow the procedure that the Laws lay down: in another case it may come to nowhere near +3 imps: suppose 7D had been made in the other room. I understand that people's fears of this procedure is based on being unfair to the room. Well, there are three answers to that: 1) It is a matter for the Lawmakers: the Law is there. 2) The effect on the rest of the room is normally trivial. 3) The effect on the rest of the room is not known to them. +++ I think that this is not the point (see above) The last is quite relevant: when I am a TD my first aim is to keep the players happy. People who let the rest of the world know that they could have got an extra matchpoint if such and such a thing had not happened do not have the Bridge-playing public at heart. +++ To keep the players happy is in fact a real important point. Do you think anybody in the room would be unhappy, if the TD is able to correct his decision just in time (at least it is bridge and not a "green-table" result) > >On a side note, I have had this problem myself, when partner gave me UI >by calling a director back after receiving an incorrect ruling. There >should be a general policy for such situations, because directors are >human and the situations will occur. Is the fact that partner seems to >have noticed a problem UI for you? Yes. +++ I agree > Is it UI for the opponents? Yes. +++ I don't agree. It is behaviour of your opp. and you are entitled to use this informations. > Should >information from a director's error be treated in the same way as >information gained from other extraneous sources, such as overhearing a >discussion? Yes. +++ I agree (...) Directors and appeals Committees please remember: OPEN THE LAW BOOK AND READ THEREFROM. +++ That's true. But in this special case the TD have to know that there is a funny rule around. He is not able to read all SS before making a decision. And this rule (I saw it in Ostend) about leading twice is not a common one. Nearly every TD there forgot it sometimes (there were many cases when the opp. claimed damage in the lead when there was a wrong explanation of dummy's hand. This is an easy one if you remind this rule because you are able to tell them that they (three, no four th' at the beginning :-)should call you in time. The player who told the TD the rule knew it only, because I discussed this point with him last week. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 19:18:14 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA29561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 19:18:14 +1000 Received: from sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (sunset.ma.huji.ac.il [132.64.32.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA29550 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 19:17:54 +1000 Received: (from grabiner@localhost) by sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (8.6.11/8.6.10) id MAA21752; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 12:16:19 +0300 Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 12:16:19 +0300 Message-Id: <199606120916.MAA21752@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il> From: David Joseph Grabiner To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <9606111520.AA02963@cfa183.harvard.edu> (willner@cfa183.harvard.edu) Subject: Re: Fwd: 2nd_serve solution and story Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: [dummy thinks response shows one keycard, declarer thinks it shows two] >> My overall problem is, of course, that I believe the only equitable >> result on the original hand to be 7D 13 tricks; this is the result that >> would have been obtained if the board had been played with >> screens (at least one of the two ways) > If dummy had corrected the misinformation before the opening lead, as > required by Law 75D2, this is most likely what would have happened. > I'm not sympathetic to the violators of this Law. Actually, even that isn't certain. If dummy gives the correct information that he has only one keycard, while declarer bid on the assumption of two, it's still likely that there is a missing ace, and opening leader might try to find it. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.huji.ac.il, http://www.ma.huji.ac.il/~grabiner I speak at the Hebrew University, but not for it. Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 19:43:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA29681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 19:43:46 +1000 Received: from sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (sunset.ma.huji.ac.il [132.64.32.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA29672 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 19:43:31 +1000 Received: (from grabiner@localhost) by sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (8.6.11/8.6.10) id MAA22567; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 12:42:23 +0300 Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 12:42:23 +0300 Message-Id: <199606120942.MAA22567@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il> From: David Joseph Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <960611140057_324919638@emout10.mail.aol.com> (AlLeBendig@aol.com) Subject: Re: 2nd_serve solution and story Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan LeBenidig writes: > In a message dated 96-06-11 10:11:20 EDT, David Stevenson writes (twice): >> David Joseph Grabiner wrote: >>> On a side note, I have had this problem myself, when partner gave me UI >>> by calling a director back after receiving an incorrect ruling. Since there seems to be some confusion, let me clarify the situation. I don't remember the exact hands, but it was something like this: W N E S 1H P 1S P 1NT P 2C P 2H P 2S P P P 2C was intended as New Minor Forcing, but was not alerted. When I called the director (sitting North), the director gave only me the opportunity to correct my call away from the table, and then left. South called the director back, suggesting to me that he wasn't satisfied with the director's ruling because he intended to double 2C. >>> There >>> should be a general policy for such situations, because directors are >>> human and the situations will occur. Is the fact that partner seems to >>> have noticed a problem UI for you? >> Yes. > I'm not so sure I agree. For purposes of an adjusted score, I would be allowed to take into account partner's double of 2C in the defense. But may I take the unmade double into account here, say by returning a club? >>> Is it UI for the opponents? >> Yes. > How could there ever be UI here for the opponents? This is a case in which the opponents have UI. They know, as I do, that partner has good clubs. If the director had handled things properly after the infraction, the opponents would not know this. Are they allowed to guess the club position right or count the hand out on this basis? On the example hand, this is a more serious problem. If I might have defended differently if partner had doubled, I would be entitled to a score adjustment because of the opponents' infraction. (This was what actually happened.) But if the opponents might have played differently if they had not known about partner's double, it isn't so clear that the score should be adjusted, because it was not their infraction which was the cause of the information. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.huji.ac.il, http://www.ma.huji.ac.il/~grabiner I speak at the Hebrew University, but not for it. Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 21:11:18 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 21:11:18 +1000 Received: from taurus.cus.cam.ac.uk (cusexim@taurus.cus.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA00133 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 21:11:08 +1000 Received: from rm10006 by taurus.cus.cam.ac.uk with local (Exim 0.52 #1) id E0uTnoo-0006cE-00; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 12:10:34 +0100 Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 12:10:34 +0100 (BST) From: "R. Michaels" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses In-Reply-To: <31BE4C72.13F9@netshop.bc.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, jerry sund wrote: > Playing their 1st time vs a multi-2Di East-West agreed to play > North-Souths suggested defenses. > > (2Di) - P - (4H) - all pass. Before his pass over 2Di East took > NS's defense sheet and briefly read it. > > Responder had overbid slightly (expecting his tenaces to be well > positioned) and opener played the hand similarily - expecting East > to be finessable. 4Hts went down. > > When he turned out to have xxx xxx xxxx xxx they called the > director. Could Easts read of their defenses be construed as > deception or ....? > > Likely there will be different answers from different sides of the > atlantic (and perhaps the Channel, also) because of different > regulations in place. It would be interesting to see the different > approaches. It seems to me that if EW agree to use the suggested defense, they are being reprehensibly silly not to at least have a look at it before the bidding starts. Further, if we try and understand why E might want to read the sheet, without trying to intentionally deceive declarer, we are forcing to conclude that he was thinking about some sort of psyche, and seeing if the sheet suggested any suitable one. This seems to me extremely unlikely. Since it is clear that E certainly _could_ have known that his behaviour would mislead oppo, I'd rule against him. If you are going to allow pairs to play defensed suggected by oppo, then fine, but this doesn't absolve the pair from the responsibility of trying to understand what is going on by reading the defense before hand. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 21:37:06 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 21:37:06 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA00294 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 21:37:01 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp13.monmouth.com [205.164.220.45]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA21679 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 07:32:57 -0400 Message-Id: <199606121132.HAA21679@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 07:34:59 +0000 Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Robin Michaels wrote: > It seems to me that if EW agree to use the suggested defense, they are > being reprehensibly silly not to at least have a look at it before the > bidding starts. > If you are going to allow pairs to play defensed suggected by oppo, then > fine, but this doesn't absolve the pair from the responsibility of trying > to understand what is going on by reading the defense before hand. > This seems a reasonable idea, but in practice it is impossible. Pairs who play specially allowed methods are not required to supply their own suggested defenses; the ACBL supplies a booklet of defenses, which the pair may offer for their opponents' use. This booklet is over 10 pages long, densely typed and poorly written, and a given pair could be using over half of the methods to which defenses are supplied. There is simply no time before a 2-board round to study such a volume. Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 23:07:49 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 23:07:49 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA00756 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 23:07:42 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-25.innet.be [194.7.10.9]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA07673 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 15:07:35 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31BEB977.4D50@innet.be> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 12:35:03 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses References: <199606120605.CAA28148@shell.monmouth.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > Jerry Sund wrote: > [we've all read it] > > Good problem. > > Stefanie Rohan Very Good Answer -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Belgium From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 23:39:48 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 23:39:48 +1000 Received: from mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk (mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA00953 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 23:39:41 +1000 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:38:37 +0100 Received: from isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk (isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk [147.150.219.16]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id OAA04884 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:32:57 +0100 Received: by isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <31BED538@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Wed, 12 Jun 96 14:33:28 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Suggested Defenses Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 14:25:00 GMT Message-ID: <31BED538@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 96 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn Jerry Sund wrote: > Playing their 1st time vs a multi-2Di East-West agreed to play > North-Souths suggested defenses. > > (2Di) - P - (4H) - all pass. Before his pass over 2Di East took > NS's defense sheet and briefly read it. > > Responder had overbid slightly (expecting his tenaces to be well > positioned) and opener played the hand similarily - expecting East > to be finessable. 4Hts went down. > > When he turned out to have xxx xxx xxxx xxx they called the > director. Could Easts read of their defenses be construed as > deception or ....? > > Likely there will be different answers from different sides of the > atlantic (and perhaps the Channel, also) because of different > regulations in place. It would be interesting to see the different > approaches. Stephanie Rohan wrote: >OK, let's say that East was being deceptive when he looked at the >defenses when he couldn't possibly have wanted to enter the auction. >East realizes what he has done wrong, is sorry, and vows never to do >it again. >The next time this pair plays against a Multi 2 Diamonds, East scans >the suggested defenses, and decides that none of them are suitable >for his hand. Or he looks at his hand again, reconsiders the >vulnerability, and passes. Now West takes action with a marginal >hand. Or, similarly, East reads that to show his hand type, he >starts with a pass and comes in later. But the auction gets too high >for him to do that, and West doubles the final contract. >Did East's looking at the defenses suggest to West that East had >values? Did West realize that East could not have had xxx xxx xxxx >xxx? >A third time, East doesn't look, and West DOES NOT come in with a >marginal hand... >We seem to have backed ourselves into a corner. Remember that 2 >Diamonds is a skip bid, and East is required to wait for 10 seconds >before taking a call. During that 10 seconds he MUST either look or >not look at the suggested defenses. But he is transmitting UI to >partner whether he looks or fails to look. This is true unless we >say that East cannot look at the suggested defenses unless he has >ALREADY decided to enter the auction. But how can that be, when East >has no idea what methods are available to him? And now the UI >available to West is how long it took East to decide that he was >coming in, and thus it was safe to read the defenses. Further, what >if East decides to come in, but the defenses suggest he start with a >pass, and he does not get a chance to come in later? Also in this >case it does no good to say that East must be familiar with his >methods, because where the ACBL allows certain unfamiliar methods, >the opponents are not required to know what their defenses are if >they have agreed to use the defenses suggested by the opponents. >All of the above seems to suggest to me that East's looking at the >defenses cannot be considered deceptive; in fact he must look, from >time to time, when he has a weak hand and no intention of coming in, >in order to avoid transmitting UI to partner -- otherwise every time >he looks and passes partner will know that he has something. >Good problem. I have been following this thread with great interest, as in this country we neither use "suggested defences" nor allow pairs to consult their own defensive notes. But the idea appears to me to have merit, and I would like to understand the problems. You may be surprised to learn that I entirely endorse Stephanie's comments above. If you're going to play with suggested defences, then it appears to me that you *must* consult them whenever the situation arises, since otherwise you will almost certainly pass UI to partner. Robin Michaels's belief that you should study the suggested defences before play begins appears to me to make no sense. If you could do that, then you could study them before the tournament itself began, and you would not need to use them at the table. David Burn dburn@lnhdent.agw.bt.co.uk Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 12 23:40:09 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 23:40:09 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA00966 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 23:39:51 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ac02087; 12 Jun 96 14:34 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ab00211; 12 Jun 96 13:52 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 11:57:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses In-Reply-To: <199606120605.CAA28148@shell.monmouth.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Stefanie Rohan wrote: >Jerry Sund wrote: > > >> Playing their 1st time vs a multi-2Di East-West agreed to play >> North-Souths suggested defenses. >> >> (2Di) - P - (4H) - all pass. Before his pass over 2Di East took >> NS's defense sheet and briefly read it. >> >> Responder had overbid slightly (expecting his tenaces to be well >> positioned) and opener played the hand similarily - expecting East >> to be finessable. 4Hts went down. >> >> When he turned out to have xxx xxx xxxx xxx they called the >> director. Could Easts read of their defenses be construed as >> deception or ....? >> >> Likely there will be different answers from different sides of the >> atlantic (and perhaps the Channel, also) because of different >> regulations in place. It would be interesting to see the different >> approaches. >> > >OK, let's say that East was being deceptive when he looked at the >defenses when he couldn't possibly have wanted to enter the auction. >East realizes what he has done wrong, is sorry, and vows never to do >it again. > >The next time this pair plays against a Multi 2 Diamonds, East scans >the suggested defenses, and decides that none of them are suitable >for his hand. Or he looks at his hand again, reconsiders the >vulnerability, and passes. Now West takes action with a marginal >hand. Or, similarly, East reads that to show his hand type, he >starts with a pass and comes in later. But the auction gets too high >for him to do that, and West doubles the final contract. > >Did East's looking at the defenses suggest to West that East had >values? Did West realize that East could not have had xxx xxx xxxx >xxx? > >A third time, East doesn't look, and West DOES NOT come in with a >marginal hand... > >We seem to have backed ourselves into a corner. Remember that 2 >Diamonds is a skip bid, and East is required to wait for 10 seconds >before taking a call. During that 10 seconds he MUST either look or >not look at the suggested defenses. But he is transmitting UI to >partner whether he looks or fails to look. This is true unless we >say that East cannot look at the suggested defenses unless he has >ALREADY decided to enter the auction. But how can that be, when East >has no idea what methods are available to him? And now the UI >available to West is how long it took East to decide that he was >coming in, and thus it was safe to read the defenses. Further, what >if East decides to come in, but the defenses suggest he start with a >pass, and he does not get a chance to come in later? Also in this >case it does no good to say that East must be familiar with his >methods, because where the ACBL allows certain unfamiliar methods, >the opponents are not required to know what their defenses are if >they have agreed to use the defenses suggested by the opponents. > >All of the above seems to suggest to me that East's looking at the >defenses cannot be considered deceptive; in fact he must look, from >time to time, when he has a weak hand and no intention of coming in, >in order to avoid transmitting UI to partner -- otherwise every time >he looks and passes partner will know that he has something. > L73: D. Variations in Tempo 1. Inadvertent Variations Variations of tempo, manner, or the like may violate the Proprieties when the player could know, at the time of his action, that the variation could work to his benefit. Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. If you pause, look at your permitted crib sheet, or do anything else when you have no intention of bidding whatever it may reduce the UI problems in your partnership but you certainly "could know, at the time of your action, that the variation could work to your benefit". L73: F. Violation of Proprieties When a violation of the Proprieties described in this Law results in damage to an innocent opponent: 2. Player Injured by Illegal Deception If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a deceptive remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who could have known, at the time of the action, that the deception could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12). And so an adjustment follows. ---- Now this is highly legalistic. I try to approach the Laws of the game with a wider approach (shut up Burn). What is going on here? Suppose a player were to pick up xxxx xxx xxx xxx and ask a question during the auction, when he knows partner is not going to bid? If asked why, he will say that he asks occasionally so that there can be no UI in the asking of questions. Now, be honest. How many of you out there believe this is his only reason and he is not doing it to try and get the opponents to make a mistake? Forget the legalities. Do you believe it? If a player shows interest in a hand when he has no reason and he could have known that it would work to his benefit then he is subject to an adjusted score under (1) The Laws of Bridge and (2) The general ethics of human behaviour -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 00:05:48 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA01080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 00:05:48 +1000 Received: from cabra.cri.dk (cabra.cri.dk [130.227.48.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA01075 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 00:05:38 +1000 X-Organization: Computer Resources International A/S, Bregneroedvej 144, DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark Received: from nov.cri.dk (nov.cri.dk [130.227.50.162]) by cabra.cri.dk (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id QAA17736 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 16:04:10 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 16:04:59 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 16:04:48 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>> David Stevenson 12.06.96 12:57 >>> [ Lots of excellent discussion deleted, so that I can get to my point; readers probably know the entire scenario by heart now] > If a player shows interest in a hand when he has no reason and he > could have known that it would work to his benefit then he is subject to> an adjusted score under > (1) The Laws of Bridge > and > (2) The general ethics of human behaviour I agree with this statement of David's, but I do not see how it leads to an adjustment here. "has no reason" is the phrase with the catch. The player in question has apparently shown interest in his worthless hand while timing out the imposed delay after a skip bid warning. That *is* a reason to show interest; the regulations are phrased in a way where players are *expected* to show interest in their worthless hands after a skip bid. It would be bad form, and totally ruining to the idea of a skip bid warning, if he just sat there looking bored for ten seconds or so. How could we ever rule that the skip bidding side is entitled to redress because a player has put on the little act that the regulations expect him to perform? Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 00:44:43 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 00:44:43 +1000 Received: from emout19.mail.aol.com (emout19.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA04079 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 00:44:38 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout19.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA25276 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 10:44:23 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 10:44:23 -0400 Message-ID: <960612104422_215755272@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-06-12 01:00:09 EDT, Jerry Sund writes: > >Playing their 1st time vs a multi-2Di East-West agreed to play >North-Souths suggested defenses. > >(2Di) - P - (4H) - all pass. Before his pass over 2Di East took >NS's defense sheet and briefly read it. > >Responder had overbid slightly (expecting his tenaces to be well >positioned) and opener played the hand similarily - expecting East >to be finessable. 4Hts went down. > >When he turned out to have xxx xxx xxxx xxx they called the >director. Could Easts read of their defenses be construed as >deception or ....? We have been telling players for quite a while that tgey should always examine the suggested defenses prior to passing. We believe this should always be done if the players are not familiar with the convention and the defenses. Don't forget the flip side of this issue. If you only want information when you have values, partner's actions will become much more accurate. One of my regular partners is very unfamiliar with multi and we ALWAYS look at the defenses. After one such incident as you describe above, I realized it would be more fair to the opponents to notify them that we will always look. And so we do. Alan LeBendig, Los Angeles (310)312-8899 Phone (310)312-8779 Fax From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 01:05:25 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 01:05:25 +1000 Received: from cabra.cri.dk (cabra.cri.dk [130.227.48.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA04240 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 01:05:01 +1000 X-Organization: Computer Resources International A/S, Bregneroedvej 144, DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark Received: from nov.cri.dk (nov.cri.dk [130.227.50.162]) by cabra.cri.dk (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id RAA18341 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 17:03:23 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 17:04:11 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 17:04:06 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a summary of the relevant Danish regulations that cover this thread: 1. We do not have "suggested defenses" as an element of regulation. 2. In teams events at high levels, we allow all systems, but we also allow players to have a copy of (their own) defenses to HUM-systems, and starting August 1, probably also to brown-sticker conventions. Such copies may be referred to at any time during the auction or play (not just at the player's turn to call or play). 3. Except when playing with screens, we *require* skip bid warnings to be given (by means of the stop card). When the warning is forgotten, we still *require* the next player to pause for around ten seconds, but we do not consider it an infraction if he (also) forgets to do so. 4. When a skip bid warning has been given, the next player must pause for around 10 seconds before calling. During those 10 seconds he must give the appearance of seriously considering his call. The period may be used for consulting the opponents' convention card or asking questions. Regulation 3 is to be interpreted, I believe, as follows: If a player does not pause for around 10 seconds after a skip bid has been made without the prescribed warning, the requirement for his partner to bend over backwards to ensure that he does not use the resulting UI is relaxed somewhat. I guess there is a problem here, since a regulation that *allows* a player to act on this UI would be illegal; it would contradict law 16. We do not suggest that the quick tempo of the call suddenly becomes authorized information because of the irregularity committed by the skip bidder. Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 01:23:48 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 01:23:48 +1000 Received: from ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk (root@ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA04420 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 01:23:41 +1000 Received: by ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk (Smail-3.1.29.0 #77) id m0uTrlf-00011nC; Wed, 12 Jun 96 16:23 BST Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 16:23:35 +0100 (BST) From: "R. Michaels" To: "R. Michaels" cc: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Suggested Defenses In-Reply-To: <31BED538@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, Burn, David wrote: [snip] > Robin Michaels's belief that you should study the suggested defences > before play begins appears to me to make no sense. If you could do that, > then you could study them before the tournament itself began, and you > would not need to use them at the table. > > David Burn > dburn@lnhdent.agw.bt.co.uk At the only event I have ever played in where suggested defences were involved, I was indeed made aware of them before the event, but that is neither here nor there. I was expecting the suggest defence to be of the same order of length as the discussion I have with partner when faced with an unusual opening bid. A few seconds (= a few lines) clarifying which of the possible sensible meanings of bids are actually to be used. If the 'suggested defence' is too long for a pair to be able to sit down and understand it in a minute or too, they are being placed at a huge disadvantage anyway, and I don't really see what to point of it is. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 01:25:06 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 01:25:06 +1000 Received: from emout10.mail.aol.com (emout10.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA04439 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 01:25:01 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA18977 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 11:24:39 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 11:24:39 -0400 Message-ID: <960612112438_554688355@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-06-12 07:15:58 EDT, Robin writes: [s] >Since it is clear that E certainly _could_ have known that his behaviour >would mislead oppo, I'd rule against him. > >If you are going to allow pairs to play defensed suggected by oppo, then >fine, but this doesn't absolve the pair from the responsibility of trying >to understand what is going on by reading the defense before hand. I totally disagree. It would take all of a 2 board round to memorize defenses to some of the conventions being permitted currently. I should not have to clutter my mind with things which may not matter. The pair permitted to play the convention must accept any extra problems that arise because of the opponents unfamiliararity with their methods. Alan LeBendig, Los Angeles (310)312-8899 Phone (310)312-8779 Fax From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 01:25:14 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 01:25:14 +1000 Received: from emout13.mail.aol.com (emout13.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA04451 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 01:25:09 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout13.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA15723 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 11:24:33 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 11:24:33 -0400 Message-ID: <960612112432_554688469@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-06-12 10:07:34 EDT, Jens writes: >How could we ever rule that the skip bidding side is entitled to redress >because a player has put on the little act that the regulations expect >him to perform? RIGHT ON, JENS! Alan LeBendig, Los Angeles (310)312-8899 Phone (310)312-8779 Fax From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 02:13:37 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA04744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 02:13:37 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA04739 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 02:13:30 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA20592 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 12:13:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA03747; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 12:15:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 12:15:49 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9606121615.AA03747@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Definition of "convention" X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Burn, David" > It is my firm belief that if you're going to use a word in the Laws of a > game, and the word in the context of the game has ameaning different from > its meaning in everyday speech, then you should define that word within > the Laws. Hear, hear! I hope you will stick to that position if you are still on the Laws Commission. > I therefore propose the following starting point: Let's also think what we are trying to accomplish. I think the usage in Law 40D is paramount; a sponsoring organization cannot regulate agreements unless they are conventional (except for certain initial actions at the one level). Other usages (e.g. 27B, 30C) are secondary, and these Laws can be rephrased if the definition of "convention" turns out not to be what is wanted. (Law 26A is an example in the current Laws; the word "convention" is very carefully avoided.) With that in mind: > A bid is conventional unless: > > It is nothing more specific than an attempt to describe the hand in the > context of the auction so far; and > > The possibility of playing in the denomination of the bid is not > excluded. > > A pass, double or redouble is conventional unless it indicates that, in > the opinion of the player making the call, the hand should be played in > the current contract. What do we NOT want sponsoring organizations to regulate? I suppose one extreme position is that they should be able to regulate anything they like. One way to achieve that is to leave the definition of convention to the SO. This position is too extreme for me. At a minimum, I think any call that suggests a final contract should be allowed. A sample definition: Convention: any call _except_ one that suggests the current contract as the final one. (This is akin to Mr. Burn's definition for non-bids.) This works, I think, for anything that is non-forcing, but do we really want a forcing jump raise (1H-3H) to be defined as conventional? I don't think so, but if not, we have to complicate the definition. Convention: any call that does not suggest the current contract as the final one; _and_ for a suit bid, does not show length, strength, or values in the suit named, or for a notrump bid, does not show a balanced or semi-balanced hand. This is pretty broad and may need some tinkering. Cue bids, for example, are not conventions under this definition. That's fine with me, but some folks may dislike it. Comments? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 02:13:55 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA04761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 02:13:55 +1000 Received: from laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (yangboy@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw [140.112.50.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA04756 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 02:13:48 +1000 Received: by laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA21574; Thu, 13 Jun 96 00:13:47 CST Date: Thu, 13 Jun 96 00:13:47 CST Message-Id: <9606121613.AA21574@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> From: "B.Y." To: AlLeBendig@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <960612112438_554688355@emout10.mail.aol.com> (AlLeBendig@aol.com) Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems as though that Alan and some other people want to see LESS UI transmitted while his detractors, for some reason, want to INCREASE the amount of UI transmitted. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 03:32:43 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 03:32:43 +1000 Received: from suntan.tandem.com (suntan.tandem.com [192.216.221.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA05123 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 03:32:34 +1000 From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from POST.TANDEM.COM by suntan.tandem.com (8.6.12/suntan5.960119) id KAA28702; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 10:29:14 -0700 Received: by POST.TANDEM.COM (4.13/4.5) id AA27449; 12 Jun 96 10:28:25 -0700 Date: 12 Jun 96 09:43:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199606121028.AA27449@POST.TANDEM.COM> To: david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: [snip] >{L73D1, L73F2} > And so an adjustment follows. > > ---- > > Now this is highly legalistic. I try to approach the Laws of the game >with a wider approach (shut up Burn). What is going on here? > > Suppose a player were to pick up > xxxx xxx xxx xxx > and ask a question during the auction, when he knows partner is not > If asked why, he will say that he asks occasionally so How does second to act know that partner is not going to act? Even in fourth seat, do I not have the right (I am tempted to say 'obligation' to study the proposed defense so that I can make (non-UI) deductions about partner's hand? > If asked why, he will say that he asks occasionally so >that there can be no UI in the asking of questions. > > Now, be honest. How many of you out there believe this is his only >reason and he is not doing it to try and get the opponents to make a >mistake? Forget the legalities. Do you believe it? [snip] Well, *I* believe him. To not believe him I must allow the very fact that the opponents are playing 'Tarnished Diamond Two-Bids' to create UI on every auction that partner and I try to have over it -- if I do *not* look at the suggested defense, partner has UI that I have a hand unsuitable for *any* action, no matter what the Tarnished Diamond shows; if I look, he has UI that there is at least some subset of the possible hands of bridge where I might take action. I refuse to be put in a situation where the opponents can hand me a pamphlet of suggested defenses (p 19, lower third covers the Tarnished Diamond; half a page later are the two-bids) and *guarantee* that I give UI to partner whether I look at the pamphlet during my required pause or do not look. I suspect that this was David's purpose -- to expose this absurdity. If not, it is still absurd. Regards, WWFiv Wally Farley Cupertino, CA (farley_wally@tandem.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 03:41:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 03:41:00 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA05194 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 03:40:54 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA22408; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 13:40:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA03838; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 13:42:38 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 13:42:38 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9606121742.AA03838@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses Cc: sund@netshop.bc.ca X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: jerry sund > (2Di) - P - (4H) - all pass. Before his pass over 2Di East took > NS's defense sheet and briefly read it. 2D was a skip bid. In the ACBL, East is required to pause for 10 seconds and act as if he is thinking. How could he possibly do the latter without looking at the defense sheet? This problem would be interesting if the opening had not been a skip bid. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 03:49:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 03:49:30 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA05284 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 03:49:22 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA22663 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 13:49:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA03854; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 13:51:42 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 13:51:42 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9606121751.AA03854@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fwd: 2nd_serve solution and story X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Joseph Grabiner > [dummy thinks response shows one keycard, declarer thinks it shows two] > Actually, even that isn't certain. If dummy gives the correct > information that he has only one keycard, while declarer bid on the > assumption of two, it's still likely that there is a missing ace, and > opening leader might try to find it. That's fine either way. Law 75D2 _requires_ dummy to disclose the actual partnership agreement. The declaring side should not be allowed to achieve a better score by violating that law. If you rule down 1, at least you can explain to the declaring side exactly what they did wrong and how to avoid this problem in the future. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 07:13:44 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 07:13:44 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA14616 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 07:13:36 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp52.monmouth.com [205.164.220.84]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA27346 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 16:42:03 -0400 Message-Id: <199606122042.QAA27346@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 16:43:56 +0000 Subject: RE: Suggested Defenses X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > You may be surprised to learn that I entirely endorse Stephanie's > comments above. If you're going to play with suggested defences, then it > appears to me that you *must* consult them whenever the situation arises, > since otherwise you will almost certainly pass UI to partner. Thank you. You and others have helped to point out to me that I made an error when I said that East should 'sometimes look'. Surely East should 'always look'. This was the one part of my posting about which I was not convinced. Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 07:18:57 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 07:18:57 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA14645 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 07:18:51 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp52.monmouth.com [205.164.220.84]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA29900 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 17:14:36 -0400 Message-Id: <199606122114.RAA29900@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 17:16:30 +0000 Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Steve Willner wrote: > Convention: any call that does not suggest the current contract > as the final one; _and_ > for a suit bid, does not show length, strength, or values in the > suit named, or > for a notrump bid, does not show a balanced or semi-balanced hand. > > This is pretty broad and may need some tinkering. Cue bids, for > example, are not conventions under this definition. That's fine with > me, but some folks may dislike it. > > Comments? Good start. One of the required 'tinkers' that immediately occurs to me is the matter of bids which are conventional but have a natural component. For instance: 2H = Flannery, showing 5H, 4S, minimum opener 1NT-(p)-3H = shows 5-5 in the majors, invitational values 1NT-2H = Brozel, showing hearts and spades All of these bids show hearts, and all may be the final contract. Yet they all also show a spade suit. So the definition of a convention must include this type of bid -- probably the general case is that the bid shows the suit named and is a suggestion to play there, but also shows some other suit. > Stefanie Rohan > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 07:19:16 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 07:19:16 +1000 Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA14662 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 07:19:08 +1000 Received: from ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.47]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id QAA10729 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 16:19:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (4.1/25-eef) id AA29436; Wed, 12 Jun 96 16:19:05 CDT Message-Id: <9606122119.AA29436@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 16:18 CDT From: Barry Wolk To: Subject: Re: Fwd: 2nd_serve solution and story Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We all know the story. I'll quote only the comments I am addressing. In <31BD663A.6441@innet.be>, Herman De Wael wrote: >The fact that partner had to insist on a correct ruling cannot >constitute extra unauthorised information, so we should not tell this. > [snip] > >Therefor, the simple fact that partner CAN call the director because he >holds the fourth ace, whereas you have not thought of doing so, is UI. > >I would rule the same, but probably not with as much conviction as your >AC. I would object to the wording 'by rejecting TD's first ruling ...' >because he has every right to do so. In <199606110825.LAA29652@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il>, David Joseph Grabiner wrote | This |is not a case of UI from partner, because partner followed proper |procedure in asking for the TD to correct his ruling. | [snip] | |On a side note, I have had this problem myself, when partner gave me UI |by calling a director back aefter receiving an incorrect ruling. There |should be a general policy for such situations, because directors are |human and the situations will occur. Is the fact that partner seems to |have noticed a problem UI for you? Is it UI for the opponents? Should |information from a director's error be treated in the same way as |information gained from other extraneous sources, such as overhearing a |discussion? Do the Laws give a player the right to object to a Director's ruling during the hand? He certainly has the right to appeal afterwards, but those comments show that earlier objections lead to thorny UI problems. What Law allows this situation to occur? Would the final decision (about possible UI) be affected by whether that objection turned out to be correct or not? In a similar case, if the original ruling was correct, but the objecting player thought otherwise, is his objection more likely to be considered as giving UI to his partner? The only relevant Law I could find was 90B8, which seems to say that these early objections are not permitted. If this is correct, this would certainly be appreciated by harried Director's everywhere. Barry Wolk Dept of Mathematics University of Manitoba Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 10:14:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA15553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 10:14:47 +1000 Received: (from markus@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA15547 for bridge-laws@rgb; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 10:14:42 +1000 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 10:14:42 +1000 From: Markus Buchhorn Message-Id: <199606130014.KAA15547@octavia.anu.edu.au> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: ADMINISTRIVIA: Reply-To: set for BLML Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au G'day all, Assuming I've done things correctly ;-) the reply-to header of this (and every message hereafter) should be set to BLML. I had one request and no complaints, so I took this to be overwhelming support for the idea...;->. It makes it a tad harder to only respond to the original sender now, but this list doesn't appear to want that much anyway.... ? If it doesn't work - I will continue to tweak it till it does. As regards the digest option for this list, I'm looking into it still. It appears to be a bit awkward (requiring a second list to be set up, AFAICS, and messages copied from BLML to BLDML), but I may be wrong. Any majordomo gurus in the house ? And now - back to our regular discussions Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Parallel Computing Research Facility | Ph: +61 6 2492930 email = markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail = CISR, I Block, | Fax: +61 6 2490747 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia | Mobile: 017 970715 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 11:49:55 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 11:49:55 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA16403 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 11:49:34 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ar17242; 13 Jun 96 0:33 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ab21427; 12 Jun 96 19:38 +0100 Message-ID: <2G4NzQCE4wvxEwDe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 19:35:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >>>> David Stevenson 12.06.96 12:57 >>> > >[ Lots of excellent discussion deleted, so that I can get to my point; > readers probably know the entire scenario by heart now] > >> If a player shows interest in a hand when he has no reason and he >> could have known that it would work to his benefit then he is subject to> an >adjusted score under >> (1) The Laws of Bridge >> and >> (2) The general ethics of human behaviour > >I agree with this statement of David's, but I do not see how it leads >to an adjustment here. "has no reason" is the phrase with the catch. > >The player in question has apparently shown interest in his worthless >hand while timing out the imposed delay after a skip bid warning. >That *is* a reason to show interest; the regulations are phrased >in a way where players are *expected* to show interest in their >worthless hands after a skip bid. It would be bad form, and >totally ruining to the idea of a skip bid warning, if he just sat >there looking bored for ten seconds or so. > >How could we ever rule that the skip bidding side is entitled to redress >because a player has put on the little act that the regulations expect >him to perform? Having read not only this article but all the rest of the thread (with the one obvious exception) I see that I have failed to address the real issues, and my article was wrong. Given the "suggested defences" and the skip bid I now agree that referring to it is not deceptive, for the reasons given by everyone. Damn. :) -- gone into hiding From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 18:17:59 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA18254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 18:17:59 +1000 Received: from sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (sunset.ma.huji.ac.il [132.64.32.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA18225 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 18:06:21 +1000 Received: (from grabiner@localhost) by sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (8.6.11/8.6.10) id LAA09085; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 11:00:40 +0300 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 11:00:40 +0300 Message-Id: <199606130800.LAA09085@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il> From: David Joseph Grabiner To: wolk@ccm.UManitoba.CA CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <9606122119.AA29436@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> (message from Barry Wolk on Wed, 12 Jun 96 16:18 CDT) Subject: Re: Fwd: 2nd_serve solution and story Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au You write: > In <199606110825.LAA29652@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il>, > David Joseph Grabiner wrote > | This > |is not a case of UI from partner, because partner followed proper > |procedure in asking for the TD to correct his ruling. > | > [snip] > | > |On a side note, I have had this problem myself, when partner gave me UI > |by calling a director back aefter receiving an incorrect ruling. There > |should be a general policy for such situations, because directors are > |human and the situations will occur. Is the fact that partner seems to > |have noticed a problem UI for you? Is it UI for the opponents? Should > |information from a director's error be treated in the same way as > |information gained from other extraneous sources, such as overhearing a > |discussion? > Do the Laws give a player the right to object to a Director's ruling > during the hand? He certainly has the right to appeal afterwards, but > those comments show that earlier objections lead to thorny UI problems. > What Law allows this situation to occur? I think it is proper to ask that a director look up a ruling in the book. If you want to dispute a ruling which is based on an interpretation of the facts (misinformation, the extent of damage, etc.), then it is correct to wait until after the hand to appeal. But if a defender drops the deuce of clubs during the play, and director's ruling is, "You may not play any club lower than this deuce until you have played the deuce," or "You must play this deuce at your first legal opportunity," you should ask the director to look up the rule about minor penalty cards. Asking immediately will prevent many problems later. And if the director's ruling is correct, the players will have more respect for it if they have seen it in the book. In the case I cited, there had been misinformation, and director forgot to ask my partner what he would have done if he had been correctly informed. Forcing partner to wait until after the round to appeal might have created the appearance of a self-serving claim; partner could say, "I would have doubled," when the double would direct the best defense, whether or not he had a legitimate double. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.huji.ac.il, http://www.ma.huji.ac.il/~grabiner I speak at the Hebrew University, but not for it. Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 19:28:49 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA18533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 19:28:49 +1000 Received: from sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (sunset.ma.huji.ac.il [132.64.32.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA18518 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 19:24:20 +1000 Received: (from grabiner@localhost) by sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (8.6.11/8.6.10) id LAA09085; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 11:00:40 +0300 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 11:00:40 +0300 Message-Id: <199606130800.LAA09085@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il> From: David Joseph Grabiner To: wolk@ccm.UManitoba.CA CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <9606122119.AA29436@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> (message from Barry Wolk on Wed, 12 Jun 96 16:18 CDT) Subject: Re: Fwd: 2nd_serve solution and story Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au You write: > In <199606110825.LAA29652@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il>, > David Joseph Grabiner wrote > | This > |is not a case of UI from partner, because partner followed proper > |procedure in asking for the TD to correct his ruling. > | > [snip] > | > |On a side note, I have had this problem myself, when partner gave me UI > |by calling a director back aefter receiving an incorrect ruling. There > |should be a general policy for such situations, because directors are > |human and the situations will occur. Is the fact that partner seems to > |have noticed a problem UI for you? Is it UI for the opponents? Should > |information from a director's error be treated in the same way as > |information gained from other extraneous sources, such as overhearing a > |discussion? > Do the Laws give a player the right to object to a Director's ruling > during the hand? He certainly has the right to appeal afterwards, but > those comments show that earlier objections lead to thorny UI problems. > What Law allows this situation to occur? I think it is proper to ask that a director look up a ruling in the book. If you want to dispute a ruling which is based on an interpretation of the facts (misinformation, the extent of damage, etc.), then it is correct to wait until after the hand to appeal. But if a defender drops the deuce of clubs during the play, and director's ruling is, "You may not play any club lower than this deuce until you have played the deuce," or "You must play this deuce at your first legal opportunity," you should ask the director to look up the rule about minor penalty cards. Asking immediately will prevent many problems later. And if the director's ruling is correct, the players will have more respect for it if they have seen it in the book. In the case I cited, there had been misinformation, and director forgot to ask my partner what he would have done if he had been correctly informed. Forcing partner to wait until after the round to appeal might have created the appearance of a self-serving claim; partner could say, "I would have doubled," when the double would direct the best defense, whether or not he had a legitimate double. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.huji.ac.il, http://www.ma.huji.ac.il/~grabiner I speak at the Hebrew University, but not for it. Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 21:25:41 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA18871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 21:25:41 +1000 Received: from styx.ios.com (lighton@styx.ios.com [198.4.75.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA18866 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 21:25:33 +1000 Received: (from lighton@localhost) by styx.ios.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id HAA18389 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 07:25:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 07:25:03 -0400 From: Richard Lighton Message-Id: <199606131125.HAA18389@styx.ios.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au The conclusion of this thread has been that if there has been a skip bid AND if there has been an alert AND there is a suggested defens(c)e to read, you should always study the suggested defens(c)e to simulate interest. By analogy, if there has been both a skip bid and an alert, shouldn't I always ask the meaning of the alert to simulate interest? And does this suggest an extension to asking about alerts when there has been no skip bid? Richard Lighton (lighton@ios.com) Wood-Ridge NJ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 21:33:18 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA18894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 21:33:18 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA18889 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 21:33:09 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ba17477; 13 Jun 96 12:22 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa20098; 13 Jun 96 12:20 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 10:26:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fwd: 2nd_serve solution and story In-Reply-To: <9606122119.AA29436@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Barry Wolk wrote: >We all know the story. I'll quote only the comments I am addressing. > >In <31BD663A.6441@innet.be>, Herman De Wael wrote: > >>The fact that partner had to insist on a correct ruling cannot >>constitute extra unauthorised information, so we should not tell this. >> >[snip] >> >>Therefor, the simple fact that partner CAN call the director because he >>holds the fourth ace, whereas you have not thought of doing so, is UI. >> >>I would rule the same, but probably not with as much conviction as your >>AC. I would object to the wording 'by rejecting TD's first ruling ...' >>because he has every right to do so. > >In <199606110825.LAA29652@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il>, >David Joseph Grabiner wrote > >| This >|is not a case of UI from partner, because partner followed proper >|procedure in asking for the TD to correct his ruling. >| >[snip] >| >|On a side note, I have had this problem myself, when partner gave me UI >|by calling a director back aefter receiving an incorrect ruling. There >|should be a general policy for such situations, because directors are >|human and the situations will occur. Is the fact that partner seems to >|have noticed a problem UI for you? Is it UI for the opponents? Should >|information from a director's error be treated in the same way as >|information gained from other extraneous sources, such as overhearing a >|discussion? > >Do the Laws give a player the right to object to a Director's ruling >during the hand? He certainly has the right to appeal afterwards, but >those comments show that earlier objections lead to thorny UI problems. >What Law allows this situation to occur? > >Would the final decision (about possible UI) be affected by whether that >objection turned out to be correct or not? In a similar case, if the >original ruling was correct, but the objecting player thought otherwise, >is his objection more likely to be considered as giving UI to his partner? > >The only relevant Law I could find was 90B8, which seems to say that >these early objections are not permitted. If this is correct, this >would certainly be appreciated by harried Director's everywhere. > Yes, well pointed out. I suppose the question that we must ask ourselves on BLML is 'Are we explaining what should be happening?' or 'Are we considering the effects of what did happen?'. The fact that I personally am more interested in the latter is one reason that I am still smarting from Jerry's comments which strongly suggest that I am not and nor are others on BLML. Mind you, I think it is clear that some of you are more interested in the former. Why not? I think BLML can be wide enough to consider both aspects. In this case the main interest has been to consider a situation where a sequence of events has happened, a TD call, a ruling, a TD recall, a re-ruling, an appeal. Much of the interest is caused by that strange Law 47E2A, which does not require damage, since there was no damage. It is interesting (which no-one has mentioned) to consider the morals of the defence who wish to change their lead **knowing that no damage has occurred**: what happened to active ethics? But there is no doubt that players should not argue with a TD: calling him back to tell him he has made a mistake is very wrong. The Laws provide a method of disagreeing with a TD (an Appeal), and it creates lots of UI when the player is wrong, and reduces the TD's authority when the player is right. A few courteous words at the end of the hand might deflect an appeal. The TD is responsible for applying the Laws not the players. Because so many players are often involved in judgement rulings they may come to consider that discussion and disagreement are the norm: it is difficult for a TD to sort facts out in such situations without allowing an element of debate. Players then forget that once a ruling is given that phase is over. As far as a player is involved you should now accept the ruling or appeal it. Further debate during the hand is not correct, even if the ruling is wrong. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 21:50:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA18951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 21:50:47 +1000 Received: from cabra.cri.dk (cabra.cri.dk [130.227.48.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA18946 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 21:50:40 +1000 X-Organization: Computer Resources International A/S, Bregneroedvej 144, DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark Received: from nov.cri.dk (nov.cri.dk [130.227.50.162]) by cabra.cri.dk (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id NAA03092 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 13:49:14 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 13:50:03 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 13:49:53 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses -Reply Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >>> Richard Lighton 13.06.96 13:25 >>> >The conclusion of this thread has been that if there has been a skip bid >AND if there has been an alert AND there is a suggested defens(c)e to >read, you should always study the suggested defens(c)e to simulate >interest. I would not be that explicit: My conclusion would be that you should always simulate interest, and that studying the suggested defense is one of the ways this can be done. >By analogy, if there has been both a skip bid and an alert, shouldn't >I always ask the meaning of the alert to simulate interest? You could, but there are other ways. In Denmark, if the bidding proceeds 1H-2NT(alert), 2NT usually shows support for hearts, forcing to game, and no one is going to find you "not interested" if you were certain enough of this not to have to look at the convention card (again) or ask. (In Denmark, looking at the convention card rather than asking is really the thing done, as long as the auction has not become overly complicated.) >And does this suggest an extension to asking about alerts when there >has been no skip bid? It suggests such an extension: if you ask about the meaning of a call when you really do not need the information, you are exposing yourself to the risk that an opponent claims to have been deceived by your action, after which the TD may find grounds for adjusting the score. And if you ask with the intent of deceiving an opponent, you have demonstrated ignorance or contempt of the rules of the game. So do not ask if you do not need to know. Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 23:26:39 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 23:26:39 +1000 Received: from emout13.mail.aol.com (emout13.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA19399 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 23:26:34 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout13.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA19511 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 09:25:59 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 09:25:59 -0400 Message-ID: <960613092558_326880752@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In a message dated 96-06-12 13:49:36 EDT, Steve Willner writes: > >2D was a skip bid. In the ACBL, East is required to pause for 10 >seconds and act as if he is thinking. How could he possibly do the >latter without looking at the defense sheet? This would be even more of a problem if I am aware that you are not familiar with the convention or the suggested defenses. This is akin to the problem we were all discussing several weeks ago. >This problem would be interesting if the opening had not been a skip >bid. I don't actually think that is the case, Steve. What if our opponents were playing a 1D opening bid as showing one of three types of hands (none of which is natural) and provided us with a written set of suggested defenses (1 1/2 pages worth) to deal with this convention. Even though we are not forced to pause, don't you think that each of us, at our turn to act, should peruse these defenses? This would certainly insure that neither of us could ever be accused of having acted based on the UI of partner either having or not having interest in what was transpiring. It doesn't seem to me that the skip bid effectively changes this problem. Alan LeBendig, Los Angeles (310)312-8899 Phone (310)312-8779 Fax From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 13 23:36:18 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 23:36:18 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA19525 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 23:36:12 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA06194 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 09:36:08 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 09:36:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: A truly easy one - insufficient bids In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, David Stevenson wrote: > I do not believe even the ACBL would try to regulate natural > insufficient bids so NIBs are legal, CIBs are not. :) David is assuming that the ACBL either (a) is sensible, or (b) applies the Laws in a straightforward manner. Neither assumption is justified. In fact, the ACBL regulation in question specifically forbids ANY AGREEMENTS over insufficient bids, not just conventions. You may use common sense and bridge logic, but must, by regulation, guess what your alternative calls might mean, and partner must guess what your chosen call means. That's silly enough, but the real problem is that the ACBL has also created a catch-22 here. Auctions whose meaning is known to a partnership through observation and experience of actions taken by partner in analogous situations are considered implicit agreements, and are treated in the same manner as explicit agreements. So if you're unfortunate enough to have your opponents make one too many insufficient bids against you, so that you now KNOW, rather than "guess," that, for example, 2NT-2H- 2S is intended to be weaker than 2NT-2H-3S (as would be entirely obvious the first time it came up), you are acting based on an (implicit) agreement, and thus committing an infraction. In time, a long-standing partnership may find itself with no way to act legally over an insufficient bid! You must either break up your partnership, or be prepared to be penalized any time an opponent makes an insufficient bid against you. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 00:41:39 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 00:41:39 +1000 Received: from styx.ios.com (lighton@styx.ios.com [198.4.75.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA22675 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 00:41:33 +1000 Received: (from lighton@localhost) by styx.ios.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id KAA05564 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 10:41:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 10:41:03 -0400 From: Richard Lighton Message-Id: <199606131441.KAA05564@styx.ios.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A truly easy one - insufficient bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Eric Landau wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, David Stevenson wrote: > > > I do not believe even the ACBL would try to regulate natural > > insufficient bids so NIBs are legal, CIBs are not. :) > > David is assuming that the ACBL either (a) is sensible, or (b) applies the > Laws in a straightforward manner. Neither assumption is justified. In > fact, the ACBL regulation in question specifically forbids ANY AGREEMENTS > over insufficient bids, not just conventions. You may use common sense > and bridge logic, but must, by regulation, guess what your alternative > calls might mean, and partner must guess what your chosen call means. > The only appropriate regulation I can find is the following. DEFENSES AGAINST OPPONENT'S INFRACTIONS Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware of the fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's call out of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, it is conventional. Obviously no conventional call for taking advantage of a call out of rotation has been approved. It seems to me that this specifically talks about conventional calls over infractions, not general agreements that happen to be applied when opponent has done something like bid out of turn or not bid enough. What's your source, Eric? Richard Lighton (lighton@ios.com) Wood-Ridge NJ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 00:53:23 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 00:53:23 +1000 Received: from emout19.mail.aol.com (emout19.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA22788 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 00:53:18 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout19.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10868 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 10:53:06 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 10:53:06 -0400 Message-ID: <960613105305_134127265@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In a message dated 96-06-13 07:29:15 EDT, Richard Lighton writes: >Subj: Re: Suggested Defenses >Date: 96-06-13 07:29:15 EDT >From: lighton@styx.ios.com (Richard Lighton) >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Reply-to: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >The conclusion of this thread has been that if there has been a skip >bid AND if there has been an alert AND there is a suggested defens(c)e >to read, you should always study the suggested defens(c)e to simulate >interest. > >By analogy, if there has been both a skip bid and an alert, shouldn't >I always ask the meaning of the alert to simulate interest? This is a topic this mailing list has dealt with lately, Richard. Many alerts have fairly normal treatments and you would always assume that partner knew what was going on. 1S-X-2NT (skip bid and alert). Failure to ask here would probably not be considered relevant since it rates to be a limit raise in the ACBL. If the opener now bid 3C (alerted) and I as the doubler now inquired as to the meaning of the auction and discovered 2NT showed a preemptive hand with minors, I suppose it is conceivable there might be a problem since you failed to inquire. I would merely assume that you knew what was going on. As long as I act accordingly, there never could be a problem. But in general, asking the meaning of alerts in obviously non-competitive situations would be silly. If I was playing with a student and came accross multi and we had decided we were using the simple defenses they provide us with, I clearly have UI if partner hesitates for 10 seconds and passes with no problem. I know they have no idea what is going on. That is the type of situation we are trying to prevent. >And does this suggest an extension to asking about alerts when there >has been no skip bid? The same guidelines apply since the same conditions exist. Alan LeBendig, Los Angeles (310)312-8899 Phone (310)312-8779 Fax From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 00:53:29 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 00:53:29 +1000 Received: from emout18.mail.aol.com (emout18.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA22793 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 00:53:22 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout18.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07983 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 10:52:38 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 10:52:38 -0400 Message-ID: <960613105236_134127207@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 2nd_serve solution and story Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In a message dated 96-06-13 07:37:14 EDT, David Stevenson writes: > But there is no doubt that players should not argue with a TD: calling >him back to tell him he has made a mistake is very wrong. The Laws >provide a method of disagreeing with a TD (an Appeal), and it creates >lots of UI when the player is wrong, and reduces the TD's authority when >the player is right. A few courteous words at the end of the hand might >deflect an appeal. The TD is responsible for applying the Laws not the >players. > > Because so many players are often involved in judgement rulings they >may come to consider that discussion and disagreement are the norm: it >is difficult for a TD to sort facts out in such situations without >allowing an element of debate. Players then forget that once a ruling >is given that phase is over. As far as a player is involved you should >now accept the ruling or appeal it. Further debate during the hand is >not correct, even if the ruling is wrong. Players in the US don't seem to understand this very important concept. In our club we have made it clear that players will accept the directors ruling with no argument. There is a 24 hour appeal period to discuss any ruling and we will make changes if an error has been made. One player insisted on arguing any ruling I made. I warned him that even if he had revoked and I ruled he was losing seven tricks he could not argue about the decision at that point and we would discuss it later. He didn't get the message and wanted to violently object to a ruling shortly thereafter. I barred him for two weeks and since he has returned there has not been one problem. What's more, others are well aware that this is something which is very important to the smooth running of a game. If only our TDs would take such a strong stand on this issue. David's point about reducing the TD's authority is a very valid one. This is something we can never allow to happen. As players, we must always remember that everything can be dealt with and corrected later if necessary. Does this posting from David mean he is already out of hiding? Damn, tthat was brief! Alan LeBendig, Los Angeles (310)312-8899 Phone (310)312-8779 Fax From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 03:49:21 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 03:49:21 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA23689 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 03:49:14 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp16.monmouth.com [205.164.220.48]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA16324 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 13:45:02 -0400 Message-Id: <199606131745.NAA16324@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 13:46:52 +0000 Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses -Reply X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Jens Brix Christiansen wrote (in response to Richard Leighton's comments): > > >And does this suggest an extension to asking about alerts when there > >has been no skip bid? > > It suggests such an extension: if you ask about the meaning of a call > when you really do not need the information, you are exposing yourself > to the risk that an opponent claims to have been deceived by your > action, after which the TD may find grounds for adjusting the score. > And if you ask with the intent of deceiving an opponent, you have > demonstrated ignorance or contempt of the rules of the game. > So do not ask if you do not need to know. > I disagree. It has recently been suggested (on RGB, by Steve Willner and others) that you should SOMETIMES ask when you do not need to know. Otherwise, every time you ask and then pass, partner will know that you had a hand that was considering entering the auction, for instance if he received a different answer -- or if he just wanted to know what the bid meant before he made his decision. Now there will still sometimes be UI; when you don't ask, partner will know that you weren't considering coming in. But, after all, you DID pass. I think that the UI issue is more important than the opponents' 'right' to make inferences just because you asked. They did alert, didn't they? Presumably they thought you might want to know what their bid meant. Stefanie Rohan > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 05:06:53 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA29878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 05:06:53 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA29872 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 05:06:47 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp16.monmouth.com [205.164.220.48]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA21862 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 15:02:41 -0400 Message-Id: <199606131902.PAA21862@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 15:04:31 +0000 Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Alan LeBendig writes: > In a message dated 96-06-12 13:49:36 EDT, Steve Willner writes: > > > > >2D was a skip bid. In the ACBL, East is required to pause for 10 > >seconds and act as if he is thinking. How could he possibly do the > >latter without looking at the defense sheet? > > This would be even more of a problem if I am aware that you are not familiar > with the convention or the suggested defenses. This is akin to the problem > we were all discussing several weeks ago. > > >This problem would be interesting if the opening had not been a skip > >bid. > > I don't actually think that is the case, Steve. What if our opponents were > playing a 1D opening bid as showing one of three types of hands (none of > which is natural) and provided us with a written set of suggested defenses (1 > 1/2 pages worth) to deal with this convention. Even though we are not forced > to pause, don't you think that each of us, at our turn to act, should peruse > these defenses? This would certainly insure that neither of us could ever be > accused of having acted based on the UI of partner either having or not > having interest in what was transpiring. It doesn't seem to me that the skip > bid effectively changes this problem. Isn't this a little onerous, Alan? Especially if the opponents are using the booklet prepared by the ACBL (or something similar - the conventions in the ACBL book are all skip bids, aren't they?) where our side must look in the table of contents, find the correct page...isn't it good enough to minimize transmission of UI by looking when you need to know, and SOMETIMES when you don't? I think this is analogous to asking about a bid; I addressed this in my just previous post and was going to extend my remarks to this issue. I changed my mind but I'm glad I saw these comments, which gave me another chance. :) Certainly I think that it is better, in an absolute legal sense, to eliminate the UI altogether by looking every time, but as I said, I think that this is really too much to ask of a player who isn't required to pause. Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 05:16:59 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 05:16:59 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA01497 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 05:16:53 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp16.monmouth.com [205.164.220.48]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA22829 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 15:12:46 -0400 Message-Id: <199606131912.PAA22829@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 15:14:37 +0000 Subject: Re: A truly easy one - insufficient bids X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Eric Landau wrote: [Discussion about having ancountered an insufficient bid situation before, and partnership's actions thus becoming an implicit agreement.] > In time, a long-standing > partnership may find itself with no way to act legally over an > insufficient bid! You must either break up your partnership, or be > prepared to be penalized any time an opponent makes an insufficient bid > against you. > Well...you could simply never accept an insufficient bid. I realize that that's no solution, but at least you could retain your partnership. Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 08:44:15 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 08:44:15 +1000 Received: (from markus@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03146 for bridge-laws@rgb; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 08:44:11 +1000 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 08:44:11 +1000 From: Markus Buchhorn Message-Id: <199606132244.IAA03146@octavia.anu.edu.au> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: ADMINISTRIVIA: Reply-to... Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Oh - NOW the votes start flooding in.... :-) Currently running at 1-1 for/against reply-to=BLML. Could others please indicate which way they lean on this issue ? I'll go with a simple majority (of a quorum, if that's all I get). Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Parallel Computing Research Facility | Ph: +61 6 2492930 email = markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail = CISR, I Block, | Fax: +61 6 2490747 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia | Mobile: 017 970715 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 08:49:12 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 08:49:12 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA03175 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 08:48:19 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id an18725; 13 Jun 96 22:42 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa27855; 13 Jun 96 22:49 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 21:54:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses -Reply In-Reply-To: <199606131745.NAA16324@shell.monmouth.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Stefanie Rohan wrote: >Jens Brix Christiansen wrote (in response to Richard Leighton's >comments): > >> >> >And does this suggest an extension to asking about alerts when there >> >has been no skip bid? >> >> It suggests such an extension: if you ask about the meaning of a call >> when you really do not need the information, you are exposing yourself >> to the risk that an opponent claims to have been deceived by your >> action, after which the TD may find grounds for adjusting the score. >> And if you ask with the intent of deceiving an opponent, you have >> demonstrated ignorance or contempt of the rules of the game. >> So do not ask if you do not need to know. >> > >I disagree. It has recently been suggested (on RGB, by Steve Willner >and others) that you should SOMETIMES ask when you do not need to >know. Otherwise, every time you ask and then pass, partner will know >that you had a hand that was considering entering the auction, for >instance if he received a different answer -- or if he just wanted to >know what the bid meant before he made his decision. Now there will >still sometimes be UI; when you don't ask, partner will know that you >weren't considering coming in. But, after all, you DID pass. > >I think that the UI issue is more important than the opponents' >'right' to make inferences just because you asked. They did alert, >didn't they? Presumably they thought you might want to know what >their bid meant. > > No, Steffie: they alerted because they were required to. You cannot say that following one part of the Laws is more important than another (well, you can, but you shouldn't :) ). The question that really applies to this thread is: are the suggested procedures in violation of L73D1? I have generally been convinced by the arguments that they are not, but you can never ignore the Laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 10:46:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 10:46:36 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk (mamos.demon.co.uk [158.152.129.79]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA03806 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 10:46:06 +1000 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 01:15:19 GMT From: mike@mamos.demon.co.uk (michael amos) Message-Id: <403@mamos.demon.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fwd: 2nd_serve solution and story X-Mailer: PCElm 1.10 Lines: 15 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au IF (perish the thought) the TD makes the wrong ruling eg relating to a penalty card surely my best plan as a player is to shut up and get on with the play (perhaps the analogy is with the policeman who tells me to park my car "over there" - if i argue i may get into trouble - if I park "over there" and a rock falls on it and damages my car, then i have some sort f legal case against the policeman) if the TD (policeman) is wrong, nice Mr Stevenson will come along later and give me "the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred." - here is the perfect double shot -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 14 23:49:32 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA10721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 23:49:32 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA10715 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 23:49:26 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA02606 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 09:49:22 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 09:49:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses -Reply In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au On Thu, 13 Jun 1996, David Stevenson wrote: > You cannot say that following one part of the Laws is more important > than another (well, you can, but you shouldn't :) ). The question that > really applies to this thread is: are the suggested procedures in > violation of L73D1? I have generally been convinced by the arguments > that they are not, but you can never ignore the Laws. You shouldn't have to say that following one part of the Laws is more important than another, but when parts of the Laws conflict one is forced to do so. Unfortunately, that's apparently the case here, since we've heard reasonable interpretations from both sides, and, in my experience, these interpretations accurately reflect the way (at least ACBL) ACs are, more and more these days, interpreting the Laws. RHO bids, LHO alerts, and you hold a hand which has no interest in entering the auction. No matter what you do, you may subsequently be deemed to have given the opponents grounds for redress in equity under Law 73. If you fail to ask about the bid or otherwise show interest in its meaning, you are giving partner UI by telling him that you have no interest in coming in. If you do ask or show interest, you COULD have known that this COULD work to your benefit (consensus interpretation of this is that intent is not required) by deceiving the opponents into believing that you have interest in coming in. The situation itself puts you at an inherent disadvantage, in which you are forced to decide which Law is more important, which violation of the proprieties you prefer to commit. This double-bind is (and, again, this is ACBL experience) actually rather new, and has come about with the recent emphasis on much more stringent enforcement of the UI rules. Not that long ago there was a clear consensus that potential deception was to be avoided, even at the risk of UI. By playing an alertable convention, one accepted the disadvantage that the opponents might pass UI by failing to ask about it (whatever you think of the ethical position, it's clear that they're not required to ask), and redress was given only in the most obvious and egregious cases. With our current attitude towards UI adjudications, redress is now far more available, and the disadvantage is now passed on to the opponents. This whole discussion has become something of a rerun of our recent thread on "UI from questions not asked." Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 00:27:53 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 00:27:53 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA13094; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 00:27:47 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA06591; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 10:27:43 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 10:27:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Markus Buchhorn cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: Reply-to... In-Reply-To: <199606132244.IAA03146@octavia.anu.edu.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au On Fri, 14 Jun 1996, Markus Buchhorn wrote: > Oh - NOW the votes start flooding in.... :-) Currently running at 1-1 > for/against reply-to=BLML. Could others please indicate which way they lean > on this issue ? I'll go with a simple majority (of a quorum, if that's > all I get). FOR! Any decent mailreader gives you the option to make use of it or not, so why not have it? And if you have an ill-featured mailreader that doesn't offer a choice of reply addresses, it only takes a couple of keystrokes to modify the To line, and even in that case aren't we more likely to want to send replies to the list rather than to the sender personally? /eric Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 00:44:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 00:44:36 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA13764 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 00:44:31 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA27618 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 10:44:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA04837; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 10:46:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 10:46:57 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9606141446.AA04837@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Convention: any call that does not suggest the current contract > > as the final one; _and_ > > for a suit bid, does not show length, strength, or values in the > > suit named, or > > for a notrump bid, does not show a balanced or semi-balanced hand. > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > 2H = Flannery, showing 5H, 4S, minimum opener I take this as being not conventional under the current definition because the meaning is _necessarily_ related to hearts. Even more clearly not conventional under the proposed definition. Are you saying that you _want_ this to be conventional? (I guess you are. Why?) > 1NT-(p)-3H = shows 5-5 in the majors, invitational values Same comment. Under the current definition, 3S with the same meaning would be conventional, since 3H is "just as good." Under the new definition, 3S here would not be conventional. I can live with that, but perhaps others cannot. > 1NT-2H = Brozel, showing hearts and spades Same comment as number 2. The "necessarily" condition is satisfied because the heart bid can be converted to spades at the same level, while a spade bid cannot. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 00:56:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 00:56:45 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA13847; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 00:56:37 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA29057; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 10:56:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA04850; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 10:59:04 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 10:59:04 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9606141459.AA04850@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: Reply-To: set for BLML Cc: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > From: Markus Buchhorn > Assuming I've done things correctly ;-) the reply-to header of > this (and every message hereafter) should be set to BLML. It works, but please undo it at once! We had a disaster just a few weeks ago caused in part by a mailing list set up that way. A bad address caused a mail loop, which kept sending junk to the whole list. Everyone's mailbox had 250 nonsense messages before the problem was fixed. We would have had more but for the fact that the mailer was in the US and the bad address was in Denmark. I shudder to think what would have happened if the bad address and the mailer had been linked by a fast connection. Sorry, folks, but it really is important to have a person in the loop. Maybe some day the software will be a bit smarter. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 01:10:10 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 01:10:10 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA13982 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 01:10:04 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA30666 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 11:09:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA04876; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 11:12:13 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 11:12:13 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9606141512.AA04876@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > By analogy, if there has been both a skip bid and an alert, shouldn't > I always ask the meaning of the alert to simulate interest? If you will allow "almost always," I think so. The point is that you must act as though you are thinking. If it's reasonable that you might know the meaning without asking -- even with a good hand that would definitely act, you wouldn't bother to ask -- then you don't have to ask, hence the "almost." Personally, I always ask. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 01:37:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA14152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 01:37:24 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA14146; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 01:37:16 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-66.innet.be [194.7.10.50]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA02922; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 17:37:10 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31C1A1E6.3577@innet.be> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 17:31:18 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: markus@octavia.anu.edu.au, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: Reply-to... References: <199606132244.IAA03146@octavia.anu.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Markus Buchhorn wrote: > > Oh - NOW the votes start flooding in.... :-) Currently running at 1-1 > for/against reply-to=BLML. Could others please indicate which way they lean > on this issue ? I'll go with a simple majority (of a quorum, if that's > all I get). > > Cheers, > Markus I would definetly be in favour of replying to bridge-laws. One problem Markus : this really was the only message you did not need to put a reply to BL in !! -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 01:37:29 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA14168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 01:37:29 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA14147 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 01:37:19 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-66.innet.be [194.7.10.50]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA02908 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 17:37:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31C1573C.4721@innet.be> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 12:12:44 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" References: <9606121615.AA03747@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Convention: any call that does not suggest the current contract > as the final one; _and_ > for a suit bid, does not show length, strength, or values in the > suit named, or > for a notrump bid, does not show a balanced or semi-balanced hand. > I think it is better to define a natural bid : A natural bid can have as meanings : - describing a certain number of cards in the named suit; - describing a certain number of points; - denying a certain number of cards in some other suits; If there are other meanings, the call is conventional. This makes 1H - 3H forcing a natural bid, which is logical. -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 04:23:20 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 04:23:20 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA15416 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 04:23:14 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp8.monmouth.com [205.164.220.40]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA28532; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 14:18:58 -0400 Message-Id: <199606141818.OAA28532@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 14:20:50 +0000 Subject: Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: Reply-to... CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Eric Landau wrote: > FOR! Any decent mailreader gives you the option to make use of it or not, > so why not have it? And if you have an ill-featured mailreader that > doesn't offer a choice of reply addresses, it only takes a couple of > keystrokes to modify the To line, and even in that case aren't we more > likely to want to send replies to the list rather than to the sender > personally? /eric But my mailreader makes it easy to send the posting to the mailing list if the default is the person who posted, whereas if the default is the mailing list I have to move my windows so I can see the person's email address, and then type it in. So in the old setup I could do either easily, whereas now it's a pain to send a personal email. Do others have this situation? Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 05:30:21 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 05:30:21 +1000 Received: from ids2.idsonline.com (root@ids2.idsonline.com [204.157.204.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA15797 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 05:30:12 +1000 Received: from va182.idsonline.com (va196.idsonline.com [205.177.128.196]) by ids2.idsonline.com (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA31146 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 15:29:52 -0400 Message-ID: <31C1BE47.1BF7@ids2.idsonline.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 15:32:23 -0400 From: "Larry E. Goode" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses -Reply References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Eric Landau wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Jun 1996, David Stevenson wrote: > > > You cannot say that following one part of the Laws is more important > > than another (well, you can, but you shouldn't :) ). The question that > > really applies to this thread is: are the suggested procedures in > > violation of L73D1? I have generally been convinced by the arguments > > that they are not, but you can never ignore the Laws. > > You shouldn't have to say that following one part of the Laws is more > important than another, but when parts of the Laws conflict one is forced > to do so. Unfortunately, that's apparently the case here, since we've > heard reasonable interpretations from both sides, and, in my experience, > these interpretations accurately reflect the way (at least ACBL) ACs are, > more and more these days, interpreting the Laws. > > RHO bids, LHO alerts, and you hold a hand which has no interest in > entering the auction. No matter what you do, you may subsequently be > deemed to have given the opponents grounds for redress in equity under Law > 73. > > If you fail to ask about the bid or otherwise show interest in its > meaning, you are giving partner UI by telling him that you have no > interest in coming in. > > If you do ask or show interest, you COULD have known that this COULD work > to your benefit (consensus interpretation of this is that intent is not > required) by deceiving the opponents into believing that you have interest > in coming in. > > The situation itself puts you at an inherent disadvantage, in which you > are forced to decide which Law is more important, which violation of the > proprieties you prefer to commit. > > This double-bind is (and, again, this is ACBL experience) actually rather > new, and has come about with the recent emphasis on much more stringent > enforcement of the UI rules. Not that long ago there was a clear > consensus that potential deception was to be avoided, even at the risk of > UI. By playing an alertable convention, one accepted the disadvantage > that the opponents might pass UI by failing to ask about it (whatever you > think of the ethical position, it's clear that they're not required to > ask), and redress was given only in the most obvious and egregious cases. > With our current attitude towards UI adjudications, redress is now far > more available, and the disadvantage is now passed on to the opponents. > > This whole discussion has become something of a rerun of our recent thread > on "UI from questions not asked." > > Eric Landau I think that Eric has nailed this one down. The law has remained the same while the application of it has changed. Several thousand words ago, this thread started with reading suggested defenses to a multi-2D bid holding 13 x's. (With my typical computer dexterity, I have since deleted it.) The opponents of the player with 13 x's then decided that correct hand evaluation took a back seat to reading the opponent's mannerism and proceeded to overbid and go down. Not being happy with this result, they now fall back on the other half of their 'twofer' and claim damage from the reading of the suggested defenses. This is my (admittedly biased) memory of the facts. As Eric points out, a few years ago this was a non-question. The onus for the interruption of the game by pairs playing conventional bids (particularly HUMs) was on the pair using them. I have always believed that playing unusual methods gains an advantage due to unfamiliarity. If we now give the pair playing them an extra shot for every "read the suggested defenses/convention card", "didn't read the suggested defenses/convention card", "took 1.47 seconds to pass", "took 4.6 seconds to pass", etc., then we should all start playing unusual methods. A typical tournament would then be 2 sessions a day, nap in between, stay up with the committee all night. I'll confess to a bent for exaggeration, but hopefully you'll see my point. Several have mentioned the "always ask" option but I don't recall anyone applying it to this particular situation. Does this particular player "always ask (read)"? If so, he seems to be not only outside of Law 73D (since it is only mention -Variations- in tempo, manner and the like) but also well protected by Law 73E - " It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information to the opponents by making all calls and plays in unvarying tempo and manner. " OTOH, the director, opponents & AC can't confirm or deny this ... how do they apply the Law? If the Laws were an ideal structure, I'd be glad to agree with David that we can't give precedence to one law over another. "Could have known" is a stringent standard needed because directors and appeal committees can't read minds and I believe it to be an unfair handicap to apply to the other side in the case of HUMs (or, even UMs) during the early portions (or low levels) of such auctions. Larry From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 06:00:08 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA15896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 06:00:08 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA15891 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 06:00:03 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp8.monmouth.com [205.164.220.40]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA06127 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 15:55:48 -0400 Message-Id: <199606141955.PAA06127@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 15:57:44 +0000 Subject: UI From Alerts -- Whose Problem? X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au I have started a new thread because I think that Eric Landau has hit upon the issue we really need to address. Eric Landau wrote: > > This double-bind is (and, again, this is ACBL experience) actually rather > new, and has come about with the recent emphasis on much more stringent > enforcement of the UI rules. Not that long ago there was a clear > consensus that potential deception was to be avoided, even at the risk of > UI. By playing an alertable convention, one accepted the disadvantage > that the opponents might pass UI by failing to ask about it (whatever you > think of the ethical position, it's clear that they're not required to > ask), and redress was given only in the most obvious and egregious cases. > With our current attitude towards UI adjudications, redress is now far > more available, and the disadvantage is now passed on to the opponents. This last is the thought that was beginning to form in my head when I posted the remarks you cited D.S.'s response to (not repeated here). You have not really given your opinion about the 'current attitude', but my guess is that you believe that the onus should be on the side making an alertable call, and that THEY should have the any disadvantage accruing from the UI/deception dilemma. I agree, and think that this is a very important issue which should be addressed by the lawmakers and interpreters of the law. > This whole discussion has become something of a rerun of our recent thread > on "UI from questions not asked." Except for this last bit. Perhaps we, as a group, have not fully realized that there are inescapable issues of UI when alerts are made, and that SOMEONE has to bear the brunt of this. Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 06:31:55 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA16012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 06:31:55 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA16007 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 06:31:49 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp8.monmouth.com [205.164.220.40]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA08543 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 16:27:25 -0400 Message-Id: <199606142027.QAA08543@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 16:29:20 +0000 Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Steve Willner wrote: > > > Convention: any call that does not suggest the current contract > > > as the final one; _and_ > > > for a suit bid, does not show length, strength, or values in the > > > suit named, or > > > for a notrump bid, does not show a balanced or semi-balanced hand. > > > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > > 2H = Flannery, showing 5H, 4S, minimum opener > > I take this as being not conventional under the current definition > because the meaning is _necessarily_ related to hearts. Even more > clearly not conventional under the proposed definition. Are you saying > that you _want_ this to be conventional? (I guess you are. Why?) > > > 1NT-(p)-3H = shows 5-5 in the majors, invitational values > > Same comment. Under the current definition, 3S with the same meaning > would be conventional, since 3H is "just as good." Under the new > definition, 3S here would not be conventional. I can live with that, > but perhaps others cannot. > > > 1NT-2H = Brozel, showing hearts and spades > > Same comment as number 2. The "necessarily" condition is satisfied > because the heart bid can be converted to spades at the same level, > while a spade bid cannot. > The above comments are a little redundant. I chose the example bids BECAUSE they show the suit named, because they may be the final contract, because they can be converted to another suit without changing the level...I was trying to illustrate that I think the proposed definition of a convention is at present inadequate. I do not know how any of the example bids are currently classified, but I do feel that they *should* be classified as conventions. Why? Well, why do we need a definition of 'convention' in the first place? Law 27B.2 requires a definition of conventions, but my impression is that most of us on this list think that that should not be so, and should be changed when the Laws are revised. Aside from Law 27, the only instances I find that make a distinction between a conventional and non-conventional call refer to a conventional pass, which is already defined in Law 30C. So, unless I am missing something, we need a definition of 'convention' only for the purposes of Law 40D, regulation by the sponsoring organization. And aren't the above examples the types of things that the Laws seem intended to give SO's the right to regulate? If a SO was having a novice game with limited conventions, shouldn't it be allowed to disallow Flannery? Now it is true, perhaps, that CERTAIN zonal organizations do far too much in the way of regulating conventions, but this is a separate issue and has little to do with the definition of 'convention'... Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 09:49:41 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 09:49:41 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA16941 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 09:49:32 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA24608 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 19:49:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA05289; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 19:52:00 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 19:52:00 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9606142352.AA05289@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > So, unless I am missing something, we need a definition of > 'convention' only for the purposes of Law 40D, regulation by the > sponsoring organization. I think this is the main purpose. Other Laws can use the word "convention" or not as need be. > If a SO was having a novice game with limited conventions, > shouldn't it be allowed to disallow Flannery? This is indeed the right question; I'm just not sure of the answer. I think the degree of regulation needed depends on the degree of partnership understanding needed to defend against a given convention. There's no question that Flannery 2D is and should be a convention under any reasonable definition. You absolutely need a partnership agreement about what double shows, if nothing else. So SO's should definitely be allowed to regulate using 2D to show majors or anything similar. I don't think the case for Flannery 2H is nearly so clear. Wouldn't we all agree that double "has" to be for takeout? On the other hand, I suppose there may be problems with the meanings of 2S and 2NT, so there is certainly a case for regulation. On the third hand, we get into some problems here. Consider the following agreements about 2H (each to include some specified strength that we can ignore here): 1. Always shows exactly six hearts. 2. Always shows six hearts and no other four card suit. 3. Always shows six hearts and exactly 6331 shape. 4. Always shows six hearts, 6421 shape, and not four spades. 5. Always shows exactly five hearts. 6. Always shows exactly five hearts and not 5332 shape. 7. Always shows exactly five hearts and a singleton and not four spades. 7a. Always shows exactly five hearts, a singleton, and a four card minor. 8. Always shows exactly five hearts and exactly four spades. Which of these do you want to be regulatable by the SO? And why? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 10:02:05 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA17010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 10:02:05 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA17005 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 10:01:58 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA24423 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 20:01:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA05317; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 20:04:26 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 20:04:26 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9606150004.AA05317@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au I wrote: > >This problem would be interesting if the opening had not been a skip > >bid. > From: AlLeBendig@aol.com > I don't actually think that is the case, Steve. What if our opponents were > playing a 1D opening bid as showing one of three types of hands (none of > which is natural) and provided us with a written set of suggested defenses (1 > 1/2 pages worth) to deal with this convention. Even though we are not forced > to pause, don't you think that each of us, at our turn to act, should peruse > these defenses? Yes, I think we ought to do so, but there is no specific regulation (that I know of) _requiring_ us to do so. Thus there is room for discussing whether such perusal is desirable or forbidden and whether an opponent can safely draw the inference that one who peruses might have reason to be considering some action. In the UK, for example, there appears to be a regulation that might forbid looking at the defenses if no action is contemplated. (Is my statement about the UK true, by the way? Suppose the auction proceeds 1NT-P-2D!- and I have a flat zero-count? May I take a quick but obvious glance at the opponents' convention card? Turn it over if necessary? I think most of us will agree that a long study is out of place, but what about a normal look to make sure of the NT range and that 2D is indeed a transfer? And is the 1D case above any different?) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 10:06:44 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA17032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 10:06:44 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA17027 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 10:06:37 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA25871 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 20:06:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA05323; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 20:09:06 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 20:09:06 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9606150009.AA05323@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A truly easy one - insufficient bids X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > DEFENSES AGAINST OPPONENT'S INFRACTIONS > > Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's > infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware of the > fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's call out > of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, it is conventional. > Obviously no conventional call for taking advantage of a call out of > rotation has been approved. Gary Blaiss was supposed to clarify this with other members of the Laws Commission in Philadelphia. I've just emailed him to ask what happened. As written, this policy seems inconsistent with the 1985 Laws, which it predates. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 15 13:03:26 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA18149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 13:03:26 +1000 Received: from laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (yangboy@math.ntu.edu.tw [140.112.50.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA18144 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 13:03:17 +1000 Received: by laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA29673; Sat, 15 Jun 96 11:03:17 CST Date: Sat, 15 Jun 96 11:03:17 CST Message-Id: <9606150303.AA29673@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> From: "B.Y." To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <9606150004.AA05317@cfa183.harvard.edu> (willner@cfa183.harvard.edu) Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au I would like to point out that most of this nonsense can be avoided if people will accept the simple principle that no one has a right to table reads. I paused so as not to give out any information to anyone, partner and opponent. SO WHAT? David desJardins expressed my sentiments much better than I did in his eloquent post to r.g.b.: firstly, "EVEN" tempo should NOT mean the same speed of play/bid for all situations, it should be the same speed for the SAME situation; secondly, the laws certainly does not state that the ONLY way you can avoid giving out information is to play every card and make every bid in the same amount of time. Of course, the faction that somehow thinks it has a god-given right to dictate the opponents' action with certain holdings blithely ignored his post. I find this smug satisfaction horrifying, even more so as while *I* am a nobody, *THEY* are people in the position to make and enforce the rules of our game. Bridge is a Science, They said Hopefully. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 16 00:30:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 00:30:46 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA22372 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 00:29:01 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ab05304; 15 Jun 96 12:59 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ad09864; 15 Jun 96 11:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 11:08:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses In-Reply-To: <9606150004.AA05317@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Steve Willner wrote: >I wrote: >> >This problem would be interesting if the opening had not been a skip >> >bid. > >> From: AlLeBendig@aol.com >> I don't actually think that is the case, Steve. What if our opponents were >> playing a 1D opening bid as showing one of three types of hands (none of >> which is natural) and provided us with a written set of suggested defenses (1 >> 1/2 pages worth) to deal with this convention. Even though we are not forced >> to pause, don't you think that each of us, at our turn to act, should peruse >> these defenses? > >Yes, I think we ought to do so, but there is no specific regulation >(that I know of) _requiring_ us to do so. Thus there is room for >discussing whether such perusal is desirable or forbidden and whether >an opponent can safely draw the inference that one who peruses might >have reason to be considering some action. In the UK, for example, >there appears to be a regulation that might forbid looking at the >defenses if no action is contemplated. > >(Is my statement about the UK true, by the way? Suppose the auction >proceeds 1NT-P-2D!- and I have a flat zero-count? May I take a quick >but obvious glance at the opponents' convention card? Turn it over if >necessary? I think most of us will agree that a long study is out of >place, but what about a normal look to make sure of the NT range and >that 2D is indeed a transfer? And is the 1D case above any different?) Why do you want to know what they are playing? You already know their notrump range (remember the series of posts where I pointed out that in England you are required to know your opponents' notrump range: I know I was effectively called a liar, and then a fool, but I stick to my position): tell me why you are going to look at the card at this moment? We have no regulations concerning "suggested defences" because we do not have such a thing. We have an approach to Laws 16A, 73C, 73D, 73E, 73F, 74B and 74C that takes note of the fact that the norm is for people with an interest in a hand to show interest in a hand and for people with no interest in a hand not to show interest in a hand, and also the reverse, ie the norm is that people who show an interest in a hand have an interest in that hand and people who do not show an interest in a hand do not have an interest in that hand. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 16 00:51:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 00:51:35 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA23012; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 00:51:28 +1000 Received: from JESPER ([194.192.100.5]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA15328; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 16:51:21 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: Reply-To: set for BLML Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 16:51:19 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <31c2c50f.1076738@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <9606141459.AA04850@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <9606141459.AA04850@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au On Fri, 14 Jun 1996 10:59:04 -0400, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote: >We had a disaster just a few weeks ago caused in part by a mailing list >set up that way. A bad address caused a mail loop, which kept sending >junk to the whole list. Everyone's mailbox had 250 nonsense messages >before the problem was fixed. We would have had more but for the fact >that the mailer was in the US and the bad address was in Denmark. I >shudder to think what would have happened if the bad address and the >mailer had been linked by a fast connection. > >Sorry, folks, but it really is important to have a person in the >loop. Maybe some day the software will be a bit smarter. When I first suggested the "Reply-To: bridge-laws@..." header, I naively assumed that software returning undeliverable mail was smart enough to not return its own messages once more; if that was the case, only one extra copy of a failed mail would go to the list. It seems I was wrong. It seems to me that there ought to be a standard for a "Return-Undeliverable-Mail-To:"-header or something like that; if there is no such standard, then Steve is right, and we will have to do without the Reply-To header. -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 16 01:01:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 01:01:45 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA23071 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 01:01:38 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id az05548; 15 Jun 96 13:07 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ac09860; 15 Jun 96 11:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 11:09:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" In-Reply-To: <9606142352.AA05289@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Steve Willner wrote: >> So, unless I am missing something, we need a definition of >> 'convention' only for the purposes of Law 40D, regulation by the >> sponsoring organization. > >I think this is the main purpose. Other Laws can use the word >"convention" or not as need be. > >> If a SO was having a novice game with limited conventions, >> shouldn't it be allowed to disallow Flannery? > >This is indeed the right question; I'm just not sure of the answer. > >I think the degree of regulation needed depends on the degree of >partnership understanding needed to defend against a given convention. >There's no question that Flannery 2D is and should be a convention >under any reasonable definition. You absolutely need a partnership >agreement about what double shows, if nothing else. So SO's should >definitely be allowed to regulate using 2D to show majors or anything >similar. > >I don't think the case for Flannery 2H is nearly so clear. Wouldn't >we all agree that double "has" to be for takeout? On the other hand, >I suppose there may be problems with the meanings of 2S and 2NT, so >there is certainly a case for regulation. Who is "we"? No, we wouldn't. We includes beginners. If you teach them that the defence to a natural 2H is double for takeout: the bidding goes 2H 2S NB and you have to bid, are you sure how your low-level partner means 2S if 2H shows hearts and spades? Or a response to a takeout double in a major: how do they play 2S? 3H? 3S? Why is it so obvious even that doube is takeout? Why is anything obvious? What is obvious to the poorer player instinctively is that a non-conventional bid does not show length in another suit. IMO it is obvious to you only because you are accustomed to Flannery. Flannery is virtually unknown here and I would not know the answer to these questions with my regular partner. OK, so maybe we don't need the protection, but that is not the point. You must not come to international agreements on the interpretation of Laws that are solely based on what above average Americans [ :) ] would understand. I hear a lot of comments in these NGs about the application of Laws in your Flights B and C. Maybe it is as bad as suggested because the original approach to the application of Laws is not based on Flights B and C. If I may repeat myself: the current threads (sorry Burn) reinforce my view that no definition of convention in the Law book would be an improvement. The reference to conventional pass could comfortably be rewritten without the word convention. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 16 01:51:05 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 01:51:05 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA23267 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 01:50:56 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ab05468; 15 Jun 96 13:00 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ac09859; 15 Jun 96 11:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 11:09:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" In-Reply-To: <31C1573C.4721@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> Convention: any call that does not suggest the current contract >> as the final one; _and_ >> for a suit bid, does not show length, strength, or values in the >> suit named, or >> for a notrump bid, does not show a balanced or semi-balanced hand. >> > >I think it is better to define a natural bid : > >A natural bid can have as meanings : > >- describing a certain number of cards in the named suit; >- describing a certain number of points; >- denying a certain number of cards in some other suits; > >If there are other meanings, the call is conventional. > >This makes 1H - 3H forcing a natural bid, which is logical. > ... and it makes 1NT - 3H showing a singleton heart and fewer than four spades a natural bid, which is not logical. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 16 02:03:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 02:03:24 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA23453 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 02:02:49 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id an05974; 15 Jun 96 13:08 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ac09863; 15 Jun 96 11:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 11:08:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses -Reply In-Reply-To: <31C1BE47.1BF7@ids2.idsonline.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Larry E. Goode wrote: > Several thousand >words ago, this thread started with reading suggested defenses to a >multi-2D bid holding 13 x's. (With my typical computer dexterity, I >have since deleted it.) You *are* behind the times, aren't you? In my case, the computer has deleted it, which it does after a certain time ... See, you have to make your own mistakes: mine are made for me. :-) :-) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 16 04:21:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 04:21:24 +1000 Received: from netshop.net (root@stargazer.netshop.net [204.174.70.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA23685 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 04:21:16 +1000 Received: from .NETSHOP.NET (100mile-10.netshop.net [204.174.70.105]) by netshop.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA29134; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 11:01:34 -0700 Message-ID: <31C2FEFA.7CB4@netshop.bc.ca> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 11:20:42 -0700 From: jerry sund X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: sund@netshop.bc.ca Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au David Stevenson wrote: > Steve Willner wrote: > >(Is my statement about the UK true, by the way? Suppose the auction > >proceeds 1NT-P-2D!- and I have a flat zero-count? May I take a quick > >but obvious glance at the opponents' convention card? Turn it over if > >necessary? I think most of us will agree that a long study is out of > >place, but what about a normal look to make sure of the NT range and > >that 2D is indeed a transfer? And is the 1D case above any different?) > > Why do you want to know what they are playing? You already know their > notrump range (remember the series of posts where I pointed out that in > England you are required to know your opponents' notrump range: I know I > was effectively called a liar, and then a fool, but I stick to my > position): tell me why you are going to look at the card at this moment? > " Why do you want to know what they are playing? " I stared at that line on the screen. I don't know how to say this without offending somebody but surely I can do it without calling David a liar. It struck me it's the type of question a non-bridgeplaying friend would ask but here goes... I suppose it's just me, but I do like to know what is going on in an auction while it is occuring. Without restricting the reasons to those listed below: a) I want to know if the twitches, pauses, head-scratching that opener may come up with relate to his response to stayman or transfer. b) I want to be able to draw conclusions from this "live",rather than have to reconstruct the auction (with accompaning much appreciated authorized information) 3 or 5 rounds later. c) it saves time at the end of the auction and during the defense if I've been able to follow along in the _real_ auction that was going on, rather than sit there listening to meaningless (to me) noises like 3C - 3S, etc. > We have an approach to Laws 16A, 73C, 73D, 73E, > 73F, 74B and 74C that takes note of the fact that the norm is for people > with an interest in a hand to show interest in a hand and for people > with no interest in a hand not to show interest in a hand, and also the > reverse, ie the norm is that people who show an interest in a hand have > an interest in that hand and people who do not show an interest in a > hand do not have an interest in that hand. > -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Why David would quote Laws 16A,73C in support of his position when in fact a player who asks all (most) of the time reduces the UI available to his partnerships has me baffled. Yes, obviously if you have a regulation that is contrary to the Laws but you've managed to enforce it ( we're used to that in ACBLand) then this is a boring thread for you - case is closed. However, for any parts of the world where the politicans haven't overridden the law in this area it still represents a priciple worth debating and defending. When I reach the stage where I take no interest in a hand, please, somebody take away my membership card and notify the caretakers at the home. Aren't I going to have to defend this hand later? Is there a law against trying to plan my defense during the auction? I always find that easier to do when I know what the auction is telling me. yes? Perhaps the educational arm of organizations that take the approach David is discussing would do better to increase players awareness of Laws - 74A3, 74B1, 74B6, 75A (... fully and freely available to the opponents). Yes, I'm ready for the counter argument that when the Lawmakers said 'fully and freely' they actually meant to add "only to those opponents contemplating action at this time in the auction" but the price of ink was too high at the time so they felt "fully and freely" would obviously include the implication of 'partially and restricted, with strings attached'. :-) Ready for it, but not buying it. :-) Realizing that David finds my brand of logic fit only for dogs and freeways, I want to assure him that I am headed once again to centerline, lawbook in hand, awaiting his usual clearcut instruction. :-) :-) jerry sund sund@netshop.bc.ca From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 16 04:52:25 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 04:52:25 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA23801 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 04:52:17 +1000 Received: by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ab24613; 15 Jun 96 19:47 +0100 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id cj15763; 15 Jun 96 18:24 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ab14340; 14 Jun 96 19:53 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 09:17:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: Reply-to... In-Reply-To: <199606132244.IAA03146@octavia.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Markus Buchhorn wrote: >Oh - NOW the votes start flooding in.... :-) Currently running at 1-1 >for/against reply-to=BLML. Could others please indicate which way they lean >on this issue ? I'll go with a simple majority (of a quorum, if that's >all I get). > G'day Looks like you are going to have to explain what you are talking about if we are going to vote. Perhaps it is my software but it links fine and acts as a NG. Jeff had big problems with linkage originally, but seemed to solve them. Some people seem to start new threads when one would expect them to continue the old but are inconsistent. Jens and Steffie have both started new threads this way, but both also have continued old threads. So what is or is not the problem? How does it affect us? C'mon Markus, if I have to vote, **tell me which way to vote**. :)) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 16 06:29:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA24082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 06:29:36 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA24077 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 06:29:18 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aa05710; 15 Jun 96 21:11 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa06749; 15 Jun 96 21:06 +0100 Message-ID: <94KbfsBzcxwxEwoO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 21:04:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses In-Reply-To: <31C2FEFA.7CB4@netshop.bc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au jerry sund wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> Steve Willner wrote: >> >(Is my statement about the UK true, by the way? Suppose the auction >> >proceeds 1NT-P-2D!- and I have a flat zero-count? May I take a quick >> >but obvious glance at the opponents' convention card? Turn it over if >> >necessary? I think most of us will agree that a long study is out of >> >place, but what about a normal look to make sure of the NT range and >> >that 2D is indeed a transfer? And is the 1D case above any different?) >> >> Why do you want to know what they are playing? You already know their >> notrump range (remember the series of posts where I pointed out that in >> England you are required to know your opponents' notrump range: I know I >> was effectively called a liar, and then a fool, but I stick to my >> position): tell me why you are going to look at the card at this moment? Obviously I have made myself less clear than usual. Perhaps I should not make off-the-cuff comments of this sort. If anyone has misunderstood, I explained this English regulation some weeks back. In response I got an article that said they did not believe me, and asked if anyone else in England would like to confirm this "incredible and stupid" regulation. Pam Hadfield duly did. At which point the comments changed roughly speaking from you don't do that to you shouldn't do that. It is because of this attack and a misunderstanding over a different English regulation that I am becoming defensive over English regulations: nothing whatever to do with Steve's question. >> " Why do you want to know what they are playing? " I stared at that line >on the screen. I don't know how to say this without offending somebody but >surely I can do it without calling David a liar. It struck me it's the type >of question a non-bridgeplaying friend would ask but here goes... To call me a liar you have to tell me that this regulation does not exist in England, which is roughly what was said on the last occasion. If you tell me that it is a stupid regulation then I should like to know why, but that seems reasonable. You don't seem to me to be saying anything unreasonable (whether I agree with it or not). > I suppose it's just me, but I do like to know what is going on in an >auction while it is occuring. Without restricting the reasons to those >listed below: >a) I want to know if the twitches, pauses, head-scratching that opener may > come up with relate to his response to stayman or transfer. >b) I want to be able to draw conclusions from this "live",rather than have > to reconstruct the auction (with accompaning much appreciated authorized > information) 3 or 5 rounds later. >c) it saves time at the end of the auction and during the defense if I've >been able to follow along in the _real_ auction that was going on, rather >than sit there listening to meaningless (to me) noises like 3C - 3S, etc. > Sounds very reasonable. >> We have an approach to Laws 16A, 73C, 73D, 73E, >> 73F, 74B and 74C that takes note of the fact that the norm is for people >> with an interest in a hand to show interest in a hand and for people >> with no interest in a hand not to show interest in a hand, and also the >> reverse, ie the norm is that people who show an interest in a hand have >> an interest in that hand and people who do not show an interest in a >> hand do not have an interest in that hand. > >Why David would quote Laws 16A,73C in support of his position when in fact >a player who asks all (most) of the time reduces the UI available to his >partnerships has me baffled. > Yes, obviously if you have a regulation that is contrary to the Laws >but you've managed to enforce it ( we're used to that in ACBLand) then >this is a boring thread for you - case is closed. However, for any parts >of the world where the politicans haven't overridden the law in this area >it still represents a priciple worth debating and defending. > So long as you have realised what my position is. It is that we have an approach that ... I don't see that I need to have a position: I am not saying that the regulation is right. I thought it was legal, but there again, I am happy to read posts to the contrary. > When I reach the stage where I take no interest in a hand, please, >somebody take away my membership card and notify the caretakers at the home. > Aren't I going to have to defend this hand later? Is there a law against >trying to plan my defense during the auction? I always find that easier to do >when I know what the auction is telling me. yes? > >Perhaps the educational arm of organizations that take the approach David is >discussing would do better to increase players awareness of Laws - > 74A3, 74B1, 74B6, 75A (... fully and freely available to the opponents). >Yes, I'm ready for the counter argument that when the Lawmakers said 'fully >and freely' they actually meant to add "only to those opponents contemplating >action at this time in the auction" but the price of ink was too high at the >time so they felt "fully and freely" would obviously include the implication >of 'partially and restricted, with strings attached'. :-) > Ready for it, but not buying it. :-) >Realizing that David finds my brand of logic fit only for dogs and freeways, >I want to assure him that I am headed once again to centerline, lawbook in >hand, awaiting his usual clearcut instruction. :-) :-) I don't understand. Please tell me what this means. What have I got against your logic? ---- >> Steve Willner wrote: >> >(Is my statement about the UK true, by the way? I am not sure that I want to answer your questions any more Steve. I still am not sure what I have done wrong (I have even received some hate email over this) but I merely tried to answer your question. This is not the first time I have been upset over these posts, but it is the first time that I have received hate email, and (not for the first time) I am prepared to go back to discussing matters with people that I know will merely disagree with me and tell me what an ass I am making of myself but will go no further. -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 16 07:47:25 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 07:47:25 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA24221 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 07:47:20 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA05382 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 17:47:16 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 17:47:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" In-Reply-To: <199606142027.QAA08543@shell.monmouth.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au On Fri, 14 Jun 1996, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > > > Convention: any call that does not suggest the current contract > > > > as the final one; _and_ > > > > for a suit bid, does not show length, strength, or values in the > > > > suit named, or > > > > for a notrump bid, does not show a balanced or semi-balanced hand. > > > > > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > > > 2H = Flannery, showing 5H, 4S, minimum opener > > > > I take this as being not conventional under the current definition > > because the meaning is _necessarily_ related to hearts. Even more > > clearly not conventional under the proposed definition. Are you saying > > that you _want_ this to be conventional? (I guess you are. Why?) > > > > > 1NT-(p)-3H = shows 5-5 in the majors, invitational values > > > > Same comment. Under the current definition, 3S with the same meaning > > would be conventional, since 3H is "just as good." Under the new > > definition, 3S here would not be conventional. I can live with that, > > but perhaps others cannot. > > > > > 1NT-2H = Brozel, showing hearts and spades > > > > Same comment as number 2. The "necessarily" condition is satisfied > > because the heart bid can be converted to spades at the same level, > > while a spade bid cannot. > > > The above comments are a little redundant. I chose the example bids > BECAUSE they show the suit named, because they may be the final > contract, because they can be converted to another suit without > changing the level...I was trying to illustrate that I think the > proposed definition of a convention is at present inadequate. > > I do not know how any of the example bids are currently classified, > but I do feel that they *should* be classified as conventions. Why? > Well, why do we need a definition of 'convention' in the first place? > Law 27B.2 requires a definition of conventions, but my impression is > that most of us on this list think that that should not be so, and > should be changed when the Laws are revised. Aside from Law 27, the > only instances I find that make a distinction between a conventional > and non-conventional call refer to a conventional pass, which is > already defined in Law 30C. > > So, unless I am missing something, we need a definition of > 'convention' only for the purposes of Law 40D, regulation by the > sponsoring organization. And aren't the above examples the types of > things that the Laws seem intended to give SO's the right to > regulate? If a SO was having a novice game with limited conventions, > shouldn't it be allowed to disallow Flannery? > > Now it is true, perhaps, that CERTAIN zonal organizations do far too > much in the way of regulating conventions, but this is a separate > issue and has little to do with the definition of 'convention'... I think some of us are misreading the definition, which calls for "a call that serves... to convey a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named." The word "only" doesn't appear in there, and that's significant. So, for example, 2H Flannery is conventional because it "serves to convey a meaning" related to spades (among other meanings it serves to convey), and thus not (necessarily) related to hearts. The definition is flawed, but it's not that far from reality. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 16 09:06:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 09:06:47 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA24339 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 09:06:42 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA06351 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 19:06:39 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 19:06:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A truly easy one - insufficient bids In-Reply-To: <199606131441.KAA05564@styx.ios.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au On Thu, 13 Jun 1996, Richard Lighton wrote: > The only appropriate regulation I can find is the following. > > DEFENSES AGAINST OPPONENT'S INFRACTIONS > > Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's > infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware of the > fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's call out > of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, it is conventional. > Obviously no conventional call for taking advantage of a call out of > rotation has been approved. > > It seems to me that this specifically talks about conventional calls > over infractions, not general agreements that happen to be applied > when opponent has done something like bid out of turn or not bid > enough. What's your source, Eric? I confess that I'm not able to cite a specific source, but I'm sure I recall reading an official interpretation of the regulation that used the word "agreements." It may have been in the Bulletin at some point, or may have been a "quasi-official" response from the ACBL posted in the extended r.g.b thread on insufficient bids some months ago. The specific point of interpretation is that "systems" needn't necessarily involve artificialities. The following example was clearly considered verboten in ACBL-land: Over, say 2S-2D-: 2S shows a willingness to compete to 3S, but no game interest. 3S is preemptive. Requiring correction, then 3S over the presumed 3H, is a limit raise. In North America, that's a "system," at least for purposes of this reg. But, as Richard points out, the real issue isn't whether the reg covers conventions, systems or agreements (and the distinction between those, especially the last two). It's whether it applies to all methods over irregularities, or only to methods that are different over irregularities. In other words, if you have a general agreement covering all situations, can you apply it over an insufficient bid, notwithstanding the fact that it would be illegal to play it over insufficient bids otherwise. Can I have the agreements above if I play that (a) competing minimally always requires more values at higher levels and (b) jump raises in competition are always weak, from which they follow directly? If I have the agreement that a cue bid of an overcall is always a strong raise, can I bid 2S-2D-3D to show a stronger spade raise than 2S-2D/3D-3S? If I have the agreement that all jumps in comp are fit-showing, can I play 2S-2D-3H fit-showing? This, I think, is the real issue. My reading of the reg is that you aren't allowed to have methods that are specifically invoked over insufficient bids (or any other form of irregularity), but you are allowed to play whatever you play in competition in general, whether conventional or not. That would make all of the above permissible. My understanding is that that ACBL disagrees with me. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 16 09:21:01 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 09:21:01 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA24383; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 09:20:55 +1000 Received: from JESPER ([194.192.100.54]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA27406; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 01:20:47 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Markus Buchhorn Subject: Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: Reply-to... Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 01:20:45 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <31c33ecb.3816728@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au On Fri, 14 Jun 1996 09:17:57 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > Looks like you are going to have to explain what you are talking about >if we are going to vote. We're talking about a suggestion that I made some time ago to let the list server insert a header ("Reply-To") with the effect that when you're reading a BLML message and you say "reply" to your mail reader, it will by default send the reply to BLML instead of to the person who wrote the message. The advantages are: - you will not by mistake reply to just the author when you wanted to reply to the list; - you need fewer keystrokes to reply to the list. The disadvantages are: - you may reply to the list by mistake when you really wanted to reply to the author only; - some mail readers (Stefanie's) seem to make it easy to choose the list explicitly when the author is the default, but more complicated to choose the author when the list is the default (i.e., it can take the address to reply to from the "Reply-To" header or the "To" header in the original message, but not from the "From" header). - it seems that a list server and mail software reacting to undeliverable mail can sometimes cause loops where the same message is bounced back and forth between the two, with a copy to the list every time (as Steve has experienced with another list). I was originally clearly in favor of the "Reply-To" header (after all, I suggested it), but unless there is some simple technical solution to the message loop problem it is very bad idea; I do want to find my mailbox filled with thousands of copies of an undeliverable message the next time some mail address on the list becomes invalid (and that will happen once in a while). I find this point so important that I suggest that Markus immediately remove the header again, regardless of any votes for the functionality itself. That is, unless you happen to know of a solution to the loop problem, Markus? -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 16 23:52:20 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 23:52:20 +1000 Received: from laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (yangboy@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw [140.112.50.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA26901 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 23:52:09 +1000 Received: by laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02159; Sun, 16 Jun 96 21:50:57 CST Date: Sun, 16 Jun 96 21:50:57 CST Message-Id: <9606161350.AA02159@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> From: "B.Y." To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <94KbfsBzcxwxEwoO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> (message from David Stevenson on Sat, 15 Jun 1996 21:04:03 +0100) Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson [...] it is the first time that I have received hate email, and (not for the first time) I am prepared to go back to discussing matters with people that I know will merely disagree with me and tell me what an ass I am making of myself but will go no further. As the author of that alleged piece of hate e-mail (sent to avoid flaming him publicly), I can tell anyone that I did just that. Since he claimed to have killfiled me, at least I won't waste any more of his valuable time. He also claimed that I post to newsgroups and mailing lists for no other reason than to upset and attack people at random, and having nothing useful or reasonable to say. I leave it to those of you who know me to judge whether that is true, and those who want to can peruse for themselves the original text of my e-mail and judge whether it qualifies as "hate" mail. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 17 07:52:15 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 07:52:15 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA08861 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 07:52:08 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA09022 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 17:52:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA06118; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 17:54:22 -0400 Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 17:54:22 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9606162154.AA06118@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggested Defenses Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >(Is my statement about the UK true, by the way? Suppose the auction > >proceeds 1NT-P-2D!- and I have a flat zero-count? May I take a quick > >but obvious glance at the opponents' convention card? Turn it over if > >necessary? > From: David Stevenson > Why do you want to know what they are playing? You already know their > notrump range (remember the series of posts where I pointed out that in > England you are required to know your opponents' notrump range: I know I > was effectively called a liar, and then a fool, but I stick to my > position): tell me why you are going to look at the card at this moment? (I had forgotten about the "must know notrump range" regulation, but I could easily have asked about some other auction where this wouldn't be an issue. In the US, I would have to ask about a different auction because this one will soon be a non-problem. The "alert" will be the word "transfer," and the notrump range will be stated if not close to 15-18. But even if I know the notrump range, I have to check what the 2D bid means.) Anyway, the reasons for asking are: 1) to make sure I know what the opponents are playing. This may save time and may help me draw inferences from the opponents' mannerisms. 2) to avoid giving information to partner or the opponents about the nature of my hand. Reason 2) is probably more important than 1), though I think either should suffice. So is the quick glance I've asked about legal? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 17 08:00:39 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 08:00:39 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA08904 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 08:00:31 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA10945 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 18:00:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA06151; Sun, 16 Jun 1996 18:02:47 -0400 Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 18:02:47 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9606162202.AA06151@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > From: David Stevenson > Who is "we"? No, we wouldn't. We includes beginners. If you teach > them that the defence to a natural 2H is double for takeout: the bidding > goes 2H 2S NB and you have to bid, are you sure how your low-level > partner means 2S if 2H shows hearts and spades? This is a fair question. On the other hand, are you sure what _any_ bid by your low-level partner means? > IMO it is obvious to you only because you are accustomed to Flannery. But is the situation any different over a natural and ill-defined weak two bid? > You must not come to international agreements on the interpretation of > Laws that are solely based on what above average Americans [ :) ] would > understand. Of course not. > If I may repeat myself: the current threads (sorry Burn) reinforce my > view that no definition of convention in the Law book would be an > improvement. The effect of this will be that a sponsoring organization can regulate any agreement it pleases. Perhaps that is what we want, but it certainly seems an extreme position to me. Let me try another thought along the lines I suggested before. As always, comments welcome. Convention: any call that does not suggest that the current contract or a higher contract in the same denomination should be the final one. This at least solves the 1H-3H forcing problem. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 17 09:22:04 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA09360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 09:22:04 +1000 Received: (from markus@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA09354 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 09:21:59 +1000 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 09:21:59 +1000 From: Markus Buchhorn Message-Id: <199606162321.JAA09354@octavia.anu.edu.au> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: Reply-to... Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Jesper has nicely summarised it, so I won't. The votes are currently mostly in favour of RT=BLML, but the technical side has reared it's head. I suspect but can't prove right now that majordomo is not susceptible to this looping problem that Steve raised. Note that the headers have 'Sender' and 'From ' set to owner-bridge-laws. That's me. I've had a couple of messages that were meant to go to the list bounce due to unreachable hosts - they came to me, and not back to the list. They may have also been bounced to the original author (the 'From:' field). So - for the most part it appears that mailers are doing the right thing with bounces. But that's not to say that a broken mailer out there couldn't confuse things and send us into a loop. Steve - can you provide some more details of the 'incident' you had ? and I might look at setting up a dummy list and test this (I don't want to test it on BLML :-) ). Now I'm going on a months leave in July (1st to 30th) and I don't want anything bad to happen while I'm away ;-) so I'll remove the Reply-To after this message until I get to test things out. If I don't get to test it before I leave (2 weeks) it'll have to wait till I get back.... Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Parallel Computing Research Facility | Ph: +61 6 2492930 email = markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail = CISR, I Block, | Fax: +61 6 2490747 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia | Mobile: 017 970715 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 17 15:00:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA10806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 15:00:00 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA10796 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 14:59:10 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ai09943; 17 Jun 96 4:58 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa20533; 17 Jun 96 1:44 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 01:40:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" In-Reply-To: <9606162202.AA06151@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson > >> Who is "we"? No, we wouldn't. We includes beginners. If you teach >> them that the defence to a natural 2H is double for takeout: the bidding >> goes 2H 2S NB and you have to bid, are you sure how your low-level >> partner means 2S if 2H shows hearts and spades? > >This is a fair question. On the other hand, are you sure what _any_ bid >by your low-level partner means? Or my high-level partner! :)) > >> IMO it is obvious to you only because you are accustomed to Flannery. > >But is the situation any different over a natural and ill-defined weak >two bid? Yes, surely. There is no complication about whether defensive suits are natural. Either they are in the opponent's suit and are conventional or they are not and they are natural. It is this simple approach that is lost when the opponent's bid does not show one suit. The ill-defined bit does not matter IMO to any of the lesser players. > >> You must not come to international agreements on the interpretation of >> Laws that are solely based on what above average Americans [ :) ] would >> understand. > >Of course not. > >> If I may repeat myself: the current threads (sorry Burn) reinforce my >> view that no definition of convention in the Law book would be an >> improvement. > >The effect of this will be that a sponsoring organization can regulate >any agreement it pleases. Perhaps that is what we want, but it >certainly seems an extreme position to me. Yes, I agree with that. I think we can trust them not to regulate anything that everyone knows is not conventional but they would define their own borders and I would be happy to leave that to them. > >Let me try another thought along the lines I suggested before. As >always, comments welcome. > >Convention: any call that does not suggest that the current contract or >a higher contract in the same denomination should be the final one. > >This at least solves the 1H-3H forcing problem. > But not the 2H Flannery problem. How about: Convention: any call that does not necessarily suggest that the current contract or a higher contract in the same denomination should be the final one? My main objection to definition of convention is that I have not seen one that is both simple and correct. If we can find one then my objection withers and dies. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 17 15:03:38 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA10837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 15:03:38 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA10832 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 15:03:01 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aj10141; 17 Jun 96 5:00 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa20538; 17 Jun 96 1:44 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 01:35:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: Reply-to... In-Reply-To: <31c33ecb.3816728@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Fri, 14 Jun 1996 09:17:57 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: >> Looks like you are going to have to explain what you are talking about >>if we are going to vote. > >We're talking about a suggestion that I made some time ago to let the >list server insert a header ("Reply-To") with the effect that when >you're reading a BLML message and you say "reply" to your mail reader, >it will by default send the reply to BLML instead of to the person who >wrote the message. > >The advantages are: >- you will not by mistake reply to just the author when you wanted to >reply to the list; >- you need fewer keystrokes to reply to the list. > >The disadvantages are: >- you may reply to the list by mistake when you really wanted to reply >to the author only; >- some mail readers (Stefanie's) seem to make it easy to choose the >list explicitly when the author is the default, but more complicated >to choose the author when the list is the default (i.e., it can take >the address to reply to from the "Reply-To" header or the "To" header >in the original message, but not from the "From" header). >- it seems that a list server and mail software reacting to >undeliverable mail can sometimes cause loops where the same message is >bounced back and forth between the two, with a copy to the list every >time (as Steve has experienced with another list). > >I was originally clearly in favor of the "Reply-To" header (after all, >I suggested it), but unless there is some simple technical solution to >the message loop problem it is very bad idea; I do want to find my >mailbox filled with thousands of copies of an undeliverable message >the next time some mail address on the list becomes invalid (and that >will happen once in a while). > >I find this point so important that I suggest that Markus immediately >remove the header again, regardless of any votes for the functionality >itself. That is, unless you happen to know of a solution to the loop >problem, Markus? Thanks Jesper. It appears that my software is better in this one particular area since it treats a mailing list as a Newsgroup. If I press the reply button it offers me a choice of List or Email, with List being the default. I therefore offer no vote since I seem to be uninvolved (luckily). -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 17 21:08:38 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 21:08:38 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA02064 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 21:08:28 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-68.innet.be [194.7.10.52]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA26618 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 13:08:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31C4155C.33E6@innet.be> Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 14:08:28 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > >I think it is better to define a natural bid : > > > >A natural bid can have as meanings : > > > >- describing a certain number of cards in the named suit; > >- describing a certain number of points; > >- denying a certain number of cards in some other suits; > > > >If there are other meanings, the call is conventional. > > > >This makes 1H - 3H forcing a natural bid, which is logical. > > > ... and it makes 1NT - 3H showing a singleton heart and fewer than > four spades a natural bid, which is not logical. > OK, so add : and shows a willingness to play in that denomination. -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 01:05:55 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 01:05:55 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA05932 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 01:05:47 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA18868 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 11:05:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA06640; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 11:08:03 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 11:08:03 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9606171508.AA06640@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: Reply-to... X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Steve - can you provide > some more details of the 'incident' you had ? I don't have many details but will provide what I have to Markus, not to the rest of the list. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 06:11:21 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA14933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 06:11:21 +1000 Received: from mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk (mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA14928 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 06:11:06 +1000 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Mon, 17 Jun 1996 20:55:59 +0100 Received: from isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk (isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk [147.150.219.16]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id SAA24883 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 18:54:46 +0100 Received: by isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <31C5AA16@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Mon, 17 Jun 96 18:55:18 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Definition of "convention" Date: Mon, 17 Jun 96 18:49:00 GMT Message-ID: <31C5AA16@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 93 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn Having started this thread I'd like to comment on what I have seen so far. I've been very impressed with the amount of thought that people on this list are prepared to put into what I believe to be difficult yet necessary questions. I have seen nothing to convince me that we do not need a definition of the word "convention" - instead, I have seen the alarming proposal from one who really ought to know better that if we fail to define the term and leave things to Sponsoring Organisations, they will behave in a sensible and rational fashion! Stephanie Rohan correctly pointed out that the word "convention" is used sparingly in the Laws, L40 being the only place where a definition appears necessary. This is so, but I remain of the opinion that if we are going to allow SOs to regulate something, the Laws should leave no doubt about what they are and are not allowed to control. As bridge becomes a global game, it appears to me important to abolish as far as we can differences in the way in which NBOs control it. I started by attempting to define what a convention is not. For practical purposes (notwithstanding a bewildering contribution from Eric Landau and someone called de Morgan about the law of contrapositive) this is equivalent to defining what a natural bid is. Herman de Wael among others has adopted this approach, which appears to me still to be a promising line of attack. However, it is apparent from comments by Eric Landau, Stephen Willner and others that the problem is deeper than my superficial request for a definition of a convention indicated. The main purpose in creating a working definition, as suggested above, is in order to clarify what SOs can and cannot regulate. Now, for historical reasons it would be absurd to suppose that all NBOs would immediately cut over without protest to a world-wide regulatory scheme, and one would have to allow some leeway. In England, if you play 1H-3H as natural and forcing you have to alert it, but in a country where this was the standard treatment I could well imagine the NBO being righteously indignant if we suddenly imposed this requirement on them. And there is nothing worse, believe me, than the righteous indignation of an NBO. This means that we need to allow SOs the freedom to regulate bids which, though natural, are systemically at variance with the norm for the geographical location. At least, we do until we can define the World Standard system from which any deviation is a convention ex def. That, as someone once sang, 'll be the day. However, we are talking about two different types of regulation here. At the moment SOs may "regulate" the use of conventions by banning them, but they may not so regulate the use of natural bids. They may, however, lay down conditions for their use. In particular, they may say that such bids are or are not alertable, which is harmless enough. And they may say that such bids, though not in themselves forbidden, may not be used in conjunction with any other conventional calls. An SO can say: "you can play a 6-9 1NT opening, but if you do, the rest of your system must consist entirely of natural calls". You may find this hard to believe, as I do, but Laws 80E and 80F have definitely been interpreted in that way by the WBF and will continue to be so interpreted from 1997. I propose something like this, with grateful acknowledgements to the people mentioned above and others who have made contributions: "A bid is natural if in the context of the auction so far: It suggests that if the bid is followed by three passes, the partnership will be playing in its best denomination; and It neither promises nor denies any feature of the hand not related to the suit bid. A pass, double or redouble is natural if it suggests that the current contract be the final contract. A call which is not natural is conventional. In addition, an opening bid of One that may by agreement be based on a hand at least a king below average strength is conventional. SOs may prohibit the use of any convention in any events that they organise. SOs may make regulations for the disclosure of conventions at the table or before the commencement of play. SOs may make regulations for the disclosure of the meaning of natural bids in respect of the strength promised, and for the disclosure of other inferences from natural bids that may be available through partnership agreement or experience." Note that I have deliberately not included wording that extends the use of Law 80 to prohibit conventions only if used in the context of certain natural bids. This is not because I do not know how to provide such wording. Thanks again to all who have helped. I still think there is a long way to go, but at least a start has been made. David Burn dburn@lnhdent.agw.bt.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 07:11:15 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA15212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 07:11:15 +1000 Received: from cs.bu.edu (root@CS.BU.EDU [128.197.13.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA15207 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 07:11:10 +1000 Received: from csb.bu.edu by cs.bu.edu (8.6.10/Spike-2.1) id RAA17321; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 17:08:34 -0400 From: metcalf@cs.bu.edu (David Metcalf) Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.6.10/Spike-2.1) id RAA04409; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 17:08:31 -0400 Message-Id: <199606172108.RAA04409@csb.bu.edu> Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 17:08:31 -0400 (EDT) Cc: metcalf@cs.bu.edu (david metcalf) In-Reply-To: <9606162202.AA06151@cfa183.harvard.edu> from "Steve Willner" at Jun 16, 96 06:02:47 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Length: 4018 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> Convention: any call that does not suggest the current contract >> as the final one; _and_ >> for a suit bid, does not show length, strength, or values in the >> suit named, or >> for a notrump bid, does not show a balanced or semi-balanced hand. >> > I missed the beginning of this thread, so perhaps the definition of "convention" has already been overdiscussed and the above definition settled on, but I confess I am not happy with it. I think that a call which suggests the current STRAIN as a final contract but is forcing and thus does not suggest the current contract as final (e.g. 1H-3H forcing) need not be considered conventional. Also, if the call ALSO suggests another strain as a final contract, (e.g. <1NT>-2H, showing H+S) then I think it *should* be considered conventional. I would suggest a definition which reads more like the following: A natural call is one which (A) Does not suggest a strain or strains other than the current strain as a final contract. (B) If the current strain is a suit, shows length, strength or values in that suit, and does not show length, strength or values in another suit. (C) If the current strain is NT, then either shows a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or suggests NT as a final strain. (D) If the call is a Pass, double or redouble, it must suggest the current contract as a final contract. A conventional call is one which is not natural. A treatment is an agreement about a natural call. By (A), I do not mean that the strain *MUST* be a suggestion of a final strain; only that the information passed by the *bid* does not include a suggestion of another playable strain. For example, the (ops silent) auction 1S-2S-3C can be used to show clubs without suggesting clubs as a final contract, since the partnership can have the agreement that the 2S bid agrees spades. Similarly, an ace-showing q-bid in an auction where suit agreement has been made is a "natural" bid, conveying only info about the suit bid. I also neglect negative inferences in (A) [partner bypassed clubs to q-bid diamonds: ergo he denies the ace of C]. [partner bypassed clubs to q-bid diamonds: ergo he denies the ace of C]. Rule (D) is unnecessary: it is a logical extension of (A). Applying this definition to some auctions I have seen discussed here: 2H Flannery: Conventional, since it suggests spades as a final strain. 1NT-3H (5-5 majors): ditto <1NT>-2H (majors): ditto Some auctions Steve Willner posted get a bit hairier, when the "negative inference" issue is tested: He discussed 2H openers which: 1. Always shows exactly six hearts. A natural treatment 2. Always shows six hearts and no other four card suit. 3. Always shows six hearts and exactly 6331 shape. Still natural treatments, IMHO 4. Always shows six hearts, 6421 shape, and not four spades. Still natural treatments, IMHO 4. Always shows six hearts, 6421 shape, and not four spades. I think this one would likely be considered conventional, since it suggests a minor as a potential contract. 5. Always shows exactly five hearts. 6. Always shows exactly five hearts and not 5332 shape. natural treatments, IMHO 7. Always shows exactly five hearts and a singleton and not four spades. Same as (4). 7a. Always shows exactly five hearts, a singleton, and a four card minor. Isnt thisthe same agreement as 7, or do you wish to include 0544 and 1552 shapes? In any case, I would rule conventional. 8. Always shows exactly five hearts and exactly four spades. Clearly conventional. I think that if we define our terms in the appropriate way, rulings based on them would become clearer. Perhaps we could iron out the "negative inference" bogeyman in some way. David Metcalf From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 07:53:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA15435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 07:53:35 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA15429 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 07:53:27 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp34.monmouth.com [205.164.220.66]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA29893 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 17:40:44 -0400 Message-Id: <199606172140.RAA29893@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 17:42:46 -500 Subject: RE: Definition of "convention" X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn > I have seen the > alarming proposal from one who really ought to know better that if we > fail to define the term and leave things to Sponsoring Organisations, > they will behave in a sensible and rational fashion! I think that most of us can agree that such behavior is highly unlikely, and that... > ...if we are > going to allow SOs to regulate something, the Laws should leave no doubt > about what they are and are not allowed to control. > However, we are talking about two different types of regulation here. At > the moment SOs may "regulate" the use of conventions by banning them, but > they may not so regulate the use of natural bids. They may, however, lay > down conditions for their use. In particular, they may say that such bids > are or are not alertable, which is harmless enough. Let us then continue to assume that, for the purposes of this discussion, we are interested in deciding which bids are subject to prohibition due to their conventional nature, and disregard the issue of which bids may be subject to requiring an alert. > > I propose something like this, with grateful acknowledgements to the > people mentioned above and others who have made contributions: > > "A bid is natural if in the context of the auction so far: > > It suggests that if the bid is followed by three passes, the partnership > will be playing in its best denomination; and > It neither promises nor denies any feature of the hand not related to the > suit bid. I think that we are getting closer. However, there are still holes. Let us assume for ease that we are discussing an event in which no conventions are allowed. If we use the above definition, we are saying that a pair may not promise an unknown outside singleton for a weak two bid or for a limit raise. This seems unreasonable. In addition, we are saying that a pair may not deny an outside 4-card major or a void for a weak two -- meanwhile, it is generally considered non-standard for a pair NOT to have such an agreement! This next part may be even trickier (though I hope that for someone else it is not). Let us say that we have decided that a pair may have an agreement that a weak two bid promises an unknown singleton. (can we fail to decide this?) Now, can we say that they may not have an agreement that a weak two bid promises an unknown 4-card side suit? It seems to be an analagous situation... > > A pass, double or redouble is natural if it suggests that the current > contract be the final contract. > > A call which is not natural is conventional. In addition, an opening bid > of One that may by agreement be based on a hand at least a king below > average strength is conventional. > > SOs may prohibit the use of any convention in any events that they > organise. SOs may make regulations for the disclosure of conventions at > the table or before the commencement of play. SOs may make regulations > for the disclosure of the meaning of natural bids in respect of the > strength promised, and for the disclosure of other inferences from > natural bids that may be available through partnership agreement or > experience." > > Note that I have deliberately not included wording that extends the use > of Law 80 to prohibit conventions only if used in the context of certain > natural bids. This is not because I do not know how to provide such > wording. Do you wish to provide such wording? Is it sensible to say that a pair may not use Stayman over their 8-10 Notrumps when we allow them to play it over their 10-12's? I myself have not formed an opinion on this matter, and I suspect that this is another important area for discussion. Cheers, Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 09:24:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 09:24:47 +1000 Received: from laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (yangboy@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw [140.112.50.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA16051 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 09:24:37 +1000 Received: by laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA05917; Tue, 18 Jun 96 07:24:39 CST Date: Tue, 18 Jun 96 07:24:39 CST Message-Id: <9606172324.AA05917@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> From: "B.Y." To: metcalf@cs.bu.edu Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <199606172108.RAA04409@csb.bu.edu> (metcalf@cs.bu.edu) Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk <1> I think that 2S showing 5S+4m, or 2H showing 5H+5m, whatever, should be considered a natural call. Rather, I think that any call which does not also show, *IN*THE*VAST*MAJORITY*OF*CASES* playability in a *FIXED* strain other than the one named, should be natural, as long as it shows playability in the strain named. Which means, BTW, that the German canape methods are natural. Honestly, I don't see why not. 3-card minors are considered natural by everyone, and I see no reason why 3-card majors should not be. [I trust that everyone remembered the disgrace committed by the Ayatollah against Nilsland and Fallenius in 1992.] <1a> The rationale for this definition is twofold. First, I think that controlled psychics such as "normal or 0-4, weaker major" should be allowed. Cases such as the Gardener (sometimes called the comic) no-trump, in which the "psychic" version actually outnumber the "real" one should be treated differently. [Anyone disagree?] <1b> Second, I see no reason whatsoever that canape methods should be considered unnatural. Therefore agreements showing another suit, but an UNKNOWN one, should be not be a factor in the conventionality (Is there such a word? I am sure people will correct me :-) or lack thereof of a bid. <2> I would also strongly urge Mr. Burn and whoever is listening that NCBOs NOT be allowed any leeway to regulate anything through loopholes. In other words, a clause should be added that prohibits de facto regulation of natural agreements. The loophole in 40D should be promptly struck from the next revision of the Laws also. * A call which is not natural is conventional. In addition, an opening * bid of One that may by agreement be based on a hand at least a king * below average strength is conventional. I for one think that this is a montrosity. [The Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are frequently reviled by many because they hand down unpopular decisions. It is my opinion that no matter what you do you will be called names by a large segment of the populace at large and most of the bureaucrats anyway, so might as well do the right thing.] <3> As I said before, I am a mathematician and believe that the only way to play is NOT to have any regulations on agreements at all as long as they are properly disclosed. Comments and discussion are welcome. B.Y. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 10:28:32 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 10:28:32 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA16636 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 10:28:18 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp34.monmouth.com [205.164.220.66]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA13092; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 20:23:26 -0400 Message-Id: <199606180023.UAA13092@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 20:25:27 -500 Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" CC: metcalf@cs.bu.edu (david metcalf) X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Metcalf seems to have done a good job with his late contribution: > I would suggest a definition which reads more like the following: > > A natural call is one which > (A) Does not suggest a strain or strains other than the > current strain as a final contract. > (B) If the current strain is a suit, shows length, strength > or values in that suit, and does not show length, > strength or values in another suit. > (C) If the current strain is NT, then either shows a balanced or > semi-balanced hand, or suggests NT as a final strain. > (D) If the call is a Pass, double or redouble, it must suggest > the current contract as a final contract. > A conventional call is one which is not natural. > A treatment is an agreement about a natural call. This is pretty good. Point (A) is well worded, so that it cannot be taken to preclude game tries, fragment bid, cue bids, and the like, which show good holdings but do not suggest playing in that strain. > > Some auctions Steve Willner posted get a bit hairier, when the > "negative inference" issue is tested: > > He discussed 2H openers which: > 1. Always shows exactly six hearts. > A natural treatment > 2. Always shows six hearts and no other four card suit. > 3. Always shows six hearts and exactly 6331 shape. > Still natural treatments, IMHO XXX> 4. Always shows six hearts, 6421 shape, and not four spades.XXX XXX> Still natural treatments, IMHO XXX > 4. Always shows six hearts, 6421 shape, and not four spades. > I think this one would likely be considered conventional, > since it suggests a minor as a potential contract. ^^^This was the one you meant to include, right?^^^ > 5. Always shows exactly five hearts. > 6. Always shows exactly five hearts and not 5332 shape. > natural treatments, IMHO > 7. Always shows exactly five hearts and a singleton and not four spades. > Same as (4). > 7a. Always shows exactly five hearts, a singleton, and a four card minor. > Isnt thisthe same agreement as 7, or do you wish to include > 0544 and 1552 shapes? In any case, I would rule conventional. > 8. Always shows exactly five hearts and exactly four spades. > Clearly conventional. Applying the above rules in this way seems to make the distinctions we want to make. I especially like way this method puts to rest the analogy (if it ever existed outside of my own mind) between promising an outside singleton and promising an outside 4-card suit. After all, if a pair is playing weak twos that promise a 4-card minor, even without conventional continuations the pair can find that suit and play there. > > > I think that if we define our terms in the appropriate way, > rulings based on them would become clearer. Perhaps we could iron > out the "negative inference" bogeyman in some way. Do we need to do this? There are *always* negative inferences. "Partner opened 1NT, so he has denied a 5(6, if you must)-card major" "Partner opened a club, so he has denied longer diamonds...he then rebid 1NT over my 1H, so he has denied four spades" "Partner passed in first seat, so he has denied AKQxx KQxx Axx K" Et cetera. Cheers, Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 17:49:42 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA22319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 17:49:42 +1000 Received: from cabra.cri.dk (cabra.cri.dk [130.227.48.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA22312 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 17:49:30 +1000 X-Organization: Computer Resources International A/S, Bregneroedvej 144, DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark Received: from nov.cri.dk (nov.cri.dk [130.227.50.162]) by cabra.cri.dk (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id JAA00826 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 09:48:00 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 09:48:49 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 09:48:41 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Why regulations on agreements? (was: Definition of Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "convention") >>> B.Y. 18.06.96 15:24 >>> (commentary on the original issue deleted) ><3> As I said before, I am a mathematician and believe that the only >way to play is NOT to have any regulations on agreements at all as >long as they are properly disclosed. Well, for what it's worth I am a mathematician too (at least by training). Playing without regulations on agreements is a way to play, and certainly an excellent game. But I do not agree that it is the only way to play: Pairs events, where you have new opponents every twenty minutes, is certaily a way to play bridge. If we waive regulations on agreements (maintaining proper disclosure), the players are going to be spending an unreasonable amount of their time adapating to the agreements of their current opponents whenever those opponents happen to have unusual agreements. You cannot really start a 20-minute session by disclosing "here is our 120-page agreement listing, easily laid out for your perusal". Now for teams events with, say, 40-board matches at a, say, national level, I agree that the only way to play is to have no holds barred on (properly disclosed) agreements. Now, I prefer for the game to have laws that can be used for other events than teams events at the highest level. To me, therefore, it makes sense for the Laws to authorize SOs to regulate agreements. It also seems to me that a contest where an SO prescribes a specific system (say SAYC, although that would be silly in most of the world) is a meaningful duplicate contract bridge contest. Some of us might not want to play in that contest, but then some (or others) of us might not want to play in an "all agreements allowed" pairs event either. The original thread tries to arrive at a sensible definition of "natural" vs. "conventional", for the purpose of delineating what agreements may be regulated by SOs. My point is, I suppose, why bother? Why not specifically authorize SOs to regulate agreements as they please? Note the phrasing, which forbidsregulations that prevent SOs from allowing all systems. In that way, my club's regulations (which actually are that regular partnerships may play any agreements they please, in spite of any NCBO regulations) would become legal even if my club was in North America. Also, the ACBL regulations, which sometimes seem weirdly legalistic, might be phrased in a way that provided the intended regulation more overtly, and the American debate over what regulations to have at national events might focus on the real issue, i.e., what agreements, if any, are to be forbidden. Note, however, that the situation would change immensely if we did away with the "full disclosure" requirement and changed to "agreements are none of the opponents' business". Of course, the game would probably not qualify as "contract bridge" any more, but the natural way to go would be "no restriction on agreements". Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 21:13:28 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA24314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 21:13:28 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA24309 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 21:13:16 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-75.innet.be [194.7.10.59]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA18633 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 13:13:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31C6A4EA.786@innet.be> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 12:45:30 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" References: <199606172108.RAA04409@csb.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Metcalf wrote: > > I missed the beginning of this thread, so perhaps the definition > of "convention" has already been overdiscussed and the above definition > settled on, but I confess I am not happy with it. > I think that a call which suggests the current STRAIN as a final contract > but is forcing and thus does not suggest the current contract as > final (e.g. 1H-3H forcing) need not be considered conventional. Also, > if the call ALSO suggests another strain as a final contract, (e.g. > <1NT>-2H, showing H+S) then I think it *should* be considered conventional. Do bear with us, poor non-English speakers. We know of suits and denominations, but what the [...] is a STRAIN ? Please do not use words that we need to define !! (like convention :-) ) -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 21:59:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA24544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 21:59:47 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA24539 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 21:59:30 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id af22898; 18 Jun 96 11:59 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa22616; 18 Jun 96 12:35 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 12:35:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" In-Reply-To: <31C6A4EA.786@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Metcalf wrote: >> >> I missed the beginning of this thread, so perhaps the definition >> of "convention" has already been overdiscussed and the above definition >> settled on, but I confess I am not happy with it. >> I think that a call which suggests the current STRAIN as a final contract >> but is forcing and thus does not suggest the current contract as >> final (e.g. 1H-3H forcing) need not be considered conventional. Also, >> if the call ALSO suggests another strain as a final contract, (e.g. >> <1NT>-2H, showing H+S) then I think it *should* be considered conventional. > >Do bear with us, poor non-English speakers. > Huh! Herman speaks better English than I do. >We know of suits and denominations, but what the [...] is a STRAIN ? > Strain = denomination. Grattan Endicott told me that when they were discussing the last Law book there was a suggestion that all references therein to 'denomination' should be replaced by 'strain': it was decided (obviously correctly!!) that the word 'strain' was not in general enough use. >Please do not use words that we need to define !! >(like convention :-) ) > Now don't get me going again on whether we need to define 'convention' ... :) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 22:17:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA24664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 22:17:00 +1000 Received: from taurus.cus.cam.ac.uk (cusexim@taurus.cus.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA24659 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 22:16:53 +1000 Received: from rm10006 by taurus.cus.cam.ac.uk with local (Exim 0.526 #1) id E0uVzhx-0003ZA-00; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 13:16:33 +0100 Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 13:16:32 +0100 (BST) From: "R. Michaels" To: "R. Michaels" cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" In-Reply-To: <9606172324.AA05917@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I suggest, tentatively, that one of the properties a 'natural' bid ought to have, is that its meaning could be reasonably easily understood by an intelligent beginner without much system knowledge, and preferably without any explanation. All bids primarily showing length in the suit bid clearly fall into this category, but short minor suit bids, and patently artificial bids, as well as a flannery 2H, don't. On Tue, 18 Jun 1996, B.Y. wrote: > > <1> I think that 2S showing 5S+4m, or 2H showing 5H+5m, whatever, > should be considered a natural call. Rather, I think that any call > which does not also show, *IN*THE*VAST*MAJORITY*OF*CASES* playability > in a *FIXED* strain other than the one named, should be natural, as > long as it shows playability in the strain named. I don't see how a call in H which implies S can remotely be considered natural by a sensible bridge player. > Which means, BTW, that the German canape methods are natural. > Honestly, I don't see why not. 3-card minors are considered natural > by everyone, and I see no reason why 3-card majors should not be. [I 3 card minors are _not_ considered natural by me. Only suit bids which are ostensibly 4 cards long, or promise strength in that suit are natural by my reckoning. Suppose I play a strong club system when I always have at least 3 clubs when I open 1C. Is that a natural bid ? It is according to your definition. 3 card suit opening bids are not natural, because the natural thing to do is to bid your longest suit. Which has at least 4 cards in it. Note that in the UK, for example, a short minor (3 card) opening bid, is alertable for precisely this reason; not because it is unusual, but because it is conventional. > <1a> The rationale for this definition is twofold. First, I think > that controlled psychics such as "normal or 0-4, weaker major" should > be allowed. Cases such as the Gardener (sometimes called the comic) > no-trump, in which the "psychic" version actually outnumber the "real" > one should be treated differently. [Anyone disagree?] I think that such controlled psyuches are clearly conventions, and should be regulated as such. I see no rational at all for considering them to be natural, other than that you might want to play them unfettered by licensing restrictions. > <1b> Second, I see no reason whatsoever that canape methods should > be considered unnatural. Therefore agreements showing another suit, > but an UNKNOWN one, should be not be a factor in the conventionality > (Is there such a word? I am sure people will correct me :-) or lack > thereof of a bid. I think canape methods are clearly unnatural. IMHO they ought to be licensed conventions; any authority labelling 3 card majors illegal, but 3 card minors legal, is clearly being a little silly. > * A call which is not natural is conventional. In addition, an opening > * bid of One that may by agreement be based on a hand at least a king > * below average strength is conventional. > > I for one think that this is a montrosity. Why ? Just because you want to be allowed to play your favourite system ? If everyone is allowed to play arbitrarily complex systems, there is a problem in that much of the game will be about learning 100s of different systems, and then spending hours designing defences to them, and then hours designing defences to the defences, etc. This doesn't strike me as a fun way to spend my time. I'd just give up the game, and do something else. Regulation of agreements is necessary to keep bridge a playable game. Sad, but true (IMHO). > <3> As I said before, I am a mathematician and believe that the > only way to play is NOT to have any regulations on agreements at all > as long as they are properly disclosed. > > Comments and discussion are welcome. > > B.Y. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 22:32:21 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA24755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 22:32:21 +1000 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA24748 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 22:32:04 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 13:31:21 +0100 Date: Tue, 18 Jun 96 13:31:19 BST Message-Id: <3038.9606181231@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Many posts on this subject have stated that a natural bid must suggest playing in the denomination named by the bid. e.g. "Burn, David" wrote > A bid is natural if in the context of the auction so far: > > It suggests that if the bid is followed by three passes, the partnership > will be playing in its best denomination; and > It neither promises nor denies any feature of the hand not related to the > suit bid. This seems to mean that once a suit has been agreed, any bid in another suit will count as conventional (i.e. subject to regulation under law 40). This would include `natural' trial bids and cue bids. To my mind 1H - 2H, 3C is (if undiscussed) a natural bid showing clubs, in an attempt to describe the hand; but the partnership will not be playing in its best denomination if it goes `all pass'. [ But then it wouldn't go `all pass', so I'm not sure how to apply Dave Burn's definition.] also (1H) 2NT* - 3D, 3S * = minor, at least 5-5 is (again if undiscussed) a natural bid showing values in spades, but does not expect to play in spades. [ I only mention this second auction because it came up when I was directing two days ago. Opponents felt they could assume that 3 spades showed at least 4 (4-x-5-5 ?) because it was not alerted. ] Robin Robin Barker, | Email: rmb@cise.npl.co.uk Techniques for High Integrity, ISE, | Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B93, National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 18 23:21:22 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA24945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 23:21:22 +1000 Received: from laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (yangboy@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw [140.112.50.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA24938 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 23:21:15 +1000 Received: by laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA07410; Tue, 18 Jun 96 21:20:08 CST Date: Tue, 18 Jun 96 21:20:08 CST Message-Id: <9606181320.AA07410@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> From: "B.Y." To: JBC@nov.cri.dk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: (message from Jens Brix Christiansen on Tue, 18 Jun 1996 09:48:41 +0200) Subject: Re: Why regulations on agreements? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk BY> <3> As I said before, I am a mathematician and believe that the BY> only way to play is NOT to have any regulations on agreements at BY> all as long as they are properly disclosed. JBC: [...] Pairs events, [...] new opponents every twenty minutes, is JBC: certainly a way to play bridge. If we waive regulations on JBC: agreements (...), the players are going to be spending an JBC: unreasonable amount of their time adapting to the agreements of JBC: their current opponents [...]. Actually, I have heard that line before and my point is that it is simply NOT valid. In ACBL events, strong club players have to handle ALL kinds of strange agreements over a big club, most of which with incomplete disclosure. The Powers That Be must think that they cope okay. Or perhaps they don't want anyone playing a big club. I guess that is also a reasonable interpretation. (To be quite honest, I am much more outlandish than I appear here. As far as I am concerned the only measure for naturalness is superiority. What is theoretically correct is obviously the "natural" thing much more than what everyone else does is.) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 19 01:07:37 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA28218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 01:07:37 +1000 Received: from cabra.cri.dk (cabra.cri.dk [130.227.48.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA28213 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 01:07:25 +1000 X-Organization: Computer Resources International A/S, Bregneroedvej 144, DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark Received: from nov.cri.dk (nov.cri.dk [130.227.50.162]) by cabra.cri.dk (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id RAA06083 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 17:05:51 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 17:06:40 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 17:06:27 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>> Robin Barker 18.06.96 13:31 >>> > (1H) 2NT* - 3D, 3S * = minor, at least 5-5 > is (again if undiscussed) a natural bid showing values in > spades, but does not expect to play in spades. >[ I only mention this second auction because it came up when I was >directing two days ago. Opponents felt they could assume that 3 >spades showed at least 4 (4-x-5-5 ?) because it was not alerted. ] Under DBF rules (Denmark) we use "natural" vs."conventional" to define (most of) the calls that must be alerted. If this had been in Denmark, I would have ruled that 3S should be alerted. But unlessthese opponents are quite inexperienced, they would probably have a hard time convincing me that the missing alert actually damaged them. And the only procedural penalty I could find for not alerting 3S is the advice "you probably ought to alert 3S in the future." Under Danish rules, we would require 2NT - alert, obviously conventional by anyone's book 3D - alert, even though it is natural according to the general consensus on this thread. The reason is that some opponent who has never heard of the 2NT convention might expect 3D to show a 4-card suit, not just to show preference. 3S - alert, this time because it is not so clear cut if it is conventional, and because again someone might think that a spade suit has been shown. I would like to have this alert because I would not like to require that the opponent has to have kept track of the auction and done his arithmetic in order to arrive at the "at most three cards" conclusion. Consider this hand: K9, J8, AJ85, K7532. In the Carrot Club, the bidding could go 1D-1NT; 2C-pass. 1D shows 11-16, at least 4 diamonds, possibly a longer club suit, otherwise the longest suit; denies NT-distribution. 1N shows 6-10 (no 4-card major) or 16+ (forcing, of course). 2C shows minimum, at least 4 clubs, no info on which minor is longer. Obviously 2C is as natural a bid as they come. Not forcing, values in the suit, suggests 2C as a final contract if partner has nothing to add. Yet under Danish rules, it should be alerted, because someopponent might be surprised that the clubs can be longer than thediamonds. (I leave it as a point to ponder for the reader whether the natural 1D should be alerted just because there might be a longer club suit). All of which goes to show my point (finally! I hear you cry) that "natural"/"conventional" are only vaguely correlated with "when to alert" rules, and therefore the hand shown is a digression from the original thread, which I have prolonged somewhat intolerably at this point. Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 19 02:42:49 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 02:42:49 +1000 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA28866 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 02:42:42 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 17:42:07 +0100 Date: Tue, 18 Jun 96 17:42:05 BST Message-Id: <3169.9606181642@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: JBC@nov.cri.dk Subject: Alerting "natural" bids [was Re: Definition of "convention"] Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >>> Robin Barker 18.06.96 13:31 >>> > > > (1H) 2NT* - 3D, 3S * = minor, at least 5-5 > > is (again if undiscussed) a natural bid showing values in > > spades, but does not expect to play in spades. > > >[ I only mention this second auction because it came up when I was > >directing two days ago. Opponents felt they could assume that 3 > >spades showed at least 4 (4-x-5-5 ?) because it was not alerted. ] > > Under DBF rules (Denmark) we use "natural" vs."conventional" to > define (most of) the calls that must be alerted. If this had been > in Denmark, I would have ruled that 3S should be alerted. > [snip] > > Under Danish rules, we would require > 2NT - alert, obviously conventional by anyone's book > 3D - alert, even though it is natural according to the general > consensus on this thread. The reason is that some opponent > who has never heard of the 2NT convention might expect 3D to > show a 4-card suit, not just to show preference. > 3S - alert, this time because it is not so clear cut if it is conventional, > and because again someone might think that a spade suit has been > shown. I would like to have this alert because I would not like to > require that the opponent has to have kept track of the auction and > done his arithmetic in order to arrive at the "at most three cards" > conclusion. > [snip] > > All of which goes to show my point (finally! I hear you cry) that > "natural"/"conventional" are only vaguely correlated with > "when to alert" rules, and therefore the hand shown is > a digression from the original thread, which I have prolonged > somewhat intolerably at this point. > > Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark > Jens I agree my second hand was a bit of a digression from the original point. I still think a natural trial bid should not be a convention --- whether it should be alerted is, as you say, a different question. I would like to follow up your thread on alerting. The obvious conclusion from your two examples is that after a conventional bid (2NT, above) every bid (by that side) should be alerted because the opponents will not (necessarily) have followed the logic of the subsequent auction. I agree with your logic, however it does make the subsequent alerts rather meaningless. W- '1D' E- 'alert' N- 'yes' E- '11-16, at least 4 diamonds, possibly a longer club suit, otherwise the longest suit; denies NT-distribution. The meaning of the rest of the auction will based on this: so even "natural" bids will have implication you may not be aware of, so we will alert all our bids.' ! I don't have a good answer to this. Robin Robin Barker, | Email: rmb@cise.npl.co.uk Techniques for High Integrity, ISE, | Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B93, National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 19 07:02:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 07:02:36 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA07605 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 07:02:09 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id an05735; 18 Jun 96 21:01 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa22558; 18 Jun 96 20:55 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 20:51:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Alerting "natural" bids In-Reply-To: <3169.9606181642@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > >> >>> Robin Barker 18.06.96 13:31 >>> >> >> > (1H) 2NT* - 3D, 3S * = minor, at least 5-5 >> > is (again if undiscussed) a natural bid showing values in >> > spades, but does not expect to play in spades. >> >> >[ I only mention this second auction because it came up when I was >> >directing two days ago. Opponents felt they could assume that 3 >> >spades showed at least 4 (4-x-5-5 ?) because it was not alerted. ] >> >> Under DBF rules (Denmark) we use "natural" vs."conventional" to >> define (most of) the calls that must be alerted. If this had been >> in Denmark, I would have ruled that 3S should be alerted. >> >[snip] >> >> Under Danish rules, we would require >> 2NT - alert, obviously conventional by anyone's book >> 3D - alert, even though it is natural according to the general >> consensus on this thread. The reason is that some opponent >> who has never heard of the 2NT convention might expect 3D to >> show a 4-card suit, not just to show preference. >> 3S - alert, this time because it is not so clear cut if it is >conventional, >> and because again someone might think that a spade suit has been >> shown. I would like to have this alert because I would not like to >> require that the opponent has to have kept track of the auction and >> done his arithmetic in order to arrive at the "at most three cards" >> conclusion. >> >[snip] >> >> All of which goes to show my point (finally! I hear you cry) that >> "natural"/"conventional" are only vaguely correlated with >> "when to alert" rules, and therefore the hand shown is >> a digression from the original thread, which I have prolonged >> somewhat intolerably at this point. >> >> Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark >> > >Jens > >I agree my second hand was a bit of a digression from the original >point. I still think a natural trial bid should not be a convention >--- whether it should be alerted is, as you say, a different question. > >I would like to follow up your thread on alerting. The obvious >conclusion from your two examples is that after a conventional bid >(2NT, above) every bid (by that side) should be alerted because the >opponents will not (necessarily) have followed the logic of the >subsequent auction. I agree with your logic, however it does make the >subsequent alerts rather meaningless. > >W- '1D' >E- 'alert' >N- 'yes' >E- '11-16, at least 4 diamonds, possibly a longer club suit, > otherwise the longest suit; denies NT-distribution. > The meaning of the rest of the auction will based on this: > so even "natural" bids will have implication you may not be > aware of, so we will alert all our bids.' ! > >I don't have a good answer to this. > Out there, in the inky blackness, EBU Tournament Directors are lurking and reading your every word. Be warned! :) :) :) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 19 07:53:02 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 07:53:02 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA07867 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 07:52:55 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp35.monmouth.com [205.164.220.67]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA23001; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 17:48:14 -0400 Message-Id: <199606182148.RAA23001@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: yangboy@math.ntu.edu.tw Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 17:50:19 -400 Subject: Re: Why regulations on agreements? CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi. > BY> <3> As I said before, I am a mathematician and believe that the > BY> only way to play is NOT to have any regulations on agreements at > BY> all as long as they are properly disclosed. > > JBC: [...] Pairs events, [...] new opponents every twenty minutes, is > JBC: certainly a way to play bridge. Also novice events. It is not unreasonable for a sponsoring organization to allow beginning players the opportunity to play duplicate bridge without being confronted by highly artificial systems which require sophisticated defenses. Law 40D gives sponsoring organizations the right to prohibit conventions from its events. The purpose of the present debate is to closely define the term 'convention' so that we might LIMIT the power of the SO's under this Law. The abolishment of Law 40D is not within the scope of this discussion. B.Y., I think that perhaps you are confusing the need (and Law-given right) to regulate agreements, ever, with the desirability of regulating too many agreements too much of the time, as many feel the ACBL does. But the issues are quite separate. Cheers, Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 19 10:19:13 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 10:19:13 +1000 Received: from laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (yangboy@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw [140.112.50.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA08413 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 10:19:04 +1000 Received: by laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA08220; Wed, 19 Jun 96 08:18:34 CST Date: Wed, 19 Jun 96 08:18:34 CST Message-Id: <9606190018.AA08220@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> From: "B.Y." To: rgur@monmouth.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <199606182148.RAA23001@shell.monmouth.com> (rgur@monmouth.com) Subject: Re: Why regulations on agreements? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk SR: Stefanie Rohan SR: Law 40D gives sponsoring organizations the right to prohibit SR: conventions from its events. The purpose of the present debate is SR: to closely define the term 'convention' so that we might LIMIT the SR: power of the SO's under this Law. The abolishment of Law 40D is SR: not within the scope of this discussion. You are quite correct. The original debate was on how to define the term "convention". I made a remark partly to get off my chest some pent-up steam (a portion of which from r.g.b. and this list, but mostly from elsewhere) and to make clear my stance. This is quite separate from my arguments for canape to be considered natural. Then JBC responded to me and I was sidetracked into that discussion as well. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 19 13:40:59 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 13:40:59 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA09095 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 13:38:48 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aa20185; 19 Jun 96 4:35 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa12287; 19 Jun 96 2:54 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 02:53:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" In-Reply-To: <31C5AA16@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Having started this thread I'd like to comment on what I have seen so >far. I've been very impressed with the amount of thought that people on >this list are prepared to put into what I believe to be difficult yet >necessary questions. I have seen nothing to convince me that we do not >need a definition of the word "convention" - instead, I have seen the >alarming proposal from one who really ought to know better that if we >fail to define the term and leave things to Sponsoring Organisations, >they will behave in a sensible and rational fashion! Stefanie Rohan wrote: >I think that most of us can agree that such behavior is highly >unlikely, and that... And so we move another step along the slippery slope of unnecessary regulations ... Still, I can see a minority of one is not a viable position. I merely ask, as I withdraw gracefully into the sunset, that you have one more little think about the advantages of only leaving the term "convention" in the Laws for Law 40 purposes and letting NCBOs regulate on the basis that they have to make a value judgement as to what is conventional. Right, let us assume that we are going to define what a convention means, either by finding a definition of convention, or a definition of natural and assume that a conventional call is any call that is not natural. David Burn wrote: >The main purpose in creating a working definition is in order to >clarify what SOs can and cannot regulate. I accept that. David Burn wrote: >Now, for historical reasons it would be absurd to suppose that all NBOs >would immediately cut over without protest to a world-wide regulatory >scheme, and one would have to allow some leeway. In England, if you >play 1H-3H as natural and forcing you have to alert it, but in a >country where this was the standard treatment I could well imagine the >NBO being righteously indignant if we suddenly imposed this requirement >on them. And there is nothing worse, believe me, than the righteous >indignation of an NBO. I really do not understand this. Neither the ACBL nor any of the British organisations have a rule that you *only* alert conventional calls. Alerting has nothing to do with it. Stefanie Rohan wrote: >Let us then continue to assume that, for the purposes of this >discussion, we are interested in deciding which bids are subject to >prohibition due to their conventional nature, and disregard the issue >of which bids may be subject to requiring an alert. Right. --------------------- Let us consider what might be considered a natural call. The following have been suggested as natural (or treatments): >1H - 3H = forcing >1H - 2H - 3C = a natural bid showing clubs to further describe the hand >1H 2NT* - 3D - 3S [* = minor, at least 5-5] = a natural bid showing > values in spades, but does not expect to play in spades. >A 2H opener which: > Always shows exactly six hearts. > Always shows six hearts and no other four card suit. > Always shows six hearts and exactly 6331 shape. > Always shows six hearts, 6421 shape. > Always shows exactly five hearts. > Always shows exactly five hearts and not 5332 shape. Let us consider what might be considered a conventional call. The following have been suggested as conventional: >2H = Flannery, showing 5H, 4S, minimum opener >1NT - 3H = 5-5 in the majors, invitational values >1NT 2H = Brozel, showing hearts and spades >1NT - 3H showing a singleton heart and fewer than four spades >A 2H opener which: > Always shows six hearts, 6421 shape, and not four spades. > Always shows exactly five hearts and a singleton and not four spades. > Always shows exactly five hearts, a singleton, and a four card minor. > Always shows exactly five hearts and exactly four spades. Steve Willner brought out the "negative inference" issue: do negative inferences affect whether a call is conventional? Stefanie Rohan wrote: >Do we need to do this? There are *always* negative inferences. >"Partner opened 1NT, so he has denied a 6-card major" >"Partner opened a club, so he has denied longer diamonds...he then > rebid 1NT over my 1H, so he has denied four spades" >"Partner passed in first seat, so he has denied AKQxx KQxx Axx K" --------------------- So now we move on to suggested definitions of convention or natural. My apologies if I have omitted an early one: I think I may have lost an article. The current definition is: >Convention: A call [not a pass] that serves by partnership agreement > to convey a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named. >A pass is a convention if, by special agreement, it promises more than > a specified amount of strength, or if it artificially promises or > denies values other than in the last suit named. The obvious thing wrong with this has always be that length does not enter into it. So 1NT - 3H to show heart shortage is not conventional. David Burn suggested: >A bid is natural if in the context of the auction so far: >It suggests that if the bid is followed by three passes, the > partnership will be playing in its best denomination; and >It neither promises nor denies any feature of the hand not related to > the suit bid. > >A pass, double or redouble is natural if it suggests that the current > contract be the final contract. > >A call which is not natural is conventional. > Clearly this does not work with 1H - 2H - 3C which is natural since hearts is the best denomination. David Burn suggested: >In addition, an opening bid of One that may by agreement be based on a > hand at least a king below average strength is conventional. This is just semantics, although I would agree with it: if we are going to allow this sort of bid to be regulated then it is better to say that it is conventional than to treat as natural but an exception to the norm. Specific exceptions are rarely a good idea. Steve Willner suggested: >Convention: Any call that does not suggest the current contract as the > final one; _and_ >for a suit bid, does not show length, strength, or values in the suit > named, or >for a notrump bid, does not show a balanced or semi-balanced hand. This obviously goes wrong with 1H - 3H forcing, so was amended. Steve Willner amended: >Convention: Any call that does not suggest that the current contract or > a higher contract in the same denomination should be the final one. This does not work for the two-suiters like Flannery. David Stevenson amended further: >Convention: any call that does not necessarily suggest that the current > contract or a higher contract in the same denomination should be the > final one. This seems to be getting closer. There is still a problem when a natural but short bid is made, as the suggested 1H 2NT - 3D - 3S. Herman De Wael suggested: >A natural bid can have as meanings : >- describing a certain number of cards in the named suit; >- describing a certain number of points; >- denying a certain number of cards in some other suits; > and shows a willingness to play in that denomination. >If there are other meanings, the call is conventional. The willingness to play in that denomination does not fit with 1H - 2H - 3C, but without it 1NT - 3H showing a shortage becomes natural. David Metcalf suggested: >A natural call is one which >(A) Does not suggest a strain or strains other than the current strain > as a final contract. [Does not mean the strain *MUST* be a suggestion > of a final strain; only that the information passed by the *bid* does > not include a suggestion of another playable strain.] >(B) If the current strain is a suit, shows length, strength or values > in that suit, and does not show length, strength or values in another > suit. >(C) If the current strain is NT, then either shows a balanced or semi- > balanced hand, or suggests NT as a final strain. >(D) If the call is a Pass, double or redouble, it must suggest the > current contract as a final contract. [Actually unnecessary: it is a > logical extension of (A).] >A conventional call is one which is not natural. >A treatment is an agreement about a natural call. This covers 1H - 2H - 3C as natural, and even an ace-showing cue-bid after suit agreement. This seems a fairly reasonable attempt to cover all the points. It is probably better to use the term denomination instead of strain because of familiarity. Robin Michaels suggested: >I suggest, tentatively, that one of the properties a 'natural' bid > ought to have, is that its meaning could be reasonably easily > understood by an intelligent beginner without much system knowledge, > and preferably without any explanation. Hardly in the main stream of our thinking, yet a good practical suggestion. Robin Barker objected: >Many posts on this subject have stated that a natural bid must suggest > playing in the denomination named by the bid. >This seems to mean that once a suit has been agreed, any bid in another > suit will count as conventional (i.e. subject to regulation under law > 40). This would include `natural' trial bids and cue bids. This is true as I have pointed out in various places. --------------------- So where do we go from here? have we covered everything? Well, some of the suggestions are a bit dubious when you come to non-bids. In fact, Herman's suggestion only covered bids. Consider 1D - -: David B's natural pass is one that suggests playing there. While of course you may have to play there (is he going to pass my partner out in his 2-1 fit?) there is no real suggestion that you want to play there. David M said much the same thing in his (D) but what about the little note that (D) was superfluous: (A) = does not suggest playing elsewhere is a much better way of putting it. You should also consider a defensive pass. In fact a natural pass may mean either (a) I want to play here or (b) I can't think of anything better to do than play here or (c) I don't have any reason to interfere with the bidding I believe that a natural pass "does not suggest anywhere else as a final contract" covers it nicely. When we consider doubles there is one immediate problem that no-one has mentioned. If the bidding goes 1S x and this double is for takeout is that natural or conventional? Quite frankly, under the current definition one can argue either way! Which is, of course, another reason why the current definition is flawed. Except for Robin M all the definitions make it quite clear that the immediate takeout double is conventional. I do wonder whether that is correct? Let us go with the flow and accept it. How about 1D x xx showing strength? It is not really saying "I want to play in diamonds" (in fact it is often a hand that wishes to defend) but it is prepared to play in 1Dxx if necessary. Scanning the definitions I am again struck by (A) rather than (D) of David M: it is not so much suggesting the current contract as not suggesting any other. So the first part of our definition of a natural call becomes: A natural pass, double or redouble is one which does not suggest a denomination other than the current one as a final contract. When we move on to bids it is interesting that different definitions stress different things: compare David B and Steve W: the latter says (by inference) that a natural bid shows either length or strength or values in the suit bid while the former says it does not show any feature outside the suit bid. However all the definitions excluding Robin M seem to be two part ones in effect, concerned with the suitability for playing in the denomination named and what other features are shown. Perhaps we should follow David M and use the same definition for bids as non-bids for the suitability bit (well, I know he didn't, by introducing (D) but he nearly did by saying that (D) was superfluous). Let us see how it looks: A natural call is one which does not suggest a denomination other than the current one as a final contract. It's nearly there, isn't it? Where does it go wrong? Well, consider the two example sequences 1H - 2H - 3C and 1H 2NT - 3C - 3S They don't exactly suggest another denomination but you know that the final contract is going to be another denomination. Why? Because of the rest of the bidding. So let us adjust it: A natural call is one which does not directly suggest a denomination other than the current one as a final contract. Aha! I think he's got it! Now what other features are shown? David B's suggestion includes "neither promises nor denies any feature of the hand not related to the suit bid.", which makes a weak 2H that shows an unspecified outside singleton conventional. Steve suggested that conventional included "does not show length, strength, or values in the suit named", but some reference to other suits is clearly required (consider Flannery). What about David M and his (B)? "If the current strain is a suit, shows length, strength or values in that suit, and does not show length, strength or values in another suit." Nearly! We want a definition that makes 5-4 S-H conventional, 5-4 S-other natural and a treatment: we want it to allow for the heart holding in the sequence 1H - 2H - 3C. Let's try: If the current denomination is a suit, shows length, strength or values in that suit, and does not directly show length, strength or values in any other specified suit. It's that word directly again: it works! Goodness we are nearly there! Where are the no-trumps? What does David M say? "If the current strain is NT, then either shows a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or suggests NT as a final strain." Change strain and we are there: If the current denomination is NT, then either shows a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or suggests NT as a final denomination. Are we there? Any snags? Suppose the bidding goes 1D x - and the pass shows 5+HCP? (It was standard in the Baron system.) Damn: surely that is conventional: it clearly is now (see current definition earlier). Try: If the call is a pass, does not promise more than a specified amount of strength. Now for the acid test: put them all together! Ah, now we find that we can reword them so as to retain the basic meaning but so they fit together better, also adding a couple of other agreed items: A natural call is one which does not directly suggest a denomination other than the current one as a final contract. A natural call in a suit shows length, strength or values in that suit, and does not directly show length, strength or values in any other specified suit. A natural call in notrumps either shows a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or suggests notrumps as a final denomination. A natural pass does not promise more than a specified amount of strength. A conventional call is one which is not natural. In addition, an opening bid of One that may by agreement be based on a hand at least a king below average strength is conventional. A treatment is an agreement about a natural call. --------------------- If you don't like that, David, then I suggest we don't have a definition at all ... -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 19 23:08:02 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 23:08:02 +1000 Received: from emout09.mail.aol.com (emout09.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.24]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA11215 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 23:07:57 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout09.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08104 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 09:07:55 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 09:07:55 -0400 Message-ID: <960619090755_559396099@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: Reply-to... Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Markus- My vote is to have BLML be the default return. In the rare instance I wish to mail to author, it is easy to accomplish. And if I can do it, anyone can! BTW, we get rather caught up in everything here, and we seem to have forgotten some basic civilities. I'm sure I speak for all of us when I say thank you for making all this possible. We really do appreciate it. Alan LeBendig, Los Angeles (310)312-8899 Phone (310)312-8779 FAX From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 19 23:57:42 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 23:57:42 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA11589 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 23:57:00 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id co03217; 19 Jun 96 14:55 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ac12124; 19 Jun 96 14:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 14:31:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Alerting "natural" bids In-Reply-To: <3169.9606181642@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >Robin Barker wrote: >> (1H) 2NT* - 3D, 3S * = minor, at least 5-5 >> is (again if undiscussed) a natural bid showing values in >> spades, but does not expect to play in spades. > >>[ I only mention this second auction because it came up when I was >>directing two days ago. Opponents felt they could assume that 3 >>spades showed at least 4 (4-x-5-5 ?) because it was not alerted. ] > >Under DBF rules (Denmark) we use "natural" vs."conventional" to >define (most of) the calls that must be alerted. If this had been >in Denmark, I would have ruled that 3S should be alerted. But unless >these opponents are quite inexperienced, they would probably have a >hard time convincing me that the missing alert actually damaged them. >And the only procedural penalty I could find for not alerting 3S is the>advice "you probably ought to alert 3S in the future." Clearly you can fine under L90A or L90B7. >Under Danish rules, we would require > 2NT - alert, obviously conventional by anyone's book > 3D - alert, even though it is natural according to the general >consensus on this thread. The reason is that some opponent who has >never heard of the 2NT convention might expect 3D to show a 4-card >suit, not just to show preference. > 3S - alert, this time because it is not so clear cut if it is >conventional, and because again someone might think that a spade suit >has been shown. I would like to have this alert because I would not >like to require that the opponent has to have kept track of the auction >and done his arithmetic in order to arrive at the "at most three cards" >conclusion. The big problem with discussing alerting in BLML and RGB is that it is based on regulations which differ from country to country. However, if the Danish rules really are that you just alert if it is non-natural then I consider having to alert 3D and 3S in the above sequence counter- productive. We must remember that alerting is to help people. We have a few people over here who delve into our alerting regulations and have come up with an argument that if they know something about partner's hand that opponents might not then they should alert. As a result they alert the whole time, with the best of intentions, and make the alert procedure useless and unhelpful. Any country that requires you to alert a preference bid because you may not have four cards is not using helpful alerting procedures. If you are required to alert 3D above then you *must* be required to alert the following: Acol: 1H - 1S - 2C - 2H (may have fewer than 4 hearts) This is a totally similar position. You really should not base constructive alerting procedures on the possibility of someone not knowing the meaning of a bid ***which was alerted anyway and therefore if he wants to know what is happening then he will be asking***. All you do is to make alerting less meaningful and thus less helpful for 99% of players: surely that cannot be right? Much the same logic applies to the 3S bid. You seem to suggest that an unalerted 3S shows a 4?55 hand. You suggest it should be alerted to help someone who hasn't bothered to keep track. Jens, it is not conventional, and you should not base your actions on someone who does not know what the time of day is. What about all your other players? It is fatally easy to either allow or require players to alert too much: you have a responsibility to the game as a whole not to let this happen. [s] >All of which goes to show my point (finally! I hear you cry) that >"natural"/"conventional" are only vaguely correlated with >"when to alert" rules. Whether they should be connected is for individual NCBOs and SOs but it should certainly not be a consideration when deciding what is conventional. Robin Barker wrote: >I would like to follow up your thread on alerting. The obvious >conclusion from your two examples is that after a conventional bid >(2NT, above) every bid (by that side) should be alerted because the >opponents will not (necessarily) have followed the logic of the >subsequent auction. I agree with your logic, however it does make the >subsequent alerts rather meaningless. Which is one of the best reasons for not making them alertable. Anyway, I think that the logic is flawed: basically it has been said that a bid is conventional, not because it is, but because opponents may not realise that it isn't. [s] -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 03:14:57 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA15377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 03:14:57 +1000 Received: from mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk (mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA15371 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 03:14:48 +1000 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Wed, 19 Jun 1996 18:14:12 +0100 Received: from isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk (isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk [147.150.219.16]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id SAA01731 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 18:12:23 +0100 Received: by isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <31C84328@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Wed, 19 Jun 96 18:12:56 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: Going round in circles... Date: Wed, 19 Jun 96 17:57:00 GMT Message-ID: <31C84328@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 60 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn More very interesting contributions on the subject of defining a convention. I will read them all in detail and reply in depth when I have the time. But one thing worries me. What I was trying to get at was: we need a definition of "convention" that will replace the unsatisfactory one in the Laws. This means that we need to start from scratch and assume that the word currently has no meaning (or no meaning that is adequate for legislative purposes). We need to take a mighty leap backwards before we can start to take small steps forward. Many of the posts that I have looked at have this in common: they start with a preconception of what "natural" or "conventional" means to the author, and then challenge other definitions on that basis. The trouble is that what you regard as "natural" may very well be regarded as anything but by players of a markedly lower standard than yourself (the great majority, ca va sans dire) and by people from other countries who have been brought up with different bidding methods. A lot of people have claimed that long suit trial bids are natural, an argument for which I see no logical basis. In Austria, for example, 1H-2H-2S is canape, showing longer and stronger spades than hearts. In England and I suspect in the USA that would have to be alerted, despite being (to my way of thinking) more "natural" than a 2S bid which might be on three small and would not require an alert because it is a long suit trial bid. Fewer people, but a substantial number for all that, have claimed that cue bids are natural. Again, I see no logical basis for this. Try telling the next beginners' class you teach that a bid of a suit in which you have a void is "natural", and see what reaction you get. If you overcall 1H with 2NT for the minors, and bid 3S over partner's 3D, then of course I would not expect you to have a 40(54) shape. But that is because you are a very good player, and I at least have some idea of what very good players do. You are displaying an extremely high level of sophistication in choosing a sequence to describe your strong 3055 shape - a level of sophistication far beyond anything that even the average player, never mind the beginner, would understand. For that reason I have great difficulty in seeing how you can use the word "natural" to describe it. After all, you have clubs and diamonds, so you bid no trumps and spades. Do you think Demetri Marchessini wants you on his team? The point is this. At the moment, there appears consensus that the definition of "convention" in the Laws is inadequate. It should be replaced. There appears to be grave disquiet about the way in which certain SOs regulate the game. It should be controlled. To do this, we need definitions of terms which apply to and can be understood by players at every level. If my grandmother, God bless her, thinks a bid is natural then let it be so according to our definition. And if she thinks a bid is conventional, or more likely cannot bring herself to think about it at all, then let it be liable to regulation by the Sponsoring Organisations who run tournaments for my grandmother. David Burn dburn@lnhdent.agw.bt.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 07:16:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 07:16:46 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA24772 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 07:16:32 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id al23357; 19 Jun 96 17:42 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa12120; 19 Jun 96 14:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 14:34:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: 12 penalty cards: the lead MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A thread on RGB discussed 13 penalty cards. I was declarer when LHO became confused and knocked her bidding box on the floor. "Let me help you" I said, reaching for the bidding cards everywhere. "Oh thankyou" she said, and put the dummy down! The Director was called, and he ... [deleted] The interest in the story was this. Suppose he had said they were all major penalty cards. What she actually did was to put down five diamonds (largest first but nearly together), then two spades, then five hearts, then she said "Oh!". [Only twelve penalty cards!] Could I have chosen any lead (apart from the club, obviously) or has she led a diamond? Has she led the top diamond since it hit the table first (just)? I shall leave it a few days before giving my opinion for whatever it is worth. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 07:55:40 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 07:55:40 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA24935 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 07:55:34 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp57.monmouth.com [205.164.220.89]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA05051 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 17:51:09 -0400 Message-Id: <199606192151.RAA05051@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 17:53:18 -400 Subject: Re: 12 penalty cards: the lead X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > A thread on RGB discussed 13 penalty cards. > > I was declarer when LHO became confused and knocked her bidding box on > the floor. "Let me help you" I said, reaching for the bidding cards > everywhere. "Oh thankyou" she said, and put the dummy down! > > The Director was called, and he ... [deleted] > > The interest in the story was this. Suppose he had said they were all > major penalty cards. How can he have said anything else? > What she actually did was to put down five > diamonds (largest first but nearly together), then two spades, then five > hearts, then she said "Oh!". [Only twelve penalty cards!] > > Could I have chosen any lead (apart from the club, obviously) Of course. The cards are all major penalty cards. Law 51A. > or has she led a diamond? Has she led the top diamond since it > hit the table first (just)? > I do not know where in the Laws this bit about 'hitting the table first' is found. I think it is a myth. I have seen players play a card to a trick when there was another card concealed beneath, and I have seen directors rule that the concealed card was the one played because it 'hit the table first'! This violates Law 58B2, and sometimes even 58B1. It is simply wrong. The concealed card is not even a major penalty card if it is not an honor (Law 50C). Did the director rule that the cards were all premature plays according to Law 57? This seems to directly contradictLaw 50A. Whatever the director ruled, there is always the polite, "Oh, I was not aware that that was the ruling. Would you please read it to me from the Laws?" Good luck trying that one, David! Cheers, Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 08:44:33 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 08:44:33 +1000 Received: (from markus@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25241 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 08:44:30 +1000 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 08:44:30 +1000 From: Markus Buchhorn Message-Id: <199606192244.IAA25241@octavia.anu.edu.au> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Going round in circles... Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [From Richard Lighton; cc'ed "owner-bridge-laws" rather than "bridge-laws" -MB] > Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 14:37:05 -0400 > From: Richard Lighton > Message-Id: <199606191837.OAA23597@styx.ios.com> > To: DBURN@lnhdent.agw.bt.co.uk > Subject: Re: Going round in circles... > Cc: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > David Burn wrote: > > > More very interesting contributions on the subject of defining a > > convention. I will read them all in detail and reply in depth when I have > > the time. > > > But one thing worries me. What I was trying to get at was: we need a > > definition of "convention" that will replace the unsatisfactory one in > > the Laws. This means that we need to start from scratch and assume that > > the word currently has no meaning (or no meaning that is adequate for > > legislative purposes). We need to take a mighty leap backwards before we > > can start to take small steps forward. > > [snip] > > OK, David, so starting over in an attempt to define a convention > (using a number of good attempts from previous posts) > > A bid is conventional if: > > 1. It makes some positive statement about length in a specific > suit other than the one bid > > OR: > 2. It promises that there will be two or more suits with known > length. > > OR: > 3. It does not suggest playing in the denomination bid > > A call other than a bid is conventional if it does not suggest > playing in the current denomination. > > Notes: > > a. Whether a bid is conventional or not has nothing to do with its > alertability > > b. 1 says that Flannery is a convention > > c. 2 says that a bid that shows 6 cards in the suit bid and 331 > distribution in the other suits is a convention > > d. 3 says that 1H - 2H - 3C as a conventional try for game or slam > is not a natural bid, whether it shows length, shortness, or values. > It is only natural if it suggests playing in clubs. > > e. No cue-bid is natural. > > f. Any mention of Alert procedures in this thread is off-topic > > (which makes this message contain two off-topic remarks!) > > While I don't expect defining "natural game tries" as a convention > will make everybody happy, I think that this definition is simple > enough and accurate enough to be used in the laws, and controls > Sponsoring Organizations' rights in an appropriate manner. > > Richard Lighton > (lighton@ios.com) > Wood-Ridge NJ > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 08:47:15 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 08:47:15 +1000 Received: (from markus@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25270 for bridge-laws@rgb; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 08:47:11 +1000 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 08:47:11 +1000 Message-Id: <199606192247.IAA25270@octavia.anu.edu.au> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Abbreviations From: Richard Lighton Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [From Richard again.... :-)] > Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 14:59:52 -0400 > From: Richard Lighton > Message-Id: <199606191859.OAA24759@styx.ios.com> > To: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Abbreviations > > Am I the only one who has trouble with abbreviations? > It took me several posts to get used to the idea that "SO" > stood for "Sponsoring Organizations" - it was more than one > before I even knew what SO stood for, although the general idea > was fairly obvious from context (some sort of ruling body). > > In earlier threads I always had trouble with LA, especially when > the message was from Alan LeBendig, who lives there. If LA did > not mean Los Angeles, and I have recently been reading rec.sport.cricket, > my immediate reaction is to think Left Arm. When I eventually get to > thinking bridge - I tend to read this mail early in the morning - > LA first means Law Adjustment (in the Larry Cohen sense). > > I think it is Bobby Wolff's fault that all these acronyms have > cropped up. I find him guilty of AD (Acronym Disruption). > > Anyway, a request. Please define your acronyms before use, or at > least consider that they will be read far more often than they were > written, so time saving for the world at large is not great. > > Richard Lighton > SPUA* Member > (lighton@ios.com) > Wood-Ridge NJ > > (*) SPUA - Society for the Prevention of Unnecessary Acronyms From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 20:09:44 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA29453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 20:09:44 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA29448 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 20:09:35 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp10.monmouth.com [205.164.220.42]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA29416; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 06:04:28 -0400 Message-Id: <199606201004.GAA29416@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Burn, David" Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 06:06:34 -400 Subject: RE: Definition of "convention" CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi. > > DB:> "A bid is natural if in the context of the auction so far: > DB:> It suggests that if the bid is followed by three passes, the > partnership > DB:> will be playing in its best denomination; and > DB:> It neither promises nor denies any feature of the hand not related > to the > DB:> suit bid. > > SR:"In the context of the auction so far" is too vulnerable to abuse by > SR:the SO's. I didn't realize until I read David Metcalf's contribution > SR:that this would preclude fragments, cue bids, game tries, and other > SR:strong moves that show something in the suit named but do not suggest > SR:PLAYING there. > > It was my intention to preclude all of the bids that you > mention. I do not believe that there is any logical basis > for regarding them as "natural". My next post will, I hope, > clarify this for the group - a copy is attached for your > perusal. I have already read your post, and I think that your view is very reasonable. However, I still disagree quite strongly. A basis for this entire discussion is the following: Any bid which Sponsoring Organizations are permitted to ban, some SO, somewhere, will ban from some event. Therefore, in trying to help formulate a definition of 'conventional' I have tried to picture a game in which NO conventions were allowed, and decide whether it was playable. Let us consider whether this game is playable if ace-showing cuebids are not allowed. When a fit is found and extra values are diagnosed, how can a pair sensibly get to a slam if they are not permitted to show controls? It seems to me as if they can't; thus not allowing the bids renders the game unplayable. On the other hand, bidding controls can be considered 'natural in the context of the auction so far'. Of course, if you and I interpret this phrase differently, then certainly SO's will. > > Thanks for your interest in the subject. I have found your > views most helpful. You're welcome. It has been very interesting and thought-provoking. > > A lot of people have > claimed that long suit trial bids are natural, an argument for which I > see no logical basis. In Austria, for example, 1H-2H-2S is canape, > showing longer and stronger spades than hearts. In England and I suspect > in the USA that would have to be alerted, despite being (to my way of > thinking) more "natural" than a 2S bid which might be on three small and > would not require an alert because it is a long suit trial bid. This is a silly example, because the Austrian 2S bid is based on a system that is itself conventional. A 2S bid showing a second suit and extra values seems rather natural to me; in fact it might be the only descriptive bid available. And it might be on three if the shape of the hand demands it, but I think that most of us were discussing trial bids for these purposes as showing length or values in the second suit, NOT asking for help. When you are 6-3-3-1 and a fit has been found in your 6-card suit, the only options you have for game or slam tries are: 1. Bid a three-card suit. 2. Bid a one-card suit. 3. Bid Notrump. 4. Guess partner's hand and jump to the appropriate level in your six-card suit. Are we saying that (4) is the only option permissible in my 'no conventions' game? > > Fewer people, but a substantial number for all that, have claimed that > cue bids are natural. Again, I see no logical basis for this. Try telling > the next beginners' class you teach that a bid of a suit in which you > have a void is "natural", and see what reaction you get. Again, you have to do SOMETHING besides guess at the final contract, don't you? After playing a few sessions, these beginners will begin to see a need for making bids that fall outside of your definition of 'natural' just in order to arrive at sensible contracts. Yes, I know, that is how conventions are born, but it doesn't make sense if our 'all natural' game becomes unplayable once a person has accumulated a little bit of experience. > > If you overcall 1H with 2NT for the minors, and bid 3S over partner's 3D, > then of course I would not expect you to have a 40(54) shape. But that is > because you are a very good player, and I at least have some idea of what > very good players do. You are displaying an extremely high level of > sophistication in choosing a sequence to describe your strong 3055 shape > - a level of sophistication far beyond anything that even the average > player, never mind the beginner, would understand. For that reason I have > great difficulty in seeing how you can use the word "natural" to describe > it. After all, you have clubs and diamonds, so you bid no trumps and > spades. Do you think Demetri Marchessini wants you on his team? But this is not really relevant to the present discussion. If we consider my hypothetical 'no conventions' game, the 2NT bid showing the minors was never made in the first place. (In any case, the 3S bid was certainly natural 'in the context of the auction so far', and any game that allowed the 2NT bid would allow the 3S bid. If we are discussing this sequence for the purposes of alerting, it seems to me that alerting the original conventional bid (IF that bid is alertable; in the ACBL it is not) should be sufficient. But this is off the topic.) > > The point is this. At the moment, there appears consensus that the > definition of "convention" in the Laws is inadequate. It should be > replaced. There appears to be grave disquiet about the way in which > certain SOs regulate the game. It should be controlled. To do this, we > need definitions of terms which apply to and can be understood by players > at every level. 'At every level'? This is appropriate, but I feel strongly that 'every level' should assume a basic idea of how bridge is played. > If my grandmother, God bless her, thinks a bid is natural > then let it be so according to our definition. And if she thinks a bid is > conventional, or more likely cannot bring herself to think about it at > all, then let it be liable to regulation by the Sponsoring Organisations > who run tournaments for my grandmother. > Please do not make disagreeing with you tantamount to disparaging your grandmother's bridge game! Cheers, Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 20:11:51 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA29701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 20:11:51 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA29696 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 20:11:39 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aw17158; 20 Jun 96 11:08 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa27928; 20 Jun 96 9:55 +0100 Message-ID: <2T3ZNLBMeJyxEw6y@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 01:13:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Abbreviations In-Reply-To: <199606192247.IAA25270@octavia.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton wrote: >> Am I the only one who has trouble with abbreviations? >> Anyway, a request. Please define your acronyms before use, or at >> least consider that they will be read far more often than they were >> written, so time saving for the world at large is not great. I have never considered time-saving for the writer to be a major consideration. In technical discussions there is always a tendency to use jargon and acronyms are part of that jargon. >> >> Richard Lighton >> SPUA* Member >> (lighton@ios.com) >> Wood-Ridge NJ >> >> (*) SPUA - Society for the Prevention of Unnecessary Acronyms What does NJ stand for? :) :) AC Appeals committee AI Authorised information BLML Bridge-laws mailing list CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director LA Logical alternative Lnn Law number nn MI Misinformation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NBO National Bridge organisation NG Newsgroup NP No problem RGB rec.games.bridge (newsgroup) RoC Rule of coincidence SO Sponsoring organisation TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge UI Unauthorised information HTH. [Whoops: not on list: means hope this helps] -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 23:47:14 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 23:47:14 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA01109 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 23:46:55 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ah15109; 20 Jun 96 14:46 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa14099; 20 Jun 96 14:23 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 13:43:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Going round in circles... In-Reply-To: <31C84328@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >More very interesting contributions on the subject of defining a >convention. I will read them all in detail and reply in depth when I have >the time. > >But one thing worries me. What I was trying to get at was: we need a >definition of "convention" that will replace the unsatisfactory one in >the Laws. This means that we need to start from scratch and assume that >the word currently has no meaning (or no meaning that is adequate for >legislative purposes). We need to take a mighty leap backwards before we >can start to take small steps forward. > >Many of the posts that I have looked at have this in common: they start >with a preconception of what "natural" or "conventional" means to the >author, and then challenge other definitions on that basis. The trouble >is that what you regard as "natural" may very well be regarded as >anything but by players of a markedly lower standard than yourself (the >great majority, ca va sans dire) and by people from other countries who >have been brought up with different bidding methods. A lot of people have >claimed that long suit trial bids are natural, an argument for which I >see no logical basis. In Austria, for example, 1H-2H-2S is canape, >showing longer and stronger spades than hearts. In England and I suspect >in the USA that would have to be alerted, despite being (to my way of >thinking) more "natural" than a 2S bid which might be on three small and >would not require an alert because it is a long suit trial bid. > >Fewer people, but a substantial number for all that, have claimed that >cue bids are natural. Again, I see no logical basis for this. Try telling >the next beginners' class you teach that a bid of a suit in which you >have a void is "natural", and see what reaction you get. > >If you overcall 1H with 2NT for the minors, and bid 3S over partner's 3D, >then of course I would not expect you to have a 40(54) shape. But that is >because you are a very good player, and I at least have some idea of what >very good players do. You are displaying an extremely high level of >sophistication in choosing a sequence to describe your strong 3055 shape > - a level of sophistication far beyond anything that even the average >player, never mind the beginner, would understand. For that reason I have >great difficulty in seeing how you can use the word "natural" to describe >it. After all, you have clubs and diamonds, so you bid no trumps and >spades. Do you think Demetri Marchessini wants you on his team? > >The point is this. At the moment, there appears consensus that the >definition of "convention" in the Laws is inadequate. It should be >replaced. There appears to be grave disquiet about the way in which >certain SOs regulate the game. It should be controlled. To do this, we >need definitions of terms which apply to and can be understood by players >at every level. If my grandmother, God bless her, thinks a bid is natural >then let it be so according to our definition. And if she thinks a bid is >conventional, or more likely cannot bring herself to think about it at >all, then let it be liable to regulation by the Sponsoring Organisations >who run tournaments for my grandmother. > > Hmmm. The trouble with moving the goalposts is always that you tend to annoy anyone who has spent a fair time attempting to score previously. You asked for a definition of convention because the present one was inadequate. Naturally I assumed, others assumed (and it looks to me as though one of your earlier posts assumed) that what was required was a new definition, not a basic change in what is a convention. So a number of people very reasonably attempted to do just that. Now you say that this wrong. It appears that what you want is to produce a definition of what a SO should be allowed to control. That's not the same! It's nothing like the same! After an interesting side-trip concerning some of the details, especially concerning trial bids, you came back on-line with the BGM theory. (Sorry Rodney: BGM = Burn grandmother.) This seems to be that a definition of what SOs should be allowed to control based on what less experienced players will expect. Now if that is what you wanted originally, why did you not say so? A natural suit bid is one that shows at least three cards in the suit bid but does not show at least three cards in any other suit. A natural notrump bid shows either a balanced or semi-balanced hand or is an attempt to play in notrumps. A natural pass, double or redouble is an attempt to play there. Two exceptions: A takeout double on the first round is natural. An opening bid of one that can be a king less than average is not natural. So SOs can regulate everything else. OK? The hours I spent on that last document! :( --- Just out of interest I should like to comment on your sidelines too. You are going to get into great trouble if you start worrying about the inferences from the whole auction. I suggest you stop worrying about canape, and long suit trial bids (incidentally if you read through the posts it was quite clear that long suit trial bids meant a second suit as a try for game which is the BGM method, and not showing xxx). Consider: 1H - 2H - 2S What does it mean? The BGM approach: I have spades as well as my hearts The Burn approach: I have spades as well as my hearts, and furthermore, I am showing them because: (1) My spades are xxx and I need help there (2) My spades are longer than my hearts But they are really the same thing. BGMs are not particularly worried about subtle inferences, so to a BGM both are the same, so it is reasonable to treat all the above the same way. Consider: 1H - 2NT - 3D - 3S What does it mean? The BGM approach: I have spades as well as my minors The Burn approach: I have spades as well as my minors, and I know my partner will read them as only three long because my partner knows I have 10 cards in the minors There is no need to worry about the difference: BGMs won't worry: they will think it shows spades, and it does! --- If this whole approach to control is necessary at all then I recommend what I gave you above. --- I trust you will take the references to BGM as intended: it is helpful to have a piece of jargon to describe the sort of player you are referring to. I usually use the term `inexperienced player', which is often wrong, of course. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 20 23:48:38 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 23:48:38 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA01127 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 23:47:30 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ai15109; 20 Jun 96 14:46 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa14098; 20 Jun 96 14:23 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 14:11:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 12 penalty cards: the lead In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is forwarded from Jens Brix Christiansen David Stevenson wrote: > A thread on RGB discussed 13 penalty cards. > > I was declarer when LHO became confused and knocked her bidding box on >the floor. "Let me help you" I said, reaching for the bidding cards >everywhere. "Oh thankyou" she said, and put the dummy down! > > The Director was called, and he ... [deleted] > > The interest in the story was this. Suppose he had said they were all >major penalty cards. What she actually did was to put down five >diamonds (largest first but nearly together), then two spades, then five >hearts, then she said "Oh!". [Only twelve penalty cards!] > > Could I have chosen any lead (apart from the club, obviously) or has >she led a diamond? Has she led the top diamond since it hit the table >first (just)? I agree that a lead is a deliberate act. I agree that it would be wrong to rule that the first card put down is the lead. Below are 6 somewhat similar scenarios and my ruling in each case. Any comments? 1. South is the designated declarer. Now East drops the C2 on the table while West is contemplating his lead. Everyone agrees that East was just clumsy while rearranging his cards -- no intent to actually lead. Ruling: the C2 will become a minor penalty card, and leading out of turn rules do not apply. Technically, the auction period is not over, but in practice that does not make any difference. 2. Now instead West fidgets and drops the C2. Ruling: C2 was not led; it will become a minor penalty card. Is the auction period over? Not yet. Does it matter? No. 3. Now instead West fidgets and drops the Heart Jack. Technically, I think what just happened is that West got himself a major penalty card, which he then must lead. When ruling in this case, the TD should probably not waste too much time but just rule "the bottom line is that you have made an opening lead of the Heart Jack". (In a TD course, it is always the Ten that people drop. I wonder why.) 4. Now instead West fidgets and drops the C2 and the D5. I am ruling two major penalty cards (so South gets to choose which one is the opening lead). West is unlucky here, really, because if I had ruled "deliberate action", West would be choosing. See case 6 below. Seems unfair, but... Again, it is not important that the auciton period is not over. 5. West tries to lead the C2, but the D5 is stuck to it, so he ends up showing two cards. This time I rule that the C2 is the lead and the D5 is a minor penalty card. And the auction period is definitely over. 6. Finally, West leads the C2 and the D5 at the same time (whatever that means, don't try me on that one). In this case, West chooses which card is the lead, and the other becomes a major penalty card. -- Jens From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 00:17:33 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 00:17:33 +1000 Received: from emout13.mail.aol.com (emout13.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA03211 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 00:17:25 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout13.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA22106; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 10:08:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 10:08:19 -0400 Message-ID: <960620100817_560272146@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: cardphan@gnn.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, eok@vir.co, rcolker%udcvox.bitnet@vtbit.cc.vt.edu, blubaugh@su1.in.net, glasson@pluto.njcc.com, pisarra@ccnet.co, DMFV47B@prodigy.com, pab@access5.digex.net, kwalker@prairenet.org, sweatypalms@prodigy.com, jonbriss@ix.netcom.com, TEXASPEN@aol.com, ad292@lafn.lafn.org, bseagram@interlog.com, ihessel@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu, mrbum@annex.com, mbeecher@cris.com, PDfun@aol.com, ChasFinch@aol.com, lobo@ac.net, martel@cs.ucdavis.edu, martino@courier6.aero.edu, mortnsue@pacificnet.net, bfer@nando.net, farouk@vir.com, campbell@antares.aero.org, KRAllison@aol.com, taylor@tivoli.com Subject: Fwd: Fw: virus alert !!!!! Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --------------------- Forwarded message: From: JApfebaum@worldnet.att.net (Jay Apfelbaum) To: MOM1026@aol.com (Susan Levine), fairchilds@sprynet.com (Sharon Fairchild), Roni@med.pitt.edu (Roni Gitchel), slix328357@aol.com (Robert Lix), rcolker%udcvax.bitnet@vtbit.cc.vt.edu (Richard Colker), RayRaskin@aol.com (Ray Raskin), lynnj@netcom.com (Lynn Johannesen), am349@torfree.net (Jonathan Steinberg), jflev@aol.com (Jedd Levine), hjpiltch@ix.netcom.com (Howard Piltch), hindleyr@aol.com (Hindley Mendelsohn), GKelly@uakron.edu (Graham Kelly), gfsmith@inlink.com (Glenn Smith), joelsong@liso.dnet.ge.com (Gail Joelson), Florable@msn.com (Flora Blechman), DVarvel@alleg.edu (Donald Varvel), can.bridge.fed@sasknet.sk.ca (Dick Anderson), david@blakjak.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson), danjoanm@worldnet.att.net (Dan Morse), 74774.3335@CompuServe.COM (Chyah Burghard), cwilk@aol.com (Chuck Wilkinson), Copper9251@aol.com (Casey Levine), al_levy@gateway.grumman.com (Alvin Levy), allebendig@aol.com (Alan LeBendig), 74431.3434@CompuServe.COM (ACBL) Date: 96-06-20 09:05:13 EDT I received the following message from Richard Colker. I STRONGLY advise you to read it! > > Date: 05-Jun-96 08:28:56 AM > Subject: Virus Alert! > Categories: > > Virus alert: > > Whatever you do, DON'T READ an e-mail that has "GOOD TIMES" as the subject! > > > There is a computer virus that is being sent across the Internet. If you > receive an email message with the subject line "Good Times", DO NOT read the > message, DELETE it immediately. Please read the messages below. > > Some miscreant is sending email under the title "Good Times" nationwide, if > you get anything like this, DON'T DOWN LOAD THE FILE! It has a virus that > rewrites your hard drive, obliterating anything on it. > > Please be careful and forward this mail. > > ************************************************************************** > > WARNING!!!!!!! INTERNET VIRUS > > ************************************************************************ > > The FCC released a warning last Wednesday concerning a matter of major > importance to any regular user of the Internet. Apparently a new computer > virus has been engineered by a user of AMERICA ON LINE that is unparalleled > in its destructive capability. Other more well-known viruses such as > "Stoned", "Airwolf" and "Michaelangelo" pale in comparison to the prospects > of this newest creation by a warped mentality. What makes this virus so > terrifying, said the FCC, is the fact that no program needs to be exchanged > for a new computer to be infected. It can be spread through the existing > email systems of the Internet. Once a Computer is infected, one of several > things can happen. If the computer contains a hard drive, that will most > likely be destroyed. > > If the program is not stopped, the computer's processor will be placed in an > nth-complexity infinite binary loop -which can severely damage the processor > if left running that way too long. Unfortunately, most novice computer > users will not realize what is happening until it is far too late. Luckily, > there is one sure means of detecting what is now known as the "Good Times" > virus. It always travels to new computers the same way in a text email > message with the subject line reading "Good Times". Avoiding infection is > easy once the file has been received simply by NOT READING IT! The act of > loading the file into the mail server's ASCII buffer causes the "Good Times" > mainline program to initialize and execute. The program is highly > intelligent- it will send copies of itself to everyone whose email address > is contained in a receive-mail file or a sent-mail file, if it can find one. > It will then proceed to trash the computer it is running on. The bottom line > there is - if you receive a file with the subject line "Good Times", delete > it immediately! Do not read it" Rest assured that whoever's name was on the > "From" line was surely struck by the virus. Warn your friends and local > system users of this newest threat to the Internet! It could save them a lot > of time and money. > > Could you pass this along to your global mailing list as well? > ============================================================ > > > > > > > > > > > > Delivery Priority: Normal > Delivery Report: Basic > Receipt Report: No > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 00:46:19 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 00:46:19 +1000 Received: from sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (sunset.ma.huji.ac.il [132.64.32.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA04153 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 00:46:08 +1000 Received: (from grabiner@localhost) by sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (8.6.11/8.6.10) id RAA22547; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 17:32:04 +0300 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 17:32:04 +0300 Message-Id: <199606201432.RAA22547@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il> From: David Joseph Grabiner To: AlLeBendig@aol.com CC: cardphan@gnn.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, eok@vir.co, rcolker%udcvox.bitnet@vtbit.cc.vt.edu, blubaugh@su1.in.net, glasson@pluto.njcc.com, pisarra@ccnet.co, DMFV47B@prodigy.com, pab@access5.digex.net, kwalker@prairenet.org, sweatypalms@prodigy.com, jonbriss@ix.netcom.com, TEXASPEN@aol.com, ad292@lafn.lafn.org, bseagram@interlog.com, ihessel@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu, mrbum@annex.com, mbeecher@cris.com, PDfun@aol.com, ChasFinch@aol.com, lobo@ac.net, martel@cs.ucdavis.edu, martino@courier6.aero.edu, mortnsue@pacificnet.net, bfer@nando.net, farouk@vir.com, campbell@antares.aero.org, KRAllison@aol.com, taylor@tivoli.com In-reply-to: <960620100817_560272146@emout13.mail.aol.com> (AlLeBendig@aol.com) Subject: Re: Fwd: Fw: virus alert !!!!! Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a well-known hoax which has been going around for a long time. DO NOT pass it on any further. (It's also technically impossible, if you want proof that it is a hoax.) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 00:48:53 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 00:48:53 +1000 Received: from styx.ios.com (lighton@styx.ios.com [198.4.75.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA04172 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 00:48:47 +1000 Received: (from lighton@localhost) by styx.ios.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id KAA24950 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 10:48:34 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 10:48:34 -0400 From: Richard Lighton Message-Id: <199606201448.KAA24950@styx.ios.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Abbreviations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Richard Lighton wrote: > >> Am I the only one who has trouble with abbreviations? > >> Anyway, a request. Please define your acronyms before use, or at > >> least consider that they will be read far more often than they were > >> written, so time saving for the world at large is not great. > I have never considered time-saving for the writer to be a major > consideration. In technical discussions there is always a tendency to > use jargon and acronyms are part of that jargon. I agree with the above statement, David, but there is a tendency to introduce abbreviations with little advantage. In speech, I suspect none of us would say "LA"- we would say "Logical Alternative" even though it is 5 sylables longer. And it's fine to refer to BGM when you have defined this to mean "Burn's Grandmother" in recent text. That's standard technical writing technique. Thanks for the glossary anyway. I don't think there were any I don't really know, it's just that I have to think what they all mean. By the way, in a different thread the apology for BGM is to the wrong person. Rodney is the Manchester Lighton, not the New Jersey (NJ) one. Richard Lighton (lighton@ios.com) Wood-Ridge NJ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 01:22:52 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 01:22:52 +1000 Received: from laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (yangboy@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw [140.112.50.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA04323 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 01:22:44 +1000 Received: by laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA14264; Thu, 20 Jun 96 23:23:11 CST Date: Thu, 20 Jun 96 23:23:11 CST Message-Id: <9606201523.AA14264@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> From: "B.Y." To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Going round in circles... Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My attempt. Based on an amalgam of previous efforts by posters of this list. BY> DEFINITION (in prologue to laws): BY> BY> A suit bid is conventional if it, (a) does NOT show 3+ cards BY> in the suit bid and is NOT an attempt to play in the named suit with BY> considerable probability, or (b) show more than 3 cards in another BY> specified suit, with a negligible chance of exceptions [*]. BY> BY> A no-trump bid is conventional if it (a) does not show a near BY> balanced shape; and (b) is not an attempt to play no-trumps. BY> BY> A pass, double or redouble is conventional if not indicative BY> of willingness to play in the contract named or a higher one of same BY> strain, if possible. BY> BY> CHANGE Law 40D to: BY> BY> The organisation sponsoring the tournament are authorised to BY> regulate, implicitly or explicitly, the use of conventional agreements BY> (in bidding and play), and no others, except in tournaments targeted BY> specifically toward inexperienced players and announced as such. [*] An explanation. I think that EVERYONE understands that psychics (and various other deviations from system or normal practice in bidding) will inevitably happen. If a pair psyches once a year and ethically announce that fact, then according to a reading of the present rules they are playing an illegal convention. The somewhat ambiguous word "negligible" can be elucidated as you like. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 03:08:17 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 03:08:17 +1000 Received: from emout10.mail.aol.com (emout10.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA04961 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 03:08:11 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA18746; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 12:56:00 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 12:56:00 -0400 Message-ID: <960620125538_334200907@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: cardphan@gnn.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, eok@vir.co, rcolker%udcvox.bitnet@vtbit.cc.vt.edu, blubaugh@su1.in.net, glasson@pluto.njcc.com, pisarra@ccnet.co, DMFV47B@prodigy.com, pab@access5.digex.net, kwalker@prairenet.org, sweatypalms@prodigy.com, jonbriss@ix.netcom.com, TEXASPEN@aol.com, ad292@lafn.lafn.org, bseagram@interlog.com, ihessel@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu, mrbum@annex.com, mbeecher@cris.com, PDfun@aol.com, ChasFinch@aol.com, lobo@ac.net, martel@cs.ucdavis.edu, martino@courier6.aero.edu, mortnsue@pacificnet.net, bfer@nando.net, farouk@vir.com, campbell@antares.aero.org, KRAllison@aol.com, taylor@tivoli.com Subject: Re: Fw: virus alert !!!!! Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yes, I have always known I was gullible. I was only concerned for everyone's well being. No, I have no interest in some prime real estate in northern Montana, but thanks for the offer. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 04:45:15 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 04:45:15 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA08617 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 04:45:00 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id cc18251; 20 Jun 96 18:34 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa01105; 20 Jun 96 19:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 19:15:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Abbreviations In-Reply-To: <199606201448.KAA24950@styx.ios.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton wrote: >By the way, in a different thread the apology for BGM is to the wrong >person. Rodney is the Manchester Lighton, not the New Jersey (NJ) one. Damn: sorry: comes of answering something when it is not in front of you and knowing Rodney well. Grovel, grovel, grovel, sorry. (Glad you explained NJ anyway!) :) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 05:10:25 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 05:10:25 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA12126 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 05:10:16 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ar18737; 20 Jun 96 18:35 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa01084; 20 Jun 96 19:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 19:14:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 12 penalty cards: the lead In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >Below are 6 somewhat similar >scenarios and my ruling in each case. Any comments? >1. South is the designated declarer. Now East drops the C2 on the >table while West is contemplating his lead. Everyone agrees that >East was just clumsy while rearranging his cards -- no intent to >actually lead. Ruling: the C2 will become a minor penalty card, and >leading out of turn rules do not apply. Technically, the auction period >is not over, but in practice that does not make any difference. > The distinction between during the auction and during the auction period is such a pain in the behind. Fortunately L24 makes it clear that the penalty cards are not affected, only partner's later calls, so as you say it is irrelevant to these questions. >2. Now instead West fidgets and drops the C2. Ruling: >C2 was not led; it will become a minor penalty card. >Is the auction period over? Not yet. Does it matter? No. > >3. Now instead West fidgets and drops the Heart Jack. Technically, >I think what just happened is that West got himself a major penalty >card, which he then must lead. When ruling in this case, the TD >should probably not waste too much time but just rule "the bottom >line is that you have made an opening lead of the Heart Jack". >(In a TD course, it is always the Ten that people drop. I wonder why.) > >4. Now instead West fidgets and drops the C2 and the D5. I am >ruling two major penalty cards (so South gets to choose which one >is the opening lead). West is unlucky here, really, because if >I had ruled "deliberate action", West would be choosing. >See case 6 below. Seems unfair, but... >Again, it is not important that the auciton period is not over. > >5. West tries to lead the C2, but the D5 is stuck to >it, so he ends up showing two cards. This time I rule that the C2 is >the lead and the D5 is a minor penalty card. And the auction period >is definitely over. > He has led two cards simultaneously and more than one is visible (L58B2): maybe it wasn't at the moment he led that but that is not what L58B2 says! So he gets to choose which card, and the other card is a minor penalty card. >6. Finally, West leads the C2 and the D5 at the same time (whatever >that means, don't try me on that one). In this case, West chooses >which card is the lead, and the other becomes a major penalty card. > Minor, surely? L58B2 points you at L50, and L50C actually gives this as an example of a minor penalty card. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 05:57:18 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 05:57:18 +1000 Received: from styx.ios.com (lighton@styx.ios.com [198.4.75.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA14286 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 05:57:12 +1000 Received: (from lighton@localhost) by styx.ios.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id PAA11920 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 15:57:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 15:57:03 -0400 From: Richard Lighton Message-Id: <199606201957.PAA11920@styx.ios.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: More than one revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk And now for something completely different. Law 47D: After an opponent's change of play, a played card may be withdrawn without penalty (but see 62C2) to substitute another card for the one played. Law 62A: A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established. Law 62B: To correct a revoke, the offender withdraws the card he played in revoking and follows suit with any card. Law 62B1: A card so withdrawn becomes a penalty card (Law 50) if it was played from a defender's unfaced hand. Law 62C1: Each member of the non-offending side may, without penalty, withdraw any card he may have played after the revoke but before attention was called to it (Law 47F). Law 62C2: After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the hand of the offending side next in rotation may withdraw its played card, which becomes a penalty card if the player is a defender. So, with all that preamble, a card is led from dummy (North). East follows, and South ruffs. West over-ruffs. Declarer now says, "Oops, I have revoked," summons the director, and corrects his error. The director now invites West to change his play, which he does by following suit. Does West have a penalty card or not? Does Law 47D have precedence, or does Law 62B1? And what is the ruling if all three players revoke after the lead from dummy? This problem was raised by Jeff Reubens in one of the "Bridge in Muttropolis" episodes in "Bridge World" sometime in the 70s. Considering that Kaplan is co-editor of "Bridge World," it seems marginally strange that the 1987 Laws failed to address this. Any comments? Does anything need to be done to the Laws to sort this out, and if so, what? Richard Lighton (lighton@ios.com) Wood-Ridge, New Jersey (NJ) United States of America (USA) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 07:51:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 07:51:45 +1000 Received: from mail.hamburg.netsurf.de (root@trance.isys.net [194.64.236.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA14670 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 07:51:37 +1000 Received: from mail.isys.net[193.96.224.33] by mail.hamburg.netsurf.de with smtp (/\==/\ Smail3.1.28.1 #28.1); id m0uWrZ7-000PA2C; Thu, 20 Jun 96 23:47 GMT+0200 Received: from meckwell.local.net by mail.isys.net with smtp (/\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.6); id ; Thu, 20 Jun 96 23:43 MESZ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 23:52:07 +0100 (GMT+0100) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell.local.net Reply-To: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de To: AlLeBendig@aol.com cc: cardphan@gnn.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, eok@vir.co, rcolker%udcvox.bitnet@vtbit.cc.vt.edu, blubaugh@su1.in.net, glasson@pluto.njcc.com, pisarra@ccnet.co, DMFV47B@prodigy.com, pab@access5.digex.net, kwalker@prairenet.org, sweatypalms@prodigy.com, jonbriss@ix.netcom.com, TEXASPEN@aol.com, ad292@lafn.lafn.org, bseagram@interlog.com, ihessel@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu, mrbum@annex.com, mbeecher@cris.com, PDfun@aol.com, ChasFinch@aol.com, lobo@ac.net, martel@cs.ucdavis.edu, martino@courier6.aero.edu, mortnsue@pacificnet.net, bfer@nando.net, farouk@vir.com, campbell@antares.aero.org, KRAllison@aol.com, taylor@tivoli.com Subject: Re: Fwd: Fw: virus alert !!!!! In-Reply-To: <960620100817_560272146@emout13.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 20 Jun 1996 AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > > Whatever you do, DON'T READ an e-mail that has "GOOD TIMES" as the > subject! This is an old April 1st joke in the middle of June, please don't forward it any further. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de (home) henk@desy.de (work) WWW: http://zow00.desy.de:8000/~uijter/TOP.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 07:57:07 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 07:57:07 +1000 Received: from ids2.idsonline.com (root@ids2.idsonline.com [204.157.204.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA14709 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 07:57:01 +1000 Received: from ip174.idsonline.com (ip174.idsonline.com [204.157.204.174]) by ids2.idsonline.com (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA11358 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 17:56:19 -0400 Message-ID: <31C9C9C0.74E8@idsonline.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 17:59:28 -0400 From: "Larry E. Goode" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: More than one revoke References: <199606201957.PAA11920@styx.ios.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton wrote: > > And now for something completely different. > > > So, with all that preamble, a card is led from dummy (North). > East follows, and South ruffs. West over-ruffs. > > Declarer now says, "Oops, I have revoked," summons the director, > and corrects his error. The director now invites West to change > his play, which he does by following suit. > > Does West have a penalty card or not? Does Law 47D have > precedence, or does Law 62B1? > > And what is the ruling if all three players revoke after the > lead from dummy? > > This problem was raised by Jeff Reubens in one of the "Bridge > in Muttropolis" episodes in "Bridge World" sometime in the 70s. > Considering that Kaplan is co-editor of "Bridge World," it seems > marginally strange that the 1987 Laws failed to address this. > > Any comments? Does anything need to be done to the Laws to sort > this out, and if so, what? > > Richard Lighton > (lighton@ios.com) > Wood-Ridge, New Jersey (NJ) > United States of America (USA) Finally, one I can answer! A card exposed by a defender (West, in this case) after declarer revokes & corrects in not a penalty card. In effect, due to South's irregularity, West gets a 'freebie'. As far as I can reason, West even gets protected by Law 47 F 47 F. Exposure of Retracted Card by Damaged Side If a card retracted under section C, D or E preceding gave substantial information to the offending side, the Director may award an adjusted score. even though I must admit to having a question as to how much protection a revoke deserves. In the second case of a lead from dummy followed by three revokes, I believe the ruling to be the converse. I assume you mean that a card is lead from dummy, East fails to follow (revoke), South ruffs (revoke) and West overruffs (revoke). East declares "Oooops .." and withdraws his card, South declares (double?) "Oooops..." and now West wakes up. In this case, (after the call for a round of amphetamines for everyone) the ruling should be that, the West defender has joined the offending side and falls under Law 62 C2. I think this appeared in the ACBL Bulletin a year to two ago and I definitely remember it making the rounds at the club about that time. I don't think this situation is that tough in the Law (heck, even I got it right) or needs much adjusting. Larry , PNGKTKADFTBAUOCYAPDMBATMIR* * Pretty nice guy, kind to kids and dogs, fun to be around unless of course you are peeing down my back and telling me it's raining. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 08:26:13 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 08:26:13 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA14893 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 08:26:08 +1000 Received: from cais2.cais.com (cais2.cais.com [199.0.216.200]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA06733 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 18:26:04 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 18:26:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We seem agreed that the definition of "convention" is critical only for purposes of Law 40.D. The essential issue is what bidding agreements the Laws (i.e. the WBF, through its Laws Commission) should permit SOs (and I'm not going to worry about distinguishing SOs, NCBOs, Zonal organizations, and all that) to prohibit if they wish to. Alerts are irrelevant; an SO may make any bid, conventional or not, alertable or not alertable as they choose. Players' concerns about the WBF placing these constraints on SOs seem to be drastically different on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Europeans seem mostly worried about the WBF over-regulating their SOs, not giving due considerations to vast differences in how bridge is played in different parts of the world, and ultimately, if they do too much, forcing SOs to conform to some WBF notion of "world standard." Americans, largely, have the opposite concern. We worry that WITHOUT a sufficiently heavy-handed WBF imposing stringent 40.D-type requirements on the SOs, OUR SO, the ACBL, will be unconstrained and run totally amok, regulating bidding agreements to the point where any method not personally favored by one of the 25 members of our Board of Directors will be disallowed. Just read all those Bridge World pieces discussing whether what the ACBL is doing NOW is legal under the Laws! If the Laws do not define "convention," that definition will be left, de facto, to the SOs, and Law 40.D will have no force whatsoever; SOs will be effectively free to do what they want. We can only imagine what the ACBL would do with such power. We know what they've tried to do in the past EVEN WITH THE CURRENT DEFINITION IN PLACE. Here are a few examples: (a) Define the natural, non-forcing 9-12 HCP 1NT opening as conventional. (b) Define weak 2-bids with a range of 4-11 or 5-12 HCP as conventional. (c) Define as conventional any bid whose strength requirements are defined without regard to the Work point-count (e.g. based on quick tricks or losing trick count) as conventional. We WANT and NEED this kind of WBF regulation (through the Laws) to protect us from our own SO, to make sure that we can continue to play something that is recognizably bridge, not some other game that the ACBL would like bridge to be. Every definition that has been proposed so far has been objected to on the grounds that there are cases it doesn't cover. I don't see that as a problem; quite the contrary. There's a middle ground between a definition that unambiguously defines every agreement as either conventional or not conventional and no definition at all. We need a better definition than we've got because the one we've got fails to reflect either a common-sense notion or a consensus view as to what a convention is. Like the current, flawed, definition, though, it can (and should) leave room for SOs to interpret it differently; neither common sense nor consensus calls for a complete lack of ambiguity, merely some constraint. A workable definition (or lack of definition) must neither force a single, definitive standard on an SO's regulations NOR give the SOs complete carte blanche to do whatever they want. We, on this list, all agree on a broad, perhaps somewhat vague notion of what a convention is, and we disagree on how this applies in detail to individual unclear cases. And that's exactly what we'd like our SOs to do! But, here in North America, we don't trust our SO to put that broad notion at a higher priority level than increased membership, more revenue, or pure power unless the WBF puts some muscle into forcing them to do so. And we worry a lot that the WBF seems, more and more of late, to be driven by the ACBL's (official, not members') desires at the expense of other SOs'. Let the SOs decide for themselves minor quibbles like whether a weak 2-bid that promises a singleton or void is or isn't conventional. But don't give them the power to do violence to common sense and consensus with "interpretations" like 1NT showing 10-12 balanced is natural, but 1NT showing 9-12 balanced is conventional! Let's worry about finding a definition that doesn't do violence to common sense and the English language. For example: (1) A convention is "a call which, by agreement, means..." [whatever]. It is NOT "a call which an inexperienced player might interpret as..." It is NOT a synonym for "non-standard" or "unusual" or "unexpected." And it certainly isn't any call that some SO wishes to regulate. (2) Light opening bids are not conventions (unless they'd be conventions even if not light). The ACBL-instigated 1987 revision that added "initial actions... with a hand of a king or more below average strength" to Law 40.D makes it quite clear that SOs may regulate these DESPITE their not being conventional. To include them in a definition of "conventional" would do exactly the kind of violence to common sense and English that we must avoid. Let SOs regulate these natural bids if that's what players want, but don't put us on the slippery slope to a total disconnect between the Laws and common sense by calling them "conventions" when they're clearly not. [If we wanted to amend our Endangered Species Act to protect tuna, we'd change the list of endangered species to include tuna, not change the definition of "whale" to include tuna, with the equivalent legal effect.] (3) I understand that the WBF (undoubtedly at the ACBL's instigation again) has sanctioned the ACBL's interpretation that creates the flagrant loophole in Law 40.D under which the ACBL has effectively, if not explicitly, barred players from using perfectly natural bids like the 9-12 NT. The claim is that the power to regulate conventions allows the ACBL to rule that while you may play the 9-12 NT, if you do you may not use any conventions over it. This is an obvious "backhand ban" that's totally contrary to the spirit of the Laws. Having stretched the letter of the Laws to include it, how do we stop them from next deciding that while you may play the 9-12 NT, if you do you may not use any conventions, period? Although not directly relevant to the definition itself, I'd like to see the WBF reword 40.D to eliminate this egregious and nonsensical loophole. Once we realize that some (limited) ambiguity isn't a fatal flaw in an improved definition of "convention," we could live with any of several definitions that have been proposed. Here's mine: A convention is: - A bid which conveys a message unrelated to the denomination named (other than natural inferences). [Parenthesized words added so that we understand that we can't call an ordinary 1H opening a convention just because it "conveys the message" that your spades are shorter than your hearts.] - A suit bid which denies holding the named suit. [To cover splinters, exclusion bids, and the like.] - A suit bid which requests partner to make specific responses with specific holding in the suit bid. [Not just ordinary asking bids, but agreements like an opening 5S bid that requires partner to bid 6S with SA or SK, 7S with both.] - A NT bid that does not suggest NT as the denomination of the final contract. - A pass, double or redouble that does not suggest the most recent bid as the final contract. ...But I could just as easily live with Richard Lighton's proposal, or any of several others along similar lines. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 09:50:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA15517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 09:50:24 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA15512 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 09:50:17 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp25.monmouth.com [205.164.220.57]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA23018 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 19:45:46 -0400 Message-Id: <199606202345.TAA23018@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 19:47:51 -400 Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 18:26:04 -0400 (EDT) > From: Eric Landau > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" I would just like to note that Eric Landau's description of the dichotomy whereby: 1. Europeans (and others outside of North America) are leery of letting the WHF fetter their NCBO's (and other SO's) but 2. North Americans are desperate for the WBF to fetter their NCBO could not be better put; though I can only really vouch for the American point of view. Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 11:35:13 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:35:13 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA00441 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:31:09 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aa02116; 21 Jun 96 1:20 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa02113; 21 Jun 96 0:33 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 00:31:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: More than one revoke In-Reply-To: <199606201957.PAA11920@styx.ios.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton wrote: >And now for something completely different. > >Law 47D: > After an opponent's change of play, a played card may be > withdrawn without penalty (but see 62C2) to substitute another > card for the one played. > >Law 62A: > A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the > irregularity before it becomes established. > >Law 62B: > To correct a revoke, the offender withdraws the card he played > in revoking and follows suit with any card. > >Law 62B1: > A card so withdrawn becomes a penalty card (Law 50) if it was > played from a defender's unfaced hand. > >Law 62C1: > Each member of the non-offending side may, without penalty, > withdraw any card he may have played after the revoke but before > attention was called to it (Law 47F). > >Law 62C2: > After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the hand of the > offending side next in rotation may withdraw its played card, > which becomes a penalty card if the player is a defender. > >So, with all that preamble, a card is led from dummy (North). >East follows, and South ruffs. West over-ruffs. > >Declarer now says, "Oops, I have revoked," summons the director, >and corrects his error. The director now invites West to change >his play, which he does by following suit. > >Does West have a penalty card or not? Does Law 47D have >precedence, or does Law 62B1? L62B refers to the offender, so L62B1 refers to an offender's withdrawn card. L62C1 says that the non-offender may withdraw a card without penalty, so there is no penalty card. > >And what is the ruling if all three players revoke after the >lead from dummy? There is a general approach that when there is more than one infraction they should be dealt with in the order that they occur. So you apply L62A and L62B to the three cards in turn. Neither side is non-offending. This will probably benefit declarer, but I do not think that a side that revokes twice on a single trick deserves our sympathy. > >This problem was raised by Jeff Reubens in one of the "Bridge >in Muttropolis" episodes in "Bridge World" sometime in the 70s. >Considering that Kaplan is co-editor of "Bridge World," it seems >marginally strange that the 1987 Laws failed to address this. > >Any comments? Does anything need to be done to the Laws to sort >this out, and if so, what? > Everything is covered satisfactorily in the Laws except the principle of dealing with multiple infractions in the order that they occur, which I believe would be a helpful addition to one of the general Laws (L9 or L10). > USA (United States of America) Now let's not go overboard on this explaining abbreviations! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 11:43:11 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:43:11 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA00493 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:41:27 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aa02116; 21 Jun 96 1:20 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa02113; 21 Jun 96 0:33 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 00:31:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: More than one revoke In-Reply-To: <199606201957.PAA11920@styx.ios.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton wrote: >And now for something completely different. > >Law 47D: > After an opponent's change of play, a played card may be > withdrawn without penalty (but see 62C2) to substitute another > card for the one played. > >Law 62A: > A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the > irregularity before it becomes established. > >Law 62B: > To correct a revoke, the offender withdraws the card he played > in revoking and follows suit with any card. > >Law 62B1: > A card so withdrawn becomes a penalty card (Law 50) if it was > played from a defender's unfaced hand. > >Law 62C1: > Each member of the non-offending side may, without penalty, > withdraw any card he may have played after the revoke but before > attention was called to it (Law 47F). > >Law 62C2: > After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the hand of the > offending side next in rotation may withdraw its played card, > which becomes a penalty card if the player is a defender. > >So, with all that preamble, a card is led from dummy (North). >East follows, and South ruffs. West over-ruffs. > >Declarer now says, "Oops, I have revoked," summons the director, >and corrects his error. The director now invites West to change >his play, which he does by following suit. > >Does West have a penalty card or not? Does Law 47D have >precedence, or does Law 62B1? L62B refers to the offender, so L62B1 refers to an offender's withdrawn card. L62C1 says that the non-offender may withdraw a card without penalty, so there is no penalty card. > >And what is the ruling if all three players revoke after the >lead from dummy? There is a general approach that when there is more than one infraction they should be dealt with in the order that they occur. So you apply L62A and L62B to the three cards in turn. Neither side is non-offending. This will probably benefit declarer, but I do not think that a side that revokes twice on a single trick deserves our sympathy. > >This problem was raised by Jeff Reubens in one of the "Bridge >in Muttropolis" episodes in "Bridge World" sometime in the 70s. >Considering that Kaplan is co-editor of "Bridge World," it seems >marginally strange that the 1987 Laws failed to address this. > >Any comments? Does anything need to be done to the Laws to sort >this out, and if so, what? > Everything is covered satisfactorily in the Laws except the principle of dealing with multiple infractions in the order that they occur, which I believe would be a helpful addition to one of the general Laws (L9 or L10). > USA (United States of America) Now let's not go overboard on this explaining abbreviations! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 12:10:52 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA00578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 12:10:52 +1000 Received: from laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (yangboy@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw [140.112.50.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA00573 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 12:10:45 +1000 Received: by laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA15328; Fri, 21 Jun 96 10:11:12 CST Date: Fri, 21 Jun 96 10:11:12 CST Message-Id: <9606210211.AA15328@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> From: "B.Y." To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: (message from David Stevenson on Fri, 21 Jun 1996 00:31:53 +0100) Subject: Re: More than one revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >So, with all that preamble, a card is led from dummy (North). >East follows, and South ruffs. West over-ruffs. > >Declarer now says, "Oops, I have revoked," summons the director, >and corrects his error. The director now invites West to change >his play, which he does by following suit. Isn't this the infamous "anti-Alcatraz coup"?? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 15:47:08 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA01831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 15:47:08 +1000 Received: from bos1d.delphi.com (SYSTEM@bos1d.delphi.com [192.80.63.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA01826 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 15:47:02 +1000 From: DBLIZZARD@delphi.com Received: from delphi.com by delphi.com (PMDF V5.0-7 #10880) id <01I65IZAXLK090ST9S@delphi.com> for Bridge-Laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 01:46:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 01:46:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Definition of Convention To: Bridge-Laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <01I65IZAXLK290ST9S@delphi.com> X-VMS-To: INTERNET"Bridge-Laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk One thing that some have missed is that just because a bid has a 'standard' meaning does not mean that it is not conventional. A 'takeout double' is conventional (several sources have described it as the convention that everyone plays). Yes, when the bidding goes 1H(standard)-Dbl, everyone knows it is takeout, but it is still conventional. In my opinion there are about 3 levels of conventions for bids. 1) Conventional/Artificial - A bid that does not show length in the suit bid or show a desire to play in that suit (for example after a 1D-2D (Michaels), 2H would be a non-conventional bid). 2) Conventional/Natural - A bid showing length in the suit bid (or shows a desire to play in that suit) & length or shortness in another suit (whether known or unknown). For example, 1H-3H which shows a limit raise with a side singleton. 3) Natural - A bid that shows length in the suit bid or a desire to play in that suit and no other information about suit lengths (besides negative inferences, such as the fact that you have supposedly opened your longest suit, so all other suits are shorter). I would consider 'length' to mean 4+ cards, so canape' sequences that start with 4 card suits are 'natural', with possible 3 card suits to be 'conventional'. For 'calls': Passes are natural when they show 'weakness' or a desire to play in the current contract (thus forcing passes are conventional). Doubles are natural when they show a desire to penalize the opponents contract. Redoubles are natural when they show a desire to penalize the opponents for doubling your contract (i.e. expecting it to make). From the comments I expect that many players want to consider type #2 conventions as natural, but I think they are still conventional, just that they 'seem' like natural bids since they send a natural message, however, since they also send an artificial message they are conventional. David A Blizzard From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 21 23:21:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 23:21:45 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA04786 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 23:21:39 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA03831 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 09:21:35 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 09:21:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI From Alerts -- Whose Problem? In-Reply-To: <199606141955.PAA06127@shell.monmouth.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 14 Jun 1996, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > I have started a new thread because I think that Eric Landau has hit > upon the issue we really need to address. > > Eric Landau wrote: > > if you don't ask, and in the former case, being potentially guilty > of deception as well> > > > > This double-bind is (and, again, this is ACBL experience) actually rather > > new, and has come about with the recent emphasis on much more stringent > > enforcement of the UI rules. Not that long ago there was a clear > > consensus that potential deception was to be avoided, even at the risk of > > UI. By playing an alertable convention, one accepted the disadvantage > > that the opponents might pass UI by failing to ask about it (whatever you > > think of the ethical position, it's clear that they're not required to > > ask), and redress was given only in the most obvious and egregious cases. > > With our current attitude towards UI adjudications, redress is now far > > more available, and the disadvantage is now passed on to the opponents. > > This last is the thought that was beginning to form in my head when I > posted the remarks you cited D.S.'s response to (not repeated here). > You have not really given your opinion about the 'current attitude', > but my guess is that you believe that the onus should be on the side > making an alertable call, and that THEY should have the any disadvantage > accruing from the UI/deception dilemma. I agree, and think that this > is a very important issue which should be addressed by the lawmakers > and interpreters of the law. > > > This whole discussion has become something of a rerun of our recent thread > > on "UI from questions not asked." > > Except for this last bit. Perhaps we, as a group, have not fully > realized that there are inescapable issues of UI when alerts are made, > and that SOMEONE has to bear the brunt of this. Actually, my view is less that the whole onus should be dumped on the alerting side than that there should be a lot less onus to be shared in the first place. When I wrote "redress is now far more available, and the disadvantage is now passed on to the opponents" I was thinking not so much that the former was desirable and the latter a problem as that the former was a problem and the latter a more-or-less inevitable consequence. UI at the bridge table is like germs in your house. They're bad. If you let them run unchecked your house will be unlivable. You must do at least the obvious to keep them in check, like cleaning up food spills and covering your garbage. If you take prudent preventive measures, such as regularly washing your floors and disinfecting your toilets, your house will be much more pleasant and agreeable. But if you go too far, and become determined to stamp out every last germ, you wind up turning your house into a sterile environment, which is just as unlivable as a germ- infested one. What some are now calling our new, strict enforcement of ethical standards -- worrying about things like UI from not asking the opponents about their alerts or from not breaking tempo -- would, in the germ analogy, be called symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 00:04:14 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 00:04:14 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA05037 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 00:04:09 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA07360 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 10:04:05 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 10:04:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" In-Reply-To: <9606210116.AA15229@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 21 Jun 1996, B.Y. wrote: > Thanks for an eloquent and forceful letter, Eric. Just one minor quibble. Thanks to B.Y. for the kind words. I'm sure my definition could stand improvement, and others' suggestions may be better-worded. The key point is that we can significantly improve the current definition without having to unambiguously resolve every possible question. > * A convention is: > * > * - A bid which conveys a message unrelated to the denomination named (other > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > * than natural inferences). [Parenthesized words added so that we > * understand that we can't call an ordinary 1H opening a convention just > * because it "conveys the message" that your spades are shorter than your > * hearts.] > > This need to be changed to "related to any given denomination > unnamed" to avoid canape being outlawed. I'm not at all sure that we want to take positive steps that would preclude canape being outlawed. I think perhaps that a reasonable, or at least a practical, definition would leave SOs sufficient scope to ban canape if they chose to, even though I would violently object (but on substantive, not legal, grounds) if an SO that ran the events I might play in did so -- not every very bad idea should be illegal. Keep in mind that there's no way to give SOs the authority to ban something at lower levels of competition -- which legally includes clubs, even though the ACBL takes a rather loose view of what clubs can do (American capitalism in action) -- without giving them the authority to ban it at any level they choose. > And I think that "convey a > message" is overly broad, and should be changed to "show length". Maybe it should be "show one or more specific holdings" or something along that line. "Show length" would mean that, for example, a 2H opening that promised a singleton spade could not be considered conventional, and I think that's going too far. Not even the ACBL on its worst days believes that they should ban everything that the Laws allow them to ban, even if it sometimes seems that way. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 01:10:02 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA08035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 01:10:02 +1000 Received: from laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (yangboy@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw [140.112.50.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA08030 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 01:09:53 +1000 Received: by laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17354; Fri, 21 Jun 96 23:09:20 CST Date: Fri, 21 Jun 96 23:09:20 CST Message-Id: <9606211509.AA17354@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> From: "B.Y." To: elandau@cais.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: (message from Eric Landau on Fri, 21 Jun 1996 10:04:05 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B> And I think that "convey a message" is overly broad, and should be B> changed to "show length". E: Maybe it should be "show one or more specific holdings" or E: something along that line. "Show length" would mean that, for E: example, a 2H opening that promised a singleton spade could not be E: considered conventional, and I think that's going too far. Well, do you consider the strictly disciplined 2d opening bid (6-card diamonds, 3 or 4 clubs, exactly 1 or 2 cards in each major) a la old Edgar to be a convention? That's the catch you see ... From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 04:33:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 04:33:45 +1000 Received: from emout14.mail.aol.com (emout14.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA09146 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 04:33:39 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout14.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA05729 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 14:33:39 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 14:33:39 -0400 Message-ID: <960621143336_140016597@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI From Alerts -- Whose Problem? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-06-21 09:29:04 EDT, you write: > >Actually, my view is less that the whole onus should be dumped on the >alerting side than that there should be a lot less onus to be shared in >the first place. When I wrote "redress is now far more available, and the >disadvantage is now passed on to the opponents" I was thinking not so much >that the former was desirable and the latter a problem as that the former >was a problem and the latter a more-or-less inevitable consequence. Eric makes a very sound point that is concernining many players as well as many committee members. We have been allowing more conventions which many players are unfamiliar with. Since their usage will often create new problems for defenders, we must acknowledge that these problems are not always readily solvable. Recognizing that fact helps get the pendulum to swing back somewhat to have the bidding side bear some of the responsibility for resulting UI. I truly believe that our committee members are resolved to recognize these facts, ITRW (sorry, I couldn't resist - in the real world). Players can still greatly help their cause by being aware of the simple things that may cause problems and avoiding them. I am rather experienced as a player, but almost never run into Multi. When we do, we always examine the suggested defenses since both of us are aware we don't know how they work. I'm sure in Europe this is not a problem because the convention is common. I only see it occasionally in NABC events. In other words, we can't expect players to always avoid the thought processes which are sometimes quite necessary. An attempt to do so will definitely damage the game we all love. Alan LeBendig, Los Angeles (310)312-8899 Phone (310)312-8779 FAX From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 07:00:49 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA09770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 07:00:49 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA09765 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 07:00:44 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA20872 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 17:00:40 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 17:00:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" In-Reply-To: <9606211509.AA17354@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 21 Jun 1996, B.Y. wrote: > Well, do you consider the strictly disciplined 2d opening bid > (6-card diamonds, 3 or 4 clubs, exactly 1 or 2 cards in each major) a > la old Edgar to be a convention? Good question! I probably don't, but I'm not sure. I do think, though, that this is exactly the kind of agreement that falls into that all- important grey area where there's no real consensus, so that the Laws should leave room for each SO to decide for themselves how to treat it. The key point is that this is very different from, say, an ordinary 9-12 NT opening. I might not call it a convention, but someone who did would still be speaking in English. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 13:21:21 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA12197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 13:21:21 +1000 Received: from laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (yangboy@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw [140.112.50.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA12192 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 13:21:10 +1000 Received: by laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA18121; Sat, 22 Jun 96 11:19:29 CST Date: Sat, 22 Jun 96 11:19:29 CST Message-Id: <9606220319.AA18121@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> From: "B.Y." To: elandau@cais.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: (message from Eric Landau on Fri, 21 Jun 1996 17:00:40 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: Definition of "convention" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk EL- From: Eric Landau EL- Not even the ACBL on its worst days believes that they should ban EL- everything that the Laws allow them to ban, even if it sometimes EL- seems that way. I guess Eric, despite his being more worldly-wise, is less cynical than myself. I am not nearly so sanguine ... I am almost prepared to believe that anything that is left to the ACBL politicos that can be FUBAR'ed will be. BY> Well, do you consider the strictly disciplined 2d opening bid BY> (6-card diamonds, 3 or 4 clubs, exactly 1 or 2 cards in each BY> major) a la old Edgar to be a convention? EL= [...] I do think, though, that this is exactly the kind of EL= agreement that falls into that all- important grey area where EL= there's no real consensus, so that the Laws should leave room for EL= each SO to decide for themselves how to treat it. The point I was trying to make is that it is very hard NOT to give information about your other suits with any call since there is a limit of 13 cards that one can hold in a hand. Methinks that the most important message sent by a call is playability in one or more strains which is directly linked to LENGTH. Since a nominally natural system has a functional minimum of 3 cards for its suit calls*, NO ONE should be ever disadvantaged by not being afforded those same tools. [That's my logic. I freely admit to being already a candidate for iconoclasm with my straight-down-the-middle-of-left-field views, but I am consistent. I am also prepared to agree to disagree with other reasonable views and rational people, of course.] <*> The idea that a suit bid in a 3-card fragment might be a natural call seem to be anathema to, um, Acolytes of certain approaches, but Marx and the Sharples twins *did* advocate "round-the-clock" bidding to show the modern equivalent of a splinter raise. EL= [...] very different from, say, an ordinary 9-12 NT opening. I EL= might not call it a convention, but someone who did would still be EL= speaking in English. Agreed. B.Y. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 22 19:14:33 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA13367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 19:14:33 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA13362 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 19:14:26 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-84.innet.be [194.7.10.68]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA00782 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 11:14:21 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31CBD0DC.6927@innet.be> Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 10:54:20 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: [calc] Calculation - intro Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I would like to start a new thread. Or even a thread of threads. I want to talk about the calculating of the results in a pairs tournament. I consider myself to be a (THE would be stretching it a bit, if not much) authority in this field. I have spent quite some time in the last 10 years in studying the problem. I have discussed this with Gerard Neuberg and Ton Kooiman and they have not called me a fool, quite the reverse. I can cover a football pitch (that's soccer in the USA - although I could stretch it a little and cover an AF pitch) with writings on this subject. I have written a book on it, although this is not actually in publication. Over the next few months, I would like to give this to you in small doses. I welcome your reactions and no doubt the questions you will have. I will take the opportunity of putting these texts on my web page, so that newcomers can always reference to it. As an introduction, I now invite you to visit my two web pages already devoted to this subject : http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/bridge/aschermn.htm http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/bridge/bastille.htm in which I describe to you two completely new ways of calcuating pairs tournaments. I will use these two methods in my discussions, but they are not necessary to the story. But at the end of the trip, in a few months time, I hope you will understand the intricacies of the system you are currently using so well, that you will *want* to switch over to the Ascherman system. I hope this intro has wet your appetite, and I would certainly hope I am reaching an interested group. Anyway, I will be including [calc] in the subject, so if you are completely uninterested, you'll know what to do. -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 23 00:52:22 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jun 1996 00:52:22 +1000 Received: from laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (yangboy@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw [140.112.50.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA17270 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 1996 00:52:15 +1000 Received: by laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA18907; Sat, 22 Jun 96 22:52:30 CST Date: Sat, 22 Jun 96 22:52:30 CST Message-Id: <9606221452.AA18907@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> From: "B.Y." To: AlLeBendig@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <960621143336_140016597@emout14.mail.aol.com> (AlLeBendig@aol.com) Subject: Re: UI From Alerts -- Whose Problem? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A thank you to Eric Landau and Alan for their rational discourse. What I would like to see addressed however, is the following question: "*WHY* is it pertinent that the auction in question contains a convention?" There are auctions that are, for the lack of a better term (I never found out what Bobby Goldman's terminology was), "UI prone", in the sense that breaks in tempo will be inevitable and sensitive info passed that will usually be to the detriment of *someone*, usually, as I see it, everyone and the whole game with it. That is, *unless* one takes active steps to mask the breaks. There are much more than just conventions that we are concerned with. To give one example, say we have the sequence 1H-1S; 3S-4C; 4H ... I am usually told that "the opener does not cue-bid with a minimum", yet it is often possible for *me* (I don't have tuppence's worth of table feel) to tell if there is an diamond control nesting in opener's hand. To give another example, someone overcall 2C(DONT), doubled, pass by the advancer. Again I can often tell if this is a 4-4 fit (CONTENT!) or a 4-3 (by god get me out of here if your side suit is a 5-bagger). And it is *VERY* hard to nail down. I think if we want a better game we should actively try to eliminate such situations. If this means that we occasionally ask about a convention that we don't really need to know about yet, so be it. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 23 11:24:57 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA20709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jun 1996 11:24:57 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA20703 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 1996 11:24:44 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ah22096; 23 Jun 96 1:24 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa08045; 23 Jun 96 1:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 01:14:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 12 penalty cards: the lead In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Forwarded from Jens Brix Christiansen David Stevenson wrote: >Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >>5. West tries to lead the C2, but the D5 is stuck to >>it, so he ends up showing two cards. This time I rule that the C2 is >>the lead and the D5 is a minor penalty card. And the auction period >>is definitely over. > He has led two cards simultaneously and more than one is visible >(L58B2): maybe it wasn't at the moment he led that but that is not what >L58B2 says! So he gets to choose which card, and the other card is a >minor penalty card. Right David, the laws say this. Which is why I stuck this scenario in here. It must be the intention of the laws to rule that he has led two cards simultaneously. However, the C2 is deliberate and the D5 is not, so if we were to carry the attitude in your original scenario to the extreme, we should not be happy with this law. He should not be allowed to choose the D5. (Of course, the law is probably phrased this way so that the TD does not have to perform tiresome mind-reading). >>6. Finally, West leads the C2 and the D5 at the same time (whatever >>that means, don't try me on that one). In this case, West chooses >>which card is the lead, and the other becomes a major penalty card. > Minor, surely? L58B2 points you at L50, and L50C actually gives this >as an example of a minor penalty card. Minor, of course. But we just discussed "lead is a deliberate action". If we carry your attitude to the extreme, and we are ruling that both cards have been led, then the card that West does not play was shown deliberately, and therefore it should not be possible for it to become a minor penalty card. Again, the laws seem to have a hint of an approach that shows that leading does not require for there to be a deliberate action. Apparently all is well here. We agree on how the laws are to be interpreted in six detailed scenarios, and we would rule the same way at the table. That is reassuring. Further, I would not rule that the first card that hit the table in your original scenario should be construed as a lead. The conclusion from the six scenarios is, however, that there is some inkling of support for the opposite view on your original scenario. Dag, Jens. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 24 18:25:40 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA09033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 18:25:40 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA09015 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 18:25:29 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ag05647; 24 Jun 96 8:25 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa08307; 24 Jun 96 3:36 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 03:34:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 12 penalty cards: the lead In-Reply-To: <199606192151.RAA05051@shell.monmouth.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Stefanie Rohan wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> A thread on RGB discussed 13 penalty cards. >> >> I was declarer when LHO became confused and knocked her bidding box on >> the floor. "Let me help you" I said, reaching for the bidding cards >> everywhere. "Oh thankyou" she said, and put the dummy down! >> >> The Director was called, and he ... [deleted] >> >> The interest in the story was this. Suppose he had said they were all >> major penalty cards. > >How can he have said anything else? The interest in the hand was what should have happened. Unfortunately the actual TD had a blind spot and ruled the board unplayable so gave us A6040 (that means average plus/average minus). > >> What she actually did was to put down five >> diamonds (largest first but nearly together), then two spades, then five >> hearts, then she said "Oh!". [Only twelve penalty cards!] >> >> Could I have chosen any lead (apart from the club, obviously) > >Of course. The cards are all major penalty cards. Law 51A. > >> or has she led a diamond? Has she led the top diamond since it >> hit the table first (just)? >> >I do not know where in the Laws this bit about 'hitting the table >first' is found. I think it is a myth. I have seen players play a >card to a trick when there was another card concealed beneath, and I >have seen directors rule that the concealed card was the one played >because it 'hit the table first'! This violates Law 58B2, and >sometimes even 58B1. It is simply wrong. The concealed card is not >even a major penalty card if it is not an honor (Law 50C). I believe this is right. > >Did the director rule that the cards were all premature plays >according to Law 57? This seems to directly contradictLaw 50A. > >Whatever the director ruled, there is always the polite, "Oh, I was >not aware that that was the ruling. Would you please read it to me >from the Laws?" > >Good luck trying that one, David! > Weeeeeelllllll! I don't think that I am going to offer that one to one of my colleagues even if he is wrong. However my partner told me later that `I gave him a look' as a result of which he went off and checked with the TDic and later ruled Director's Error, so both sides got a good score. But as I said, the interest lies not in what did happen. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 24 18:33:56 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA09089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 18:33:56 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA09084 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 18:33:44 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ak17417; 24 Jun 96 9:33 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa08308; 24 Jun 96 3:36 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 03:35:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 12 penalty cards: the lead In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Forwarded from Jens Brix Christiansen > >David Stevenson wrote: > >>Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: > >>>5. West tries to lead the C2, but the D5 is stuck to >>>it, so he ends up showing two cards. This time I rule that the C2 is >>>the lead and the D5 is a minor penalty card. And the auction period >>>is definitely over. > >> He has led two cards simultaneously and more than one is visible >>(L58B2): maybe it wasn't at the moment he led that but that is not what >>L58B2 says! So he gets to choose which card, and the other card is a >>minor penalty card. > >Right David, the laws say this. Which is why I stuck this scenario in >here. It must be the intention of the laws to rule that he has led two >cards simultaneously. However, the C2 is deliberate and the D5 is >not, so if we were to carry the attitude in your original scenario >to the extreme, we should not be happy with this law. He should >not be allowed to choose the D5. (Of course, the law is probably >phrased this way so that the TD does not have to perform tiresome >mind-reading). > >>>6. Finally, West leads the C2 and the D5 at the same time (whatever >>>that means, don't try me on that one). In this case, West chooses >>>which card is the lead, and the other becomes a major penalty card. > >> Minor, surely? L58B2 points you at L50, and L50C actually gives this >>as an example of a minor penalty card. > >Minor, of course. But we just discussed "lead is a deliberate action". >If we carry your attitude to the extreme, and we are ruling that >both cards have been led, then the card that West does not play was >shown deliberately, and therefore it should not be possible for it >to become a minor penalty card. Again, the laws seem to have a >hint of an approach that shows that leading does not require >for there to be a deliberate action. > >Apparently all is well here. We agree on how the laws are to be >interpreted in six detailed scenarios, and we would rule the same >way at the table. That is reassuring. Further, I would not rule that >the first card that hit the table in your original scenario >should be construed as a lead. The conclusion from the six scenarios >is, however, that there is some inkling of support for the opposite >view on your original scenario. > I think that the solution to this lies in the fact that a lead is a deliberate act. Consider L58E, where there are rules for a fifth card to a trick, *unless the director deems it led* when different Laws apply. So it is not the appearance of a card on the table that actually constitutes a lead but the act of deliberately putting a card or cards on the table with intent to lead. However when multiple cards are led I believe the Law acts as though there is a single action, the action of leading, and then uses L58B to determine the card led and the status of the other cards. When the lady put her cards down as dummy instead of leading there was no deliberate attempt to lead and so there was no lead. Thus we do not base our rulings on the premise that she has led anything. When a player leads two cards at once, whether both are visible or not, there is a deliberate act of leading, but it is one act, not two individual leads. Once L58B has determined which card is led, the other is treated as a minor penalty card since it was not led: the lead being a single act covering the two cards, followed by a determination as to which card it applies to. All the same applies to plays where a player follows suit, a deliberate act with one or more cards, which is different from exposing a card accidentally, eg by dropping it. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 24 20:03:08 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA09495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 20:03:08 +1000 Received: from cabra.cri.dk (cabra.cri.dk [130.227.48.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA09490 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 20:02:42 +1000 X-Organization: Computer Resources International A/S, Bregneroedvej 144, DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark Received: from nov.cri.dk (nov.cri.dk [130.227.50.162]) by cabra.cri.dk (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id MAA11392 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 12:00:56 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:52:47 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:52:37 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 12 penalty cards: the lead Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>> David Stevenson 24.06.96 04:35 >>> > I think that the solution to this lies in the fact that a lead is a deliberate >act. Consider L58E, where there are rules for a fifth card to a trick, >*unless the director deems it led* when different Laws apply. So it is >not the appearance of a card on the table that actually constitutes a >lead but the act of deliberately putting a card or cards on the table with >intent to lead. > However when multiple cards are led I believe the Law acts as though >there is a single action, the action of leading, and then uses L58B to >determine the card led and the status of the other cards. > When the lady put her cards down as dummy instead of leading there >was no deliberate attempt to lead and so there was no lead. Thus we >do not base our rulings on the premise that she has led anything. > When a player leads two cards at once, whether both are visible or >not, there is a deliberate act of leading, but it is one act, not two >individual leads. Once L58B has determined which card is led, the >other is treated as a minor penalty card since it was not led: the lead >being a single act covering the two cards, followed by a determination >as to which card it applies to. > All the same applies to plays where a player follows suit, a deliberate >act with one or more cards, which is different from exposing a card >accidentally, eg by dropping it. All of the above treatment is an excellent rationalization of the relevant parts of the existing laws. As such, it deserves to be included in the next "Commentary", should one be produced after we get the Laws scheduled for 1997, and should the applicable laws remain much as they are. As is probably apparent from my earlier (indirect) messages, I continue to agree 100% with David on this issue. Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 09:04:22 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 1996 09:04:22 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA23670 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 1996 09:04:15 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA27091 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 19:04:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA10822; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 19:06:35 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 19:06:35 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9606242306.AA10822@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [calc] Calculation - intro X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Herman De Wael > http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/bridge/bastille.htm Contains a nice narrative of Hamman and Wolff's encounter with the flaws (dare I say imbecility?) of Butler scoring. (I remembered the details slightly differently, but certainly the basic idea of the situation must be correct.) The obvious solution, though not necessarily the best one, is to score each result against every other result. What is wrong with that? (It is slightly tedious if done by hand, though I've done up to seven tables myself. Of course any number of tables can be done very quickly with a computer.) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 10:11:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:11:45 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA24140 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:11:38 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA28969; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 20:11:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA10862; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 20:13:34 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 20:13:34 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9606250013.AA10862@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, DBURN@lnhdent.agw.bt.co.uk Subject: RE: Definition of "convention" X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: "Burn, David" > The main purpose in creating a > working definition, as suggested above, is in order to clarify what SOs > can and cannot regulate. I think all of us agree on this. We will probably get a clearer picture if we leave alerts out of the picture for now. The rules require _all_ methods, even if not conventional, to be disclosed, and alerts (or the ACBL's new "announcements") can be part of that disclosure. > SOs may prohibit the use of any convention in any events that they > organise. SOs may make regulations for the disclosure of conventions at > the table or before the commencement of play. SOs may make regulations > for the disclosure of the meaning of natural bids in respect of the > strength promised, and for the disclosure of other inferences from > natural bids that may be available through partnership agreement or > experience." I think it's probably not a good idea to mix up regulation of conventions with regulation of disclosure, though I have much sympathy for the intent of this wording. I'll toss out another thought here: sponsoring organizations may organize "Yellow Card" events (in the US) and I suppose "standard card" events elsewhere. (The Bridge Today Individual was one example.) These events entail regulation of many non-conventional bids -- the opening NT range, for example. Are these to be considered exceptions to 40D -- after all, the equivalent of an explicit disclaimer is in the conditions of contest for the event -- or should 40D be modified to take such events into account? Or is this covered by 80E? Or contradicted by 80F? From: David Stevenson [Very nice review of our discussion and analysis of the possibilities.] > When we consider doubles there is one immediate problem that no-one > has mentioned. If the bidding goes 1S x and this double is for takeout > is that natural or conventional? Quite frankly, under the current > definition one can argue either way! I don't see how you can say that without ignoring the key word "necessarily." A hand that wants to make a takeout double of 1H could just as well overcall 1S, since that doesn't preclude playing any of the possible contracts. Whereas if you want to make a penalty double, the only possible call is "double." (I'm reminded of William Cole's humorous suggestion of "Reverse Fishbein.") > A natural call is one which does not directly suggest a denomination > other than the current one as a final contract. Or perhaps better: A convention is a call that directly suggests a denomination other than the current one as a final contract. I think this is getting close but isn't there yet. We want trial bids that show length or strength to be not conventional but those that show shortness or weakness to be conventional. (At least that's what I want; maybe others will disagree.) > We want a definition that makes 5-4 S-H conventional, 5-4 S-other > natural and a treatment: we want it to allow for the heart holding in > the sequence 1H - 2H - 3C. I could live with a heart bid showing long spades and longer hearts natural, but the consensus certainly seems otherwise. > A natural call is one which does not directly suggest a denomination > other than the current one as a final contract. > A natural call in a suit shows length, strength or values in that > suit, and does not directly show length, strength or values in any other > specified suit. > A natural call in notrumps either shows a balanced or semi-balanced > hand, or suggests notrumps as a final denomination. > A natural pass does not promise more than a specified amount of > strength. None of the above deals with inferences. Let's try a very slight rearrangement. A convention is a call that, by agreement: directly suggests that the final contract be in a denomination other than the current one; or, for a suit bid, does not show length, strength, or values in the suit named or directly shows length, strength, or values in another specified suit; or for a notrump bid, does not directly suggest notrumps as a final denomination and may show an unbalanced hand; or for a pass, promises more than a specified amount of strength. Mostly this is just the contrapositive of David's, but I've added "by agreement" to deal with inferences. I've also rephrased as one long sentence to make clear that "by agreement" applies everywhere. I have also added "directly" to the notrumps. That again mainly takes care of inferences, but it makes Flannery unambiguous. I'm a little worried about "directly." We know what it means because we have had this discussion, but would someone who only read the words interpret it as we mean it? Do we even need it once we put in "by agreement?" And do we need "show an unbalanced hand" for the notrumps? Suppose systemically I want to include certain 4441 hands with my otherwise natural 1NT opening? The 1NT bid is still non- forcing and suggests playing NT. Is that a convention? Should it be? Comments? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 20:24:06 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA27487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 1996 20:24:06 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA27482 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 1996 20:23:56 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-89.innet.be [194.7.10.73]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA26511 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 1996 12:23:41 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31CFDA02.27AB@innet.be> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 12:22:26 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [calc] Calculation - intro References: <9606242306.AA10822@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Herman De Wael > > http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/bridge/bastille.htm > > Contains a nice narrative of Hamman and Wolff's encounter with the > flaws (dare I say imbecility?) of Butler scoring. (I remembered the > details slightly differently, but certainly the basic idea of the > situation must be correct.) > > The obvious solution, though not necessarily the best one, is to score > each result against every other result. What is wrong with that? (It > is slightly tedious if done by hand, though I've done up to seven > tables myself. Of course any number of tables can be done very > quickly with a computer.) There is nothing wrong with that. I call it Cross-IMPs and it is one of the several methods I will explain in my work. It too has two separate possibilities, and I will clearly show that only one of them will work properly. 'Butler' was originally invented to lessen the workload. With computers this is not necessary, so we may simply use Cross-IMPs. However, Butler has become so popular, that it will always remain one of the scoring methods in use. Bastille is an alternative that the players accept, because they see it as only a refinement. It does not influence their tactics. -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 20:55:59 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA27646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 1996 20:55:59 +1000 Received: from cabra.cri.dk (cabra.cri.dk [130.227.48.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA27640 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 1996 20:55:41 +1000 X-Organization: Computer Resources International A/S, Bregneroedvej 144, DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark Received: from nov.cri.dk (nov.cri.dk [130.227.50.162]) by cabra.cri.dk (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id MAA05603 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 1996 12:53:58 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 25 Jun 1996 12:54:50 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 12:54:43 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [calc] Calculation - intro Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>> Steve Willner 25.06.96 01:06 >>> >The obvious solution, though not necessarily the best one, is to score >each result against every other result. What is wrong with that? This is sometimes called "imps across the field". Nothing much is wrong with it. In a smallish field, however, if someone has a catastrophe that costs 1700 and all the other tables have neutral part-score results, this catastrophe becomes the major influence on the board for all tables, not just for the one where the catastrophe occurred. In our club, we often play this method of scoring. The program we use always gives five different calculations, so we have had the opportunity to discover how often Butler scoring would have given a different result. Not very often in practice. We law freaks should note that "average minus" scored as three imps off against every other table in practice is a more extreme score adjustment than three imps off would have been at Butler. The English modify this by means of a formula with a square root in it; but that seems too kind to me. Care to provide details, David? Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 25 23:49:09 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA28352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jun 1996 23:49:09 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA28347 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 1996 23:48:51 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id am10439; 25 Jun 96 14:31 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa01874; 25 Jun 96 14:30 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 14:29:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [calc] Calculation - intro In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: Steve Willner wrote: > >>The obvious solution, though not necessarily the best one, is to score >>each result against every other result. What is wrong with that? > >This is sometimes called "imps across the field". We call it cross-imping. [s] >We law freaks should note that "average minus" scored as >three imps off against every other table in practice is a more >extreme score adjustment than three imps off would have been >at Butler. The English modify this by means of a formula with >a square root in it; but that seems too kind to me. Care to provide >details, David? I have previously told the world about the EBL guide, that is the European Bridge League Tournament Director's Guide, currently out of print, although the publishers say they will provide a photocopy version if required. In England we have the EBU Tournament Director's Guide, published as a supplement to the EBL guide: in fact we use the same numbering. There are eight numbered sections in the EBL guide about Law 73 which are numbered 73.1 to 73.8: in the EBU guide there are a further two which are numbered 73.9 and 73.10. (And we refer thus: EBL 73.7, EBU 73.9.) It is quite cheap, in print, and despite being somewhat bound up with English regulations might easily be of interest to members of BLML. If you want a copy try sending an email to COLIN@ebu.co.uk. --- EBU 12.24 Standard adjustments for various methods of scoring The table set out below includes the equivalent to the `standard' 10% of a top adjustment for certain other methods of scoring. Method Standard adjustment Minimum unit of scoring of scoring Match points 10% of a top 0.1 mp IMPs SQRT(4x), where x = the number of times 1 IMP the board was played in the match. Thus the adjustment is 3 IMPs for teams of four, and 4 IMPs for teams of eight (where the four scores are aggregated before conversion to IMPs). Aggregate 100 points 10 points Point a board 0.5 point (assuming 2 points for a win) 0.5 point Cross-imp SQRT(8x), where x = the number of 1 IMP scoring comparisons. Thus the adjustment is 3 IMPs for one comparison and 6 IMPs for four comparisons. Butler scoring 2 IMPs 0.5 IMP Note: A cross-imp event is one in which each partnership's score on a board is compared with the scores of each of their team-mates playing in the opposite direction. Fractions of the minimum unit of scoring should be rounded up. If hybrid methods (eg combination of aggregate and point-a-board) are used, the adjustment should be adapted accordingly. For standard penalties (rather than adjustments) in a VP event, see EBU 90.4. --- [Note from me: England assumes that matchpoints means one point for a tie, two for a win, ie double what is used in the USA.] OK Jens? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 26 06:50:22 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA10898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 1996 06:50:22 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA10893 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 1996 06:50:16 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA19529 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 1996 16:50:12 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 16:50:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: Definition of "convention" In-Reply-To: <9606250013.AA10862@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Steve Willner wrote: > I'll toss out another thought here: sponsoring organizations may > organize "Yellow Card" events (in the US) and I suppose "standard card" > events elsewhere. (The Bridge Today Individual was one example.) These > events entail regulation of many non-conventional bids -- the opening > NT range, for example. Are these to be considered exceptions to 40D -- > after all, the equivalent of an explicit disclaimer is in the > conditions of contest for the event -- or should 40D be modified to > take such events into account? Or is this covered by 80E? Or > contradicted by 80F? The Laws do not address such events, and, IMO, should not. I don't see how Law 40.D could be modified to bring such events under the Laws without effectively emasculating 40.D -- if an SO can run one SAYC event with the full sanction of the Laws, what's to stop them from deciding that every event should be SAYC? Under the current Laws such events are clearly NOT "Duplicate Contract Bridge," nor should they be. Understand that I have no objection whatsoever to -- indeed, I strongly favor -- SOs running events outside the Laws. These would include not only SAYC and other imposed-system events, but also Green Card events, rubber-scored events for duplicate newbies, par events, etc. But, if it were up to me, I'd require an SO which did so to acknowledge in their conditions of contest that such games are not duplicate contract bridge, but rather a variant of that game (just as the chess organizations do for their "fairy" events -- do they still call them that in these politically correct times?). As it is, this is understood implicitly, and that seems to work. But if we modified the Laws to include them as duplicate contract bridge, not variants, we'd be setting a precedent that it would be too easy for SOs to abuse. We should leave their status as is. > I'm a little worried about "directly." We know what it means because > we have had this discussion, but would someone who only read the words > interpret it as we mean it? Do we even need it once we put in "by > agreement?" And do we need "show an unbalanced hand" for the > notrumps? Suppose systemically I want to include certain 4441 hands > with my otherwise natural 1NT opening? The 1NT bid is still non- > forcing and suggests playing NT. Is that a convention? Should it > be? I don't see how a 1NT opening that partner is expected to pass with a balanced hand and no game interest can or should be called a convention. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 27 21:17:50 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 21:17:50 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA02517 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 21:17:35 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-82.innet.be [194.7.10.66]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA13514 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 13:17:10 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31D281EF.32A3@innet.be> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 12:43:27 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: [calc]General Principles Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Check out the start of the work on Calculation at : http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/bridge/calcula.htm excerpts : In this guide, I will try to show the different ways a Duplicate Bridge=20 Tournament can be calculated. I have included several obscure ways of=20 doing this (Chapter XIV.), but the main point of this work deals with=20 the two main methods :=20 'MP'-type calculation :=20 Mitchell,=20 Mitchell-Neuberg and=20 Ascherman systems=20 'IMP'-type calculation :=20 Butler,=20 Bastille and=20 Cross-IMP systems=20 Of these six systems, two are my own inventions. They are nevertheless=20 included out of merit (well, I would say that, wouldn't I - better judge=20 for yourself)=20 The system called 'Mitchell' is the best-known of all, although the name=20 will not be familiar. I have given the 'normal' system this name in=20 recognition to its inventor, John Mitchell (who also invented the=20 movement) in the 1880's.=20 The Mitchell-Neuberg system is furthermore composed of three separate=20 =91sub=92-systems, which I will call Mitchell 2, 3 and 4 (to distinguish=20 from the original Mitchell 1, which does not include the Neuberg=20 formula). The Mitchell 2 and 3 systems are dealt with in the chapters=20 titled =91Mitchell-Neuberg=92, the Mitchell 4 will be described starting=20 from chapter .. This work is divided into three parts :=20 A general description of the six major systems shown;=20 A description of the different problems encountered when scoring a=20 tournament;=20 A more detailed description of how the different systems cope with=20 the problems.=20 The Mitchell system The Mitchell system was developed around 1880 for use in the first-ever=20 duplicate tournaments, not even in Bridge, but in Whist, by John=20 Mitchell.=20 As he was the first to develop the idea of the duplication principle, he=20 needed a way to determine the winner of his tournaments. He quickly=20 realised that the points won on the hands could not be used to establish=20 clear results. This would still give an importance to the cards held, a=20 principle which was to be discontinued. Only the comparison between the=20 scores would determine the results. The solution is therefore simple :=20 The lowest scoring table gets 0 points.=20 The next lowest gets 1 point, and so on.=20 It was natural for John Mitchell to count like this, and the system is=20 still in use today, all be it with certain modifications.=20 It is so natural a system, that it has failed all this time to be given=20 a name. In this work, I shall put this wrong right and honour the=20 inventor by calling this system (together with the modifications) the Mitchell system.=20 2) Modification : equal results - half points When two tables score the same, they share the points that would=20 otherwise be attributed to two different scores.=20 The reason for this is that the total points for all should remain the=20 same. If there are 5 scores, the results will be 0,1,2,3 and 4. The=20 total is 10. If two scores are equal, say the 1 and 2, they will both score 1=BD. Thus the total will remain 10. If three scores are equal, for= =20 example the highest, the results will be 0,1,3,3,3; the total is still=20 10 points.=20 This leads to half points, and several ways have been suggested for=20 dealing with those. Several signs have been suggested (such as x) that=20 are easier to write than =BD. There is however another solution, which=20 seems to have been first introduced by Andr=E9 Lemaitre of Belgium, and=20 which consists of doubling every result.=20 To restate the previous examples, the results would be : all different scores : 0,2,4,6,8 (total 20) two equal scores : 0,3,3,6,8 (total 20) three equal scores : 0,2,6,6,6 (total 20). That practice is not in world-wide use, and the Laws state '... scoring=20 units (matchpoints or half matchpoints) ...'.=20 For all practical uses, using points or half points gives exactly the=20 same reasoning, and I shall stick to using the 0..2..4.. counting from=20 now on. (Americans : sorry)=20 It is that system which I shall call the Basic Mitchell system.=20 The Basic Mitchell system is the system described in the International=20 Laws as 'Match-Point Scoring'. However, all other systems in this=20 chapter can be described as MP-systems, since they all award two=20 'scoring units' for every worse result.=20 3) Different ways of calculating the results Three ways are described of calculating the results in the Basic=20 Mitchell system (all of course yielding the same result) :=20 a - direct scoring : Every score is compared to every other. If that score is lower, the=20 score being considered is awarded two points; if the scores are equal,=20 one point; if the other score is higher, no points. This is the way a=20 computer will calculate the results. It is also the most simple way to=20 define Matchpoints, and therefore the way Matchpoints are mentioned in=20 the International Laws.=20 b - ranking : all scores are put in ascending order. Counting from the bottom, the=20 scores 0 .. 2 .. 4 are awarded. This is the easiest, manual way of scoring a scoresheet for a limited=20 number of tables. With a little practice this becomes easy.=20 c - frequency table : all scores are put in a separate table, and the frequency of each is=20 counted : [see table on web page] Mitchell - Neuberg system The Neuberg formula was developed by Gerard Neuberg of France in the=20 1970's, to deal with boards with different number of results.=20 Adding the Neuberg formula to the Mitchell system is a major change to=20 the Mitchell system, and could easily be seen as making it a different=20 system altogether. We could call this system the Mitchell - Neuberg=20 system, as opposed to the Basic Mitchell system.=20 However, the WBF has produced guidelines stating that the Neubergf=20 ormula should always be used. The Basic Mitchell system is therefore=20 only of historical interest. I shall use the name 'Mitchell' to mean=20 both the original Mitchell system as the Mitchell-Neuberg system with=20 all its complications.=20 The WBF recommendation leads us to the system we shall also call=20 Mitchell 2, to distinguish it from Mitchell 3. The WBF has not gone as=20 far as it should in describing when the Neuberg formula should be used.=20 The Mitchell 3 system shall include the use of the Neuberg formula=20 whenever it is possible, even if WBF guidelines do not apply. This=20 system is in use in European Pairs=92 Championships, and should be the=20 recommended system.=20 We shall delve deeper into the mysteries of the Neuberg formula when we=20 discuss the solutions to the different problems outlined in later=20 chapters.=20 At the end I shall introduce two further refinements that I consider to=20 be of value. That will be the basis of a =91Mitchell 4=92 system, which I= =20 propose.=20 Ascherman system The Ascherman system was first proposed by Wim Ascherman of the=20 Netherlands around 1950, as a separate way of scoring. It was at that=20 time in response to some problems that Gerard Neuberg would later tackle=20 in a slightly different way. I shall show that in continuing some of the reasoning that led to the Neuberg system, the Ascherman system is=20 actually a further refinement of the Mitchell system.=20 The main purpose in proposing the Ascherman system is however its ease=20 of use.=20 Therefore I propose to consider the Ascherman system as a separate=20 system, based on exactly the same principles as Mitchell-Neuberg, but in=20 stead counting 1..3..5..=20 As there is no other source for the Ascherman system, it comes in only=20 one form, and includes both refinements proposed as part of the Mitchell=20 4 system.=20 More to follow ... --=20 Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 09:34:06 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:34:06 +1000 Received: from elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (elroy.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.120.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA17422 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:33:59 +1000 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov by elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (4.1/SMI-4.1+DXR) id AA11404; Thu, 27 Jun 96 10:46:42 PDT Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.102.7]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id KAA12190 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 10:44:32 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id KAA04408; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 10:50:36 -0700 Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 10:50:36 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199606271750.KAA04408@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: US Team Trials (ITT) Appeal 4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: US Team Trials (ITT) Appeal 4 Facts: Cohen 102 K954 KJ974 K8 Wolff Hamman K9763 AJ54 AJ63 Q87 10 Q52 A54 J32 Berkowitz Q8 102 A863 Q10976 Wolff Cohen Hamman Berkowitz Pass Pass 1S Pass 2C (1) Pass 4S All Pass (1) Drury-fit Cohen led the D4 (low from odd). After studying the dummy for some time, Wolff called for a low diamond. Berkowitz played the ace, and Wolff detached a card from his hand and held it about to be played, then paused motionless for about two seconds before playing the D10. Berkowitz, believing that declarer had at least 2 diamonds, continued diamonds. 4S made. After the play, the director was called. He ruled that the D10 was not played in a deceptive manner, therefore "result stands." Cohen-Berkowitz appealled. The committee agreed without a doubt that Wolff's hesitation was not intentionally deceptive. After much deliberation (and explanation that I'm omitting) the committee ruled N/S gets 60% of 4S making, and 40% of 4S down 1. The committee added two additional comments: "First, West's action, although clearly not intentional, was improper. Players should make every effort to play their cards in proper tempo, and should refrain from detaching cards from their hand prematurely. The fact that the card in question was a singleton only made the action that much more unfortunate, especially given the level of the player involved. Second, South's action, predicated as it was on West's tempo, was not without risk. The fact that some protection was afforded the South player here should not be taken to indicate that future Committees will entertain such appeals favorably. The disposition of this case very much depended on the identities of both the participants involved, and the committee would have much preferred had this case not been brought to appeal. Put another way, South's appeal considered in isolation could easily have been viewed, under slightly altered conditions, as being of questionable merit (again, for the level of player involved)." Questions: (1) was this ruling consistent with the laws? (2) Do you agree with it? (3) What do you think of the comments? ---- My opinions: (1) No, but perhaps it ought to be. I don't think "percentage" rulings of this sort are de jure legal, but I think it is reasonable that they might be if a committee thinks that they are the only way to restore equity. (2) No. Either Wolff's action was clearly not believable to be a decision about his play to trick 1, in which case result stands with a possible Procedural Penalty against Wolff, and/or a frivolous appeal penalty against Berkowitz; or the hesitation was deceptive (albeit unintentional), in which case Law 12C2 applies and the appropriate result is NS +100, that's being a probable result. Furthermore, that Wolff detached a card is really not of much consequence. If he performed a significant break in tempo before playing his singleton, I think he committed an infraction. Wolff could easily have played the D10 face up on the table and then considered whatever he was thinking about. Berkowitz would not legally have been able to play to trick 2 until Wolff picked up the D10, so unless the hesitation with the D10 exposed could have been deceptive wrto a later trick (much much less likely than the actual one) there would have been no problem. Not having been there, I don't feel qualified to judge between these two alternatives, but suspect that there was a significant break in tempo. My experience about players' estimates of time elapsed is that those estimates are uniformly inaccurate, and usually grossly so; if in reality, the hesitation was about a half second (as I personally often perform, particularly with bidding boxes, since I perform mechanical errors all too often when I don't check), I'd rule against Berkowitz. If the hesitation was four seconds (an eternity at the table), I'd rule in his favor. Since the report didn't state whose opinion 2 seconds represented, I can't even guess on experience how long the hesitation really was. (3) The committee's saying, "[we] would have much preferred had this case not been brought to appeal," bothers me. I hope they mean that they are afraid that this will confuse other committees who will rule poorly, misinterpreting the result from this one, but it doesn't sound that way at all to me. If, indeed, they are worried about later misinterpretations of their ruling, I'm not surprised, but why weren't they clear in the first place? That they suggest that the case is borderline frivolous is inconsistent with their ruling. Nearly any case in which the appealing side gets an adjustment in their favor is not a frivolous appeal. All in all, what it sounds to me is that the committee thought: This was an illegal deception, but it was only really a peccadillo and ought not deserve redress, although the laws state that it does. If we give redress, there'll be lots of frivolous appeals whenever someone hesitates with a singleton or with no problem, and bad committees will award procedural penalties and undeserved redress willy- nilly in this sort of situation. We want this not to happen. I think that they, instead, ought to have said, "players, don't hesitate with no problem related to the card you are about to play. At the very least, try to hesitate between tricks; that will tend to cause fewer problems of this sort. That redress is appropriate in this case is unusual, and appeals of this nature in which no redress is remotely reasonable will generate frivolous appeals penalties." Additionally, I wouldn't mind that bad committee rulings of this sort happen for a little while. It'll teach players not to commit this sort of (usually minor) infraction, which I think would be a good thing overall. --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 18:00:44 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA20461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 18:00:44 +1000 Received: from ccnet3.ccnet.com (pisarra@ccnet3.ccnet.com [192.215.96.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA20456 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 18:00:37 +1000 Received: (from pisarra@localhost) by ccnet3.ccnet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04250; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 00:57:29 -0700 Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 00:57:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Pisarra X-Sender: pisarra@ccnet3 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: US Team Trials (ITT) Appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <199606271750.KAA04408@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 27 Jun 1996, Jeff Goldsmith wrote: Committee comments: > The disposition of this case very much depended > on the identities of both the participants > involved I think that this says it all--who was involved was much more important than what really happened. And I would have ended up on that committee if I hadn't sat down to kibitz between Wolff and Berkowitz 1 hand later. > Additionally, I wouldn't mind that bad committee rulings > of this sort happen for a little while. It'll teach players > not to commit this sort of (usually minor) infraction, which > I think would be a good thing overall. And if we executed a few jaywalkers, it would teach people not to cross the street against the light. Since when does the end justify the means? This isn't what I usually expect from you, Jeff. Chris Pisarra pisarra@ccnet.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 28 18:42:10 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA20601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 18:42:10 +1000 Received: from cabra.cri.dk (cabra.cri.dk [130.227.48.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA20596 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 18:41:48 +1000 X-Organization: Computer Resources International A/S, Bregneroedvej 144, DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark Received: from nov.cri.dk (nov.cri.dk [130.227.50.162]) by cabra.cri.dk (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id KAA29606 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 10:39:49 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 10:40:41 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 10:40:32 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: US Team Trials (ITT) Appeal 4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I will have a go at this one. 1. Let me assume that the break in tempo is an established fact. 2. The director must now first concentrate on whether S was deceived by the break in tempo (or whether he is just calling the director because he is disgusted with the mistake he made). If the director finds that he was deceived, he should not worry about whether the action was deliberate. It is clear that declarer could have known at the time of the break in tempo that it could induce a diamond continuation, which would be to his advantage. 3. So if we find that S was deceived, we adjust the score (to 9 tricks, no doubt). 4. Declarer might appeal here. If so, the AC is allowed to vary the score in order to do equity. [Yes David, you may ride your hobby horse here: apparently the ACBL laws don't print that footnote to L12C2]. If an AC of esteemed bridge players find that S finds the switch only some of the time and think that it is equitable to use percentages, who am I poor blighter to argue. Being mostly just a law enforcer, I would be happy with ruling 9 tricks: the most unfavorable score likely. 5. Let us first revisit point 2: Was S deceived, or is he just trying to get the TD (and eventually the AC) to replay the hand for him? Continuing diamonds when this clearly will set up the DQ in dummy must mean that he is worried that declarer has three diamonds and that he may set up a discard of two diamonds on some long suit. Presumably declarer has shown 5 spades, so this would require a 5-5-3-0 shape. This is not very consistent with the bidding. All of this seems to indicate that continuing diamonds is just not right, even if S is given the deceptive (but not necessarily deliberately deceptive) impression that declarer has three diamonds. Based on this analysis (which I am fully prepared to have overriden by other members of the AC), my AC ruling is "no damage, score stands". 6. At the table, I would not have been this fluent in my analysis, even though I would have taken my time to analyse the hand. Therefore, I would be ruling "doubtful whether there is any deception, ruling against the "offending" side, adjusted score 9 tricks, you have the right to appeal. 7. Procedural penalty for breaking tempo? I would rather not. This is not the army. Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 29 01:43:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 01:43:47 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA25153 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 01:43:38 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA00124 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 11:43:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA12462; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 11:46:10 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 11:46:10 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9606281546.AA12462@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: US Team Trials (ITT) Appeal 4 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Committee comments: > > The disposition of this case very much depended > > on the identities of both the participants > > involved > From: Chris Pisarra > I think that this says it all--who was involved was much more > important than what really happened. I'm sure that reflects reality in a lot of cases, but is that supposed to be a good thing? I was astonished that a committee would admit this, though perhaps they mean something other than what the words seem to say. Would (should) the ruling have been different if: a) Berkowitz (the player claiming to have been deceived) had been a lesser player (say somebody on a team seeded in the twenties)? Or a lesser player still, say an average Flight A competitor (presumably in some different event)? b) Wolff (the player who made the possibly deceptive slow play) had been a lesser player as above? > And I would have ended up on that > committee if I hadn't sat down to kibitz between Wolff and Berkowitz 1 > hand later. I'm not at all surprised the committee chose to remain anonymous. Admittedly this was a very tough case, and there is no ruling that seems to me clearly the right one. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 29 02:30:57 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA25490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 02:30:57 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA25481 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 02:30:20 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-80.innet.be [194.7.10.64]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA26889 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 18:29:53 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31D3E885.22AD@innet.be> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 14:13:25 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: AS in Team Play Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Some private conversations have recently been going on with regards to a decision where an Artificial Score was awarded at one table in a team game. What should one do with the result at the other table ? It is my firm belief (and my concern for calculation is proof of that) that Rulings and Calculations should not interfere with one another. A ruling should be given, independent of the manner in which the result will be calculated. In the case in question, an important card was put upside down in the tray (this may or may not have been deliberate). The board was deemed unplayable at the other table. Consider what would have happened in a Pairs' tournament : the culprit would be fined, both pairs at the next table would be awarded average plus. The same thing should happen in a team contest. But then we have a problem : how ? Let's say at one table the score is +1430, at the other +680. The difference of 750 is converted to 13 IMPs. Actually, this is the sum of two results, one at each table. This could be +13 at the one table, because that pair bid a brilliant slam, or -13 at the other, because it was a bad mistake not to bid slam. More often still, it is partly one, partly the other. In normal results, we don't really care. If however the result at the second table were changed to an artificial score, the NS at table 1 might well feel wronged. I propose therefor that in these cases we shall always try to determine an 'average comparative score' to compare the normal result at the other table with. This average score could even be calculated by comparing to scores in other matches using the same boards. One more thing. It is not good to simply add IMPs, it is better to add 100 points to the average : Example : Open Room - Pair A1 against B2 : +1430 Closed Room - Pair B1 against A2 : average minus/ average plus the comparative score is deemed to be +830 (slam reached by 1 pair in 5) It would be wrong to add +13 and +3. Better is to add or subtract 100 points to the average. So team A : 1430 - 730 (average plus) = +700 = +12 IMPs team B : -1430 + 930 (average minus) = -500 = -11 IMPs -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 29 02:58:37 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA25575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 02:58:37 +1000 Received: from taurus.cus.cam.ac.uk (cusexim@taurus.cus.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA25570 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 02:58:31 +1000 Received: from rm10006 by taurus.cus.cam.ac.uk with local (Exim 0.53 #4) id E0uZgsC-0006It-00; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 17:58:24 +0100 Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 17:58:24 +0100 (BST) From: "R. Michaels" To: "R. Michaels" cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: US Team Trials (ITT) Appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <9606281546.AA12462@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems to me as though the offender at the time of the hesitation, certainly _could_ have known that this might mislead a defender. And further, to be ethical, having thought, he was at liberty to say,'Sorry, I didn't have anything to think about this trick'. I would have thought that we could expect a player a Wolf's standard to be aware of this at the table more than a lesser player would be. If I was declarer, and hesitated, clearly, before playing to the trick, I'd expect to be ruled against. I don't see why one of the great and the good should have a different ruling. True, this seems to give the defence a double-shot. But I think that is tough. The rules currently work to penalise such unnecessary hesitations. Note that there is no rule forbidding you from playing a card face down in front of you, and continuing to think about the rest of the hand, before facing it and playing it. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 29 03:12:29 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 03:12:29 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA25643 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 03:12:24 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA01640 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 13:12:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA12556; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 13:14:59 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 13:14:59 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9606281714.AA12556@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: US Team Trials (ITT) Appeal 4 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Note that there is no rule forbidding you from playing a card face down > in front of you, and continuing to think about the rest of the hand, > before facing it and playing it. According to the original report, this is essentially what happened. It makes little difference whether one continues to hold the card or places it on the table; in either case, it is not _played_ until it is turned over. Proper procedure, of course, is to play the card _face up_ and then leave it face up as long as necessary. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 29 04:23:40 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA25970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 04:23:40 +1000 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.177.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA25964 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 04:23:33 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.102.7]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA21966 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 11:22:35 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id LAA06487; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 11:28:52 -0700 Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 11:28:52 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199606281828.LAA06487@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au |From: Chris Pisarra |Committee comments: |> The disposition of this case very much depended |> on the identities of both the participants |> involved | | I think that this says it all--who was involved was much more |important than what really happened. And I would have ended up on that |committee if I hadn't sat down to kibitz between Wolff and Berkowitz 1 |hand later. | |> Additionally, I wouldn't mind that bad committee rulings |> of this sort happen for a little while. It'll teach players |> not to commit this sort of (usually minor) infraction, which |> I think would be a good thing overall. | | And if we executed a few jaywalkers, it would teach people not to |cross the street against the light. Since when does the end justify the |means? This isn't what I usually expect from you, Jeff. A better analogy is that if a few cars hit jaywalkers, then jaywalkers would be deterred from continuing their practice. If the cars were intentionally to hit the pedestrian, then they ought to be punished just as if they had hit any pedestrian. Once it has happened, however, it'd be quite useful to have the incidents around to point out the dangers of jaywalking. There'll be a bright side to the accidents in that we can use them to help educate our children. What's the problem? --jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 29 04:38:22 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA26025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 04:38:22 +1000 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.177.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA26008 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 04:38:15 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.102.7]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA22104 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 11:37:42 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id LAA06511; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 11:43:59 -0700 Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 11:43:59 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199606281843.LAA06511@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: ITT appeal 4 |From: "R. Michaels" | |It seems to me as though the offender at the time of the hesitation, |certainly _could_ have known that this might mislead a defender. |And further, to be ethical, having thought, he was at liberty to |say,'Sorry, I didn't have anything to think about this trick'. |I would have thought that we could expect a player a Wolf's standard to |be aware of this at the table more than a lesser player would be. | |If I was declarer, and hesitated, clearly, before playing to the trick, |I'd expect to be ruled against. I don't see why one of the great and the |good should have a different ruling. True, this seems to give the defence |a double-shot. But I think that is tough. The rules currently work to |penalise such unnecessary hesitations. | |Note that there is no rule forbidding you from playing a card face down |in front of you, and continuing to think about the rest of the hand, |before facing it and playing it. Not so. Playing a card face down on the table cannot ever be good. It is not the same as playing it face up; it is not a card played. It can only be used to deceive the opponents (regardless of intent) or to transmit UI to partner. This is not a good practice. To play a card face down to try to establish that one isn't thinking about that card is ludicrous, of course; one can simply change the face down card if one is indeed, thinking about that card. |Robin | |From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) | |> Note that there is no rule forbidding you from playing a card face down |> in front of you, and continuing to think about the rest of the hand, |> before facing it and playing it. | |According to the original report, this is essentially what happened. He held the card detached from his hand in the air, according to the report I read and quoted. I ought to have included that, because it adds information, and suggests that the hesitation existed and wasn't too long. (My arms would get tired eventually from holding a card in the air, but that only puts a limit of about 5 minutes on the hesitation :)) |It makes little difference whether one continues to hold the card or |places it on the table; in either case, it is not _played_ until it is |turned over. Right. |Proper procedure, of course, is to play the card _face up_ and then |leave it face up as long as necessary. Right. --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 29 06:19:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA26668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 06:19:35 +1000 Received: from arl-img-2.compuserve.com (arl-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.7.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA26663 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 06:19:30 +1000 Received: by arl-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id QAA14797; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 16:18:57 -0400 Date: 28 Jun 96 16:16:14 EDT From: Richard Bley <101557.1671@compuserve.com> To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Boxed Boards Message-ID: <960628201613_101557.1671_IHK129-1@CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Well, here we are. I have a lot of trouble with the preparation of my exam. Then I'm looking in my mailbox and there are two mails with over 22000 something. So instead of studying I read them (I shouldn't) ;-) On a technical way I agree with Davids solution. But I don't think this is the best one. The only tournament where I could accept the ruling would be in a knock out, because the opp at least in some way profit from the error. What I mean is, that there should be a ruling in a way that leaves the score as it happened originally before "boxing" the board. Then there should be only one artificial score from the other table (the same idea as Herman had). But this artificial score should not be made in the way Herman did it by throwing results and probabilities together like a surrealistic butler tournament. Instead of this you should in my oppinion take the idea of Law 16 in givin artificial scores with the most probable result which is likely at all (sorry my lawbook is far away; I hope you can see what I mean)) So you can handle the non-offending side as a non-offending side in an unauthorized information case. Well there is a problem with the laws. But there is a rule that the TD is allowed to rule in justice way if there is no special rule for this case (my favourite rule you can imagine). At least you can see that this case is not what the lawmakers intended to rule. I think the main goal for every TD is, that every legal result which actually happened at the table without infraction of laws should be scored. So my vote is for +13 imps on that board See you Richard From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 29 09:28:31 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA27426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 09:28:31 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA27421 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 09:28:24 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA08381 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 19:28:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA12758; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 19:31:01 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 19:31:01 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9606282331.AA12758@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: clarification X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > |Robin > | > |From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) > | > |> Note that there is no rule forbidding you from playing a card face down > |> in front of you, and continuing to think about the rest of the hand, > |> before facing it and playing it. > | > |According to the original report, this is essentially what happened. In case it's not clear, I wrote the last sentence above but not the paragraph before it. The point I was trying to make (and seem to have botched), was that there's no fundamental difference between a) removing a card from your hand without revealing it, and b) placing the same card face down on the table. In Jeff's words, either one > ...can only be used to deceive the opponents (regardless of intent) or > to transmit UI to partner. This is not a good practice. To play a > card face down to try to establish that one isn't thinking about that > card is ludicrous, of course; one can simply change the face down card > if one is indeed, thinking about that card. Or one can restore the unrevealed card to one's hand and play a different card. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 29 15:14:48 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA28625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 15:14:48 +1000 Received: (from markus@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA28619 for bridge-laws@rgb; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 15:14:44 +1000 Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 15:14:44 +1000 Message-Id: <199606290514.PAA28619@octavia.anu.edu.au> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: US Team Trials (ITT) Appeal 4 From: mike@mamos.demon.co.uk (michael amos) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [went to owner-bridge-laws, rather than bridge-laws -Markus] > wow > > one law for the great and good ??? and a different one for the rest of us?? > > IF there was a variation in tempo then it seems hard to see how this ruling can > be correct - > it was always my understanding that the point of Law 73D.1 was that intention > was irrelevant - the committees comments seem inconsistent with this - they > cosider West's actions an infraction but seem reluctant to apply the law - I > cannot see how South's drawing of the inference that declarer had more than one > diamond ca be considered anything other than "appropriate" > > I can imagine using such a ruling with weaker players as an illustration of the > requirement put upon players to play in tempo > > the committee's comments about "preferring .... " seem to me to be quite > iapproopriate as Jeff commentsin view of their decision to adjust > -- > michael amos > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 30 19:21:15 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA07325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jun 1996 19:21:15 +1000 Received: from sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (sunset.ma.huji.ac.il [132.64.32.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA07320 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 1996 19:20:57 +1000 Received: (from grabiner@localhost) by sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (8.6.11/8.6.10) id MAA21530; Sun, 30 Jun 1996 12:20:00 +0300 Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 12:20:00 +0300 Message-Id: <199606300920.MAA21530@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il> From: David Joseph Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: UI from director call Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In one of the appeals at the ITT's, I found the following paragraph: #Although South recognized that he had been misinformed when dummy first #appeared, he refrained from calling the Director until the hand was over #because he didn't want to provide his partner with possible unauthorized #information during the defense. (And calling the Director required a phone #call, or leaving the room.) (This was a misinformation case, but North was not aware of the misinformation because screens were in use.) Is this correct procedure? I think the laws specify that you are supposed to call the director when dummy is exposed if it is inconsistent with the bidding. And is the fact of a director call UI to partner? (In the case in question, South said he would have doubled if he had been given the correct information, and he expected North to make a different lead with the double.) -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.huji.ac.il, http://www.ma.huji.ac.il/~grabiner I speak at the Hebrew University, but not for it. Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.